Don’t Shoot the Messenger #9 – How the Police can land you in hot water

I once had a situation of a tenant pinching stuff from the house to sell off (after they should have left). I mentioned it to the Police who went round to 'have a word' and also mentioned to the tenant they should no longer really be there anyway. The tenant left (good?) a week later to go to live in a completely different part of the country. But they later tried to complain that I had conspired with the Police to bully them out illegally by this action.
My feeling is that as police have the privilege to some extent of being able to 'physically drive' things .... in some ways they should be responsible for their direct actions as well as the indirect actions they 'inspire' - but that would never hold I guess. After all it does appear that the Law, police, tenants, houses, landlords are all separate toys for the courts to play with.
 

I think the tenant was on a hiding to nothing with that arument from the start Gerald. how could you illegaly evict if he already moved out?

Funnily enough I have just this morning interviewed a woman and her daughter who are being threatened with illegal eviction tomorrow. The landlord has already assaulted the daughter who is 8 months pregnant so they called the cops who for once were very helpful and told her to change the locks to keep him out. Normally I would advise that myself but in this case they only rent 2 rooms in this unlawfully sub-let council flat, so they cant exclude him from the rest of the premises.

So despite being helpful the Police have still given the wrong advice. They ran off to put the old lock back in place 

Hi Ben,
I've been in the letting business for over 40years and like you i've seen and heard most things with two exceptions that are as rare as hen's teeth but i'll get to that later.
I spent many years as the vice chairman of our local landlords association giving advice and assistance to landlords on correct procedure and the law with of course the caveat that I am not a solicitor and if in doubt contact a suitibly qualified expert.
Most of the people I advised were small landlords who had a day job and thought commonsense and a wilingness to do the right thing would carry them through (we do not tend to get the wrong un's because those sort do not join landlords associations).
I realised early that what I was dealing with was naivety and an almost childlike belief in British justice. So my focus was on bringing them up to speed with reality. I developed a two part stratergy, the first was to tell them the bad news and the second, the better news.
The first thing I told them is that they were about to enter the mindfield of landlord and tenants law, and like a real mindfield if they didn't watch their footing they were going to get their legs blown off. The second thing I told them was to forget any cosy notions they might have about commonsense, fairness and justice (which was a little bit of scaremongering, but I needed them to understand what it was the letter of the law that mattered not a belief that a court would see that they had acted out of honest motives). The number of times I've had families say "but it's our property" and I've had to painfully explain that as soon as they grant a tenancy it's the tenants property till that tenancy has lawfully ended. What they retain is management and reparing obligations.
The trouble is too many landlords still believe they will get commonsense and justice in the courts.
Regards, Tony Altman
 

In addition to my first comment.
Regarding police advising landlords to illegally evict.
 The general public are conditioned and programmed to listen to and obey the instructions of the police and in certain circumstances it is unlawful for them to fail to obey the lawful command of a police officer. Therefore it is not unreasonable for people advised and intructed by the police to act on that information as the police are highly trained professionals in the business of law enforcement.
 It follows therefore, that they have a duty of care and due diligence to both landlords and tenants to not wrongfully and recklessly advise and instruct on matters they should reasonably know they have unsufficient knowledge
. It would appear that in the cases quoted the police have been both negligent and reckless in giving their advice.
 They should have advised both parties to obtain independent advice. Therefore in advising the landlords in this manner they are culpable and complicit in an unlawful act of illegal eviction.
 It follows that they are primaface guilty of recklessness, criminal negligence and possibly conspiracy, and should be held to account under law as instigators of these actions.
I doubt that this happened, and to then only prosecute a landlord who acted in the utmost good faith is a grave miscarriage of justice.
If we take this discussion a step further we can see that based on these facts it would be wise and prudent for any person to conclude that it would be dangerous to assume that any public official or officer was giving correct and lawful interpretation of the law
 Therefore it would be reasonable for anyone to question and delay acting upon any instruction or notice served on them by a public government or local government body. until they received comprehensive and independent advice on their legal obligations.
I realise this may make life a little difficult, especially for local authorities but since we are held legally accountable for our actions and those giving reckless and unlawful advice appear to be totally unaccountable, it would appear to be the only rational and sensible course of action.
regards
tony altman

I dont normally type( one finger) 
thats minefield not mindfiel
tony altman

Thanks for that Tony. You are 100% right on all counts.

