Sarah Teather has been writing for the Guardian about the problems created by so-called revenge eviction and how her Private Members’ Bill will tackle it. First she gave an example of what had happened to her constituent:
Last month, a constituent came to my office in Brent for help after his landlord served him with an eviction notice. His property suffered from severe cold and a cockroach infestation, and following an environmental health inspection the council served notice on the landlord to fix the property. The landlord decided to evict my constituent and re-let the flat instead.
It’s not just the evictions that are the problem. Fear that reporting a problem could lead