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

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Guilty! Landlord illegally evicted tenant during Covid eviction ban

A landlord has been found guilty by a jury of illegally evicting their tenant during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Dr Amy Eskander let one bedroom from her two bedroom flat between February 2019 and September 2020 and kept a locked bedroom in the apartment for herself.

Her tenant was asked in June 2020 for a rent increase, and when he said he was unable to afford it, Eskander told him he had to leave and sent him a text message giving a deadline of August 12 2020.

Advertisement

The tenant continued to live at the apartment beyond that date and pay his rent, and on September 18 2020 whilst he was at work, he received a text from Eskander to confirm that she had changed the locks and removed his possessions from the apartment. 

The tenant alerted Warwick council, which had already issued a warning letter to the landlord advising her that she needed to obtain a Possession Order from the County Court if she wanted to evict her tenant.

Eskander had tried to argue that she shared the flat in Kenilworth with her tenant as her principal or only home and therefore he should not be afforded legal protection from eviction. 

However, a court has now heard evidence that Eskander had signed an assured shorthold tenancy at a premises in London and had provided evidence in official documents that her home was in London and later in Plymouth.

The prosecution’s case was that she rarely visited the apartment, and the tenant often sent her mail onto addresses where she was living in London and Plymouth in connection with her work placements at local hospitals.

The matter was brought before Magistrates in 2021 when Eskander elected to have the case heard in the Crown Court. Last month - August 2022 - a jury unanimously returned a guilty verdict at Leamington Crown Court after a five-day trial.

Councillor Jan Matecki of Warwick council says: “This case demonstrates that the council will not tolerate landlords who evict tenants without following the legal process of serving notice and applying for a Possession Order.

"This eviction took place in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic when the government had introduced a ban on evictions taking place. The fact that this action was taken by an NHS doctor makes this case particularly shocking.

“When letting, landlords cannot keep a locked bedroom for themselves, live elsewhere and then claim to be ‘sharing accommodation with their lodger’. I hope this case sends out a strong message to landlords who may be tempted to do the same.”

Sentencing will be announced later this month. 

Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.

  • icon

    The hypocrisy is appalling the council in its own shared accommodation properties can evict at will. No one ever comments about that. The tenant has plenty of opportunity to get redress in the civil courts why waste taxpayers money and ruin a doctor‘s career by prosecuting the landlord? How is prosecuting landlords going to encourage the supply of accommodation?

    Why did the doctor keep one room vacant? Can the doctor not have more than one home? If it suited the council had the tenant got a home elsewhere would they be arguing that a tenant can I have more than one permanent place of occupation if they were alleging illegal eviction or failure to license? NB a HMO license is required if there’s five more occupiers and it is their permanent place of occupation.
    Jim Haliburton
    The HMODaddy

    Jim Haliburton
    The HMO daddy

  • icon

    I don't know much about law processes, but a 5 day trial with a jury seems a bit over the top. I would have thought this was a fairly simple case. No wonder the court system is so expensive and slow.

icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up