The metaphor I often use is to tell landlords that the minute they hand over the key to the tiniest studio flat they are immediately in the same legal position as a council with 10,000 properties on its books. Whcih of course is true.

My job is to prosecute landlords for breaking those rules but like you I find that most breaches are done in ignorance and that naive belief in the legal system.

The first time I ever trainied any group of people was 45 coppers in uniform at a large training event. I began by talking about the legal system and how frustrating and hard it is to work landlord and tenant law within it. Feeling cheeky I said "Its so hard to get evidence against landlords to prosecute that it hardly ever happens. Its no wonder that you lot fit people up from time to time"

There was a horrible frozen moment when I thought I would be thrown out and then they all roared with laughter.

I think the really perplexing and frustating thing for new LL is the whole iniquitous system of the law being stacked very much against the LL.
I think if LL knew what they might be getting into, they wouldn't bother and just leave the money in a savings account.
I put myself very much in that position.
I will NEVER make a profit out of my property as my losses, caused by wrongun tenants are too enormous.
I would have been better off leaving the money in a savings account.
I know what to do now; but that is being wise after the event.
The tenants get away with everything leaving massive damage behind them.
Very few LL manage to recover.
Effectively a tenant can rob a LL blind and nothing happens to the tenant.
I know as it has happened to me on 4 occasions.
I think it should be almost compulsory that you have to pass an exam before you are permitted by a lender to borrow funds for BTL property so that you know what the ramifications are of becoming a LL.

Hiya Ben,

Interesting post to read, thanks!

I'm in a situation whereby I was a lodger with a lady with undisclosed mental health issues. I gave my months notice and 2 weeks later I returned home to find she had locked me out, retained all my possessions with no notice at all. I called the police who initially attended but on refusal to let me in to collect my goods or even pass them outside they washed their hands of me. One even said "go through the civil process, it's much quicker than what we can do and you will have your property back within a week. One advised her should I continue to contact her or call the Police I could be warned for harassment!
18 months further on, I have the property back that she has chosen to give, retaining property that was of sentimental value to me, am 18k out of pocket due to solicitors fees, her refusing to honour the ccj and doing a moonlight flit, the police force solicitor is stating that unlawful eviction doesn't apply to lodgers (no but there is the classification of reasonable notice) and that they were right by telling me it was a civil matter therefore I have no grounds for complaint! I am sure this isn't the case but am struggling to find case law to support this! Any chance you know of a stated case at all?

Kind regards and happy Christmas,
From a person who will never rent or lodge again!!,

Lodgers may be removed from a property with the assistance of police providing the lodger has been given a months notice.
Lodgers ONLY have security of tenure for a month.
You can of course give longer but are NOT required to do so.
A lodger ONLY has to give 1 months notice to the live-in LL.
Do NOT allow a lodger to have a lockable door to their dedicated accommodation, otherwise you will have created a defacto 6 month AST.
Then you will have to follow standard eviction procedures.

Hi Xlodger

Well for once the police gave you the right advice in the main. The legal status of a Lodger is known as Excluded Licensee and what they are excluded from is the normal eviction process vis a possession order, so they cant be illegally evicted as such. There is a requirement that reasonable notice be given, its not a case law its actually in the Housing Act 1988 that created Excluded Licenences. Prior to that lodgers were what was termed Restricted Contract Tenants, the landlord had to serve a 28 day notice to quit and then get a possession order.

Reasonable notice isnt defined but custom and practice generally ties it in to the rental period, so if the lodger pays monthly then people in my position would be looking for 1 month's notice but its not hard and fast. I meet people who have been given a months notice but the landlord changes the locks after a week but I know I wouldnt get an injunction for re-entry because the judge would take the view that it would be pointless, given the person would lawfully have to go not long after.

I dont know what you can do about the rest of your belongings apart from maybe use a tracing service like Finder Monkey http://www.findermonkey.co.uk/ But then you also have no guarantee that she still has the goods. If you got damages for the loss and she cant pay then you are back to square one. Having said that I stil think it could be prosecuted by the police under the Theft Act, section 1 of which states (1)
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. The key being the bit that syas "With the intention of permanently depriving. She could argue that she was holding it for some spurious reason and then lost it, which might make it not technically theft. I dont hold out much hope to be honest mate