x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Guilty! Landlord admits illegal eviction during pandemic

A landlord has pleaded guilty to the unlawful eviction of his tenant.

Jalal Uddin of Wellingborough has pleaded guilty at the town’s magistrates court to the unlawful eviction of tenants, contrary to the Protection From Eviction Act 1977.

In June 2020 Uddin arranged for repossession of the rented property while the tenants were away on holiday, and without following correct legal eviction proceedings.

Advertisement

Upon their return from holiday the tenants were prevented from returning to the property as Uddin had changed the locks and allowed another family to move in.

Officers from North Northamptonshire council became involved and were forced to place the family in temporary accommodation outside of the area, incurring significant costs. 

Officers also had to assist the tenants in retrieving their possessions from Uddin, that had been left in the property when they went on holiday. 

In addition to not following the correct legal process, the eviction took place during a period when the government had placed a ban on evictions due to the Coronavirus pandemic. 

Uddin has been ordered to pay a fine of £323.00, a victim surcharge of £34.00 and the councils costs of £7074.50, a total of £7431.50.

A council spokesman says: “While North Northamptonshire Council recognise the challenges the pandemic and the eviction ban has placed on landlords, those seeking to evict tenants must follow the correct, lawful procedures.

The council has seen a significant increase in complaints of unlawful eviction and harassment over the past 18 months, and will not hesitate to intervene should landlords be acting unlawfully.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    This sounds like they were not paying him and yet could fund a holiday. Another example of a thieving tenant that is government supported with the power of the state.

    Theodor Cable

    Now there's a surprise!!!!!!!!!!

     
    icon

    Sounds like there's nothing to say that in the article at all and you just made it up. Sounds like you need a lesson in libel law.

     
  • icon

    Probably worth the £7500 to get rid of them.

    icon

    But still quite a lot more than you had to pay, and not forgetting the Rent Repayment Order he'll now get. And this is a Banning Order offence.

     
  • icon

    That makes sense he probably was incensed that they bought a holiday but didn’t think they had to pay their rent. I’d have loved to see their faces if that was the case

    icon

    Another one who just makes stuff up.

     
    icon

    @Leics Landlord, which bit do you think is made up - the holiday bit? Because the article mentions '...while the tenants were away on holiday...'

     
    icon

    Luke, where in the article does it say that the tenants "didn't think they had to pay their rent"? There is nothing to say they were behind with their rent.

     
  • George Dawes

    I had a right pair , couldn’t afford the rent but could afford a flash new car

    Theodor Cable

    I hope you evicted them?

     
  • George Dawes

    What about the government ? They’re not acting unlawfully ?

    This whole plandemic is showing the awoke people , not the woke wallies , what a government is there for

    And it certainly ain’t there to help you !

  • icon

    Just more of the same anything to destroy private rented sector, non of Councils business its a private matter between renter & LL. They have to poke their nose in, in a very one sided way. They Council incurred no costs they decided to make it their business to create costs and pass them on to LL, its abuse of their position and the legal System to extort money from LL’s, obviously LL’s always pleads guilty or fine at least doubles or worse. LL’s don’t want to break the law or be in Court but Councils force it on them regardless. Incidentally I have people away on holiday that owe rent they now know LL can do nothing. I don’t see Council jumping to help us.

    icon

    The landlord committed a crime. The Council is the prosecuting authority for that offence. Absolutely their business.

     
  • icon

    Ok if it’s their business let them house them all, but not installed them in private property where Council have no financial responsibility, no input and provide no funding but load costs & penalties on Private LL’s, maybe we shouldn’t assume LL wasn’t up to date with rent but why else would he take such action, are you taking odds on this,

    icon

    There's nothing to say they were behind with their rent. We shouldn't assume they were without any evidence.

     
    icon

    Are you pair of wallies suggesting this poor landlord took this drastic action for no reason?

    NO landlord evicts good tenants for no reason.

    Hopefully those evicted will now be well known locally and find it difficult to get decent accommodation.

     
    icon

    Robert, we have no idea why he evicted them. Perhaps there were rent arrears, or perhaps he was retaliating for the tenant asking for repairs, or perhaps he wanted to get them out in order to let for a higher rent, or to let the property as an AirBnB - all reasons why illegal evictions take place (and not the only ones).

     
    icon

    Leics

    NO landlord evicts a good tenant for no good reason.

