.png)
A council has been slammed for its “absolutely outrageous” failure to stop the eviction of up to 80 tenants - a mass eviction it set in motion itself.
Yesterday we reported that Bristol’s Labour council won a banning order against a landlord who - to abide by the order - must now evict between 60 and 80 tenants by December 1.
Now a Green Party councillor has attacked the Bristol authority for not using a Special Interim Management Order which would have effectively meant the council would have managed the properties and tenants; they could then have been systematically rehoused while the landlord’s portfolio could be sold.
The councillor - Barry Parsons - has told the Bristol Live news website: “The rent would be paid to whoever the council appointed, and that money used to fix repairs and maintain the properties. It’s a fairly simple process, and is a power that councils have that was specifically designed for situations like this. It would remain in place until either she sold the properties to another landlord with the rental agreement in place, or the tenant found somewhere else and moved out."
Parsons described the banning order - which was enacted by the council in 2022 and confirmed on appeal earlier this year - as “a massive own goal”.
Bristol Live has been told by the council that it is not responsible for the evictions: however, it’s seen emails from the council to the landlord’s letting agent insisting that all tenancies must end on December 1, with the landlord being threatened with prison if that deadline was missed.
Landlord Naomi Knapp, who owns 29 properties in Bristol of which 18 required licencing, was last year convicted of eight banning order offences relating to poorly managed HMOs, and was added to the government's rogue landlord database.
A First Tier Property Tribunal banned Knapp in 2022 because of missing or inadequately installed fire doors and damaged and poorly maintained walls and ceilings. Fixtures and fittings in communal areas of some properties were damaged and badly maintained, and some properties had rubbish-strewn gardens.
Knapp was granted permission to appeal on six grounds, but each appeal was dismissed.
Earlier this week Knapp told Bristol Live that eight or nine of her properties are now empty and not re-let: three or four have been sold but over 20 others have tenants who have now been served with eviction notices - 18 of these homes are HMOs.
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.
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
BCC don’t have a pot to P**s in never mind any properties to house tenants that they have deliberately made homeless.
It’s now illegal for any of those tenants to be in those properties after 1 December 2023 and it’s BCC that are actually evicting those tenants.
Wow, just imagine if they were running housing in Bristol.
Now they have to find homes for all these people they are evicting and it’s homes they are constantly writing to us LLs begging for as they have non of their own.
Own Goal or what.
Well a little more detail than yesterday 🤔 as I first thought 💭….. there is more to this than the headline, so this “ Landlord “ had missing fire doors, rubbish in the gardens and walls and ceiling falling down 😨, yes the council could have dealt with it better, but this landlord sounds exactly the type of entrepreneur which that famous channel 5 property program loves to feature 🎬
I wounder how much of that damage was done by the tenants themselves
Simon please advise source of information. Perhaps the landlord didn't pull enough statues down.
It’s incumbent upon us all so accept that there are some landlords that do us all harm, this lady sounds like one, I do believe that to be totally banned from owning properties for rent, it’s more than a paperwork error.
The Council’s are always ready and more than willing to act against landlords on a Tenants complaint. Sometimes the Tenants complain in order to get housed by the Council’s and make up all kinds of stories.
This is the real reason Council’s want rid of S.21 but I don’t know why they even gave themselves a Statuary Duty to re- house everyone evicted.
Obviously they are getting rid of the noose around their necks by getting rid of Section 21.
Who’s going to house them now when they have removed themselves from this responsibility.
Section 21 should remain with an amendment that the Council’s doesn’t necessarily have a duty to re-house them, which should have been the case from the start. There was wide scale abuse by people wanting to be housed by the Council’s
Therefore S.21 should remain with this amendment to release Council’s of this duty, instead of Scrapping the whole thing making millions homeless for the Council to save face.
It’s this sort of Landlord that gives the rest of us a bad name, so whilst the Council handled it badly ( no surprise there) , they had to act. This Woman should be banned from ever being a Landlord again.
