Letting Handbook 3

Back to contents Harrassment and Illegal Eviction 13. Illegal Eviction,Harassment and Abandonment Background Successive governments have sought to address the problem of landlords harassing and unlawfully evicting tenants. Although it has long been law that residential tenants could not be evicted except by an order of the court, landlords have resorted to a variety of devices to persuade an established tenant household to depart. Sometimes the methods have been obviously unlawful such as the removal of doors and even roofs. Other methods have been less obvious in their effect such as the attempts to grant tenants licences as opposed to leases (thus removing their statutory protection) and even cutting off supplies of gas and electricity to the property, or the introduction of noisy neighbours into an adjacent property. Both rent control and relaxation of rent control gave landlords an incentive to speed up the process of vacant possession - either so that they could relet under decontrolled rent levels or sell off the property. At its peak in the 1960s, landlords such as the notorious Peter Rachman were using physical intimidation and other unsavoury methods to persuade tenants to give up their homes. Such was the sentiment against these rogue landlords that emergency protective measures were introduced through Parliament as a result, and the term ‘Rachmanism’ joined the English language. New measures gave better protection for tenants by introducing criminal sanctions against unlawful eviction and harassment and a statutory method for calculating the quantum of damages that may be awarded to a tenant for unlawful eviction. The detailed provisions of the legislation will be explained in more detail later in this chapter. Unlawful Eviction In the previous chapter, we examined how the law requires a landlord to obtain a court order before he can remove his tenant. If a landlord attempts to remove a tenant without first giving the required notice and obtaining a court order, then he may at common law be liable to the tenant in damages. Common law has been strengthened by statute so that it is a criminal offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to unlawfully remove or harass a tenant without obtaining a court order, although under the English law, there are certain exceptions such as a person who entered the house as a trespasser, or a person who shares accommodation with the landlord.The Letting Handbook 13-1 © The Letting Centre 05/2017

Back to contents Harrassment and Illegal Eviction Harassment Harassment in the context of housing law is deemed to occur where somebody is trying to drive the occupier out of their home, or relinquish any of his rights in connection with it. Harassment is a very broad term, used loosely to define a wide range of activities. It can take many forms although it may not always be apparent to outsiders that particular sorts of activity are intended to drive the tenant from the property or stop him doing something. For example, these could include: • Withdrawal of essential services (e.g. electricity supply) • Intimidating or threatening behaviour towards the tenant On the other hand, there may be cases where a landlord has good reasons for doing the things he is doing (e.g. a landlord dealing with persistent rent arrears). In the following sections, we will consider which actions are permitted and which are not. Abandonment Unfortunately, real life does not always respect and conform to the stricter boundaries of the law. The most difficult aspect of applying the law of illegal eviction takes place when a tenant simply disappears from a rented property - a situation known as Abandonment. The landlord does not always know whether the tenant intends to return, and especially where there is rent outstanding, does not know whether the tenant has done a ‘moonlight flit’ or if he or she is on an extended holiday or perhaps working away for a short time in order to earn sufficient income to pay the rent. Consider the example below: Case Example In R v London Borough of Croydon, tenant moved out, taking her belongings at end of Aug 1983. The LA was informed by neighbours in Sept 83 that the occupants had moved out. LA inspected the property and found this to be correct. The locks were changed and it was assumed that the premises were abandoned. The premises were re-let in Oct 83. Applicant subsequently claimed that she never intended to give up her tenancy and had moved out temporarily. Court held that the requirements of a surrender of the tenancy by operation of law by the tenant were satisfied in this case. The tenant gave possession to the LL who takes possession and changed the locks. There could be no doubt that the LL took possession once locks were changed and property relet. The evidence that the tenant had surrendered was overwhelming despite assertion by tenant that she had no intention of leaving permanently. The landlord who wrongly interprets a tenant’s actions as surrender may find himself accused of committing the offence of unlawful eviction. In the final section of this chapter, we shall examine how the law of illegal eviction applies to the abandonment situation, and what steps the landlord should take before he can recover possession of his property in such cases.The Letting Handbook 13-2 © The Letting Centre 05/2017

Back to contents Harrassment and Illegal EvictionUnlawful Eviction Originally introduced as the Protection from Eviction Act 1964 as a protection against the rogue landlords described earlier, the statutory measures to protect against unlawful eviction have been considerably amended firstly by the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and further by the Housing Act 1988. In enacting the Housing Act 1988, Parliament was at pains to ensure, as far as possible, that deregulation of the private rental sector would not be accompanied by a generation of harassed and evicted tenants. The abolition of rent control to assured shorthold tenancies required stringent control for landlords attempting to repossess properties let to tenants protected by the Rent Acts. Chapter IV of the Act (sections 27-33), provided extra protection for tenants by enacting statutory damages for illegal eviction, adding Unusually, the legislation had retrospective effect as from the first day on the Report Stage of the Bill in the Commons, i.e., 9 June, 1988. Criminal Offence The statutory provisions of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 creates three main offences; one for unlawful eviction and two relating to harassment. The offence of unlawful eviction may be committed by any person who deprives, or attempts to deprive, a ‘residential occupier’ of any premises of his occupation whether such occupation was by contract (i.e. agreement) or statutory. Deprivation of part only of the premises (for example, by locking a lavatory door) is sufficient. It is considered that an offence is still committed even if the eviction or action depriving the tenant of his occupation is not permanent. It simply must have the character of an eviction. Exclusions Certain defined categories of occupation are excluded from the requirement on the landlord to obtain a court order in order to evict the occupier. Referred to as ‘excluded tenancies’ in the legislation, these essentially are: • occupiers who share accommodation with a resident landlord or a member of the landlord’s family provided that it is the landlord’s only or principal home. (n.b. ‘accommodation’ in this context does not include storage areas, staircases, passages or other means of access). • where occupation has only been granted as a temporary expedient. This might include rights of occupation granted to a trespasser, or licences or tenancies granted to people occupying a property for the purposes of a holiday, or to people living in hostels owned by local authorities. • where occupation is not granted for money or money’s worth. Although it is not necessary to get a court order to evict someone in the excluded categories, he must still be given reasonable notice that the landlord wishes him to leave. Any premises Unlawful eviction can occur in relation to ‘any premises’ which clearly includes all types of residential premises. A single room with shared use of a kitchen and bathroom is ‘premises’ for these purposes.The Letting Handbook 13-3 © The Letting Centre 05/2017