    The fact that the tenant's role in this is unknown is just evidence of the biased anti landlord behaviour of Councils and much of the press, but the fact that the tenant took a holiday when the relationship with the landlord was clearly at rock bottom is highly suspicious.

     
  • icon

    I've just noticed the time of Leics Landlords comments on here, expect he's just out of bed.

    icon

    I guess that was the cleverest thing you could think of. Quite sad, really.

     
  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Tenant Troll Alert !

    icon

    So, you have nothing to say about criminal landlords who carry out illegal evictions? Why is that?

     
    Theodor Cable

    Because they deserve it.......?

     
    icon

    Thought you be busy hanging out with the footy lads.

     
    icon

    John S

    I see the gratuitous insult you had made above has been removed by moderators.

    I suspect the immediately above post has survived as no one can understand what on earth you are on about.

     
  • icon

    Hi John my friend don’t feel bad about it at all and thank you for the diagnosis I wondered what was wrong with me, maybe you could prescribe some medication and get me a blue badge, bad laws need to be challenged and changed back to when it wasn’t a criminal matter and that’s not very long ago. Do you think you could put me forward for Guinness's Book of Records, retarded LL survives 43 years in Business even before corrupt Regulators and inept Councils decided to raid LL’s Bank Accounts to line their own pockets. I wonder what Syndrome you got if any.
    Many thanks

    icon

    Incidentally, civil damages for illegal eviction commonly far outweigh the fine in this case and the claimant only has to prove her case on the balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case. Be careful what you wish for.

     
    icon

    Where does it say the tenant was female?

    Please don't jump to conclusions.

    Whilst it's a reasonable assumption that these tenants had not been model tenants, there's no evidence of them being only female and evidence they were a family and therefore most probably of each sex.

     
  • icon

    Well you are certainly on fire this afternoon Leics Landlord, but we all know on here that you are no landlord

    icon

    And you base that solely on the fact that I say things you disagree with. Perhaps we should speculate that you're not a landlord, but a tenant troll trying to make is look bad with all your foolish comments.

     
  • icon

    You've been a landlord for 43 years which you invite us to accept is a long time. The Protection From Eviction Act was passed 44 years ago which you invite us to believe is not very long ago. Even before then, landlords who carried out evictions without a court order were convicted of crimes - public order offences, common assault, criminal damage and so on. It's never been a wholly civil matter.

  • icon

    No John not the case its only in very recent years it changed from Civil proceedings to Criminal a matter ever a regarded LL knows that,

    icon

    The Protection From Eviction Act was passed in 1977.

     
  • icon

    But I comment under my name, you don't.

  • icon

    I suppose if he’s only 35 years out it not too bad.

    icon

    I suppose if you've only just heard of the 1977 Act it looks pretty bad.

     
  • icon

    Assured Shorthold Tenancies came in as I understand it with the 1988 Act, The 1977 Act could hardly be referring to something that happened in 1988 or 2015.

    icon

    When ASTs came in, they were covered by the 1977 Act that was already well established. Unlawful eviction has been a crime since 1977.

     
  • icon

    Well gentlemen it has been a pleasure as always , I now have a large single malt (smokehead ) to drink, so I wish you all a very good night , until tomorrow then.

    icon

    I'm up early to do an honest day's work, Andrew. How about you?

     
    icon

    Definitely not a LL…your ‘honest day’s work’ sarcasm very strongly suggests you do not consider managing tenants/properties in a rental portfolio to be honest work…precisely the sort of thing a tenant/troll/Shelter-supporter would say.

     
    icon

    Leics, My day has involved tiling a bathroom and painting a bedroom, what work have you done today ?

     
    icon

    Leics, I replied to your comment '' honest day's work '' I and we on here are still awaiting to hear about your ''honest day's work'' we can only assume that you do not work ?

     
  • icon

    Their are people posting who have ties to the legal profession and wish to expand their business. Further in the article it says the council were as follows - Officers from North Northamptonshire council became involved and were forced to place the family in temporary accommodation outside of the area, incurring significant costs. Whcih means dumped them somewhere else on an unsuspecting landlord. What are the significant extra costs ? Surely the council have a budget for this work provided by council tax payers. Does this means it was dificult to find a landlord to dupe , and that they dont want the tenants in their area ?

icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up