The PRS is just one giant headache now with every pig in the trough selling up as fast as I can had enough of the hastle
Unfortunately there are still too many incompetent & crooked landlords in the industry, the council like most councils have screwed up, but this situation should never have even happened. I think we will end up down the path of a Professional certification of self management skills or third party agents to clear out the crooks and clowns from the industry. The industry has to become more professional overall, I see too many people trying to flog tax schemes, get rich quick and other dubious offerings, even after recent Tax Accountants have called them to task, I received an email today trying to Curry favour for a Section 24 plan...
Very often it's the crooked system that causes the crooked anticts of land lords, the protection of rouge tenants doesn't help, for example a non paying tenant has to go either legally or illegally if all else fails
BCC Housing Department obviously don’t have the correct knowledge to deal with the situation correctly.
I have been in the PRS LL business for 17 years and I have only let one property through them and they promised the earth to get the property.
Then it was decided that the tenants would be paid the housing benefits and they would then pay the landlord.
As soon as that came into force the tenant stopped paying the rent and it took me about 6 months to get her out through the eviction process.
BCC told her to stay put until the day that the Bailiffs evicted her.
I never have let a property through the council since and never will again.
In fact I only have 4 rentals left now and mostly paid off but whenever they become empty they will be sold and not re-let.
My current tenants are all long term tenants and I don’t rip them off with Sky high rents.
Any issues are dealt with asap and they look after the properties very well because they know that other similar properties would cost them much more.
It’s a win win situation for both tenants and myself.
Unfortunately it's a given that Councils are going to use every trick under the sun to get someone off their books, they really don't care and as a Landlord it's frankly a fools game to do so. There are many people that are on the Council books across the country, that have been in permanent housing but who are an utter pain in the backside for their neighbours and have been eventually booted out, which is why the Councils want to pass them on to someone else. Just don't deal with Councils is my advice.
This is how we operate, good houses, well looked after at reasonable rent. Most tenants then take good care and pay rent on time. If any difficulties on the odd occasion they let us know and we sort out a plan. All as it should be.
We still have a non-payer who has wrecked the house (making it into a zoo) and not leaving on section 21, and another who have let the flat become mouldy and now using that to try to get council housing and leaving me with the bill to fix as well as having to justify myself to the council.
One of the properties is on the market now and the other will be as soon as the court process is through. The thought that it will be even more difficult to evict and that we will be held responsible for the tenant's mismanagement of the property leading to mould is too much to put up with. Not to mention compulsory permission for pets.
Andrew, that's pretty cras really. There is no excuse for the kinds of issues that are usually the result of Council enforcement actions, I would be richer than Bill Gates if I had a Penny for everytime one of these cases comes to Court that didn't involve basic Health & Safety violations excluding Mould & Damp. How many cases has there been of Dangerous Electrics, Gas, Building Defects, overcrowding, sexual coercion, and illegal evictions. Of course there are vast numbers of crooked tenants, addicts and just utter trash that even the Council don't want to house, but we are supposed to be professionals and not act like we don't have an ounce of decency.
Well John I treat people as they treat me, I've had far too many people try to walk all over me in the past, it hardens one up very quickly
John Adams and Simon Logan - damm fine virtue signalling!
Really 😳 pointing out that even a broken clock is the correct time twice a day ? And that even though we are all landlords, there will be 100% some very bad and dangerous landlords out there, not fitting fire doors in a HMO is by definition…. Dangerous 🤐. They do everyone of us a disservice.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Politicians are like a ‘Lighthouse in the Desert”, Bright but absolutely useless.
I'm with Andrew on this one. Just about to go over to a house that's crawling with mould after the new tenants have been in for just over a month! I've owned this house for 13 years with no mould in that time, apart from the bathroom that now has a motion detected in line extractor and plastic ceiling.
As well as all that new mould, I have damaged chests of drawers and a broken tumble dryer. But according to all the lefty activists, it's all my fault
The main causes of mould.
Washing draped over Radiators and the tenants not opening windows to vent the moist air from the property.
Some people have simply no idea how to live in a property properly.
It is wrote into all my properties ASTs that the property is mould free on commencement of the tenancy and it must be kept ventilated and heated. No washing is to be dried on the radiators
That's a good idea writting that into the tenancy agreement Peter, I will try that one as well
You can also write the property needs to be treated with respect and on vacating should be in as clean and good condition as when you moved in. Unfortunately the majority take no damn notice
Please login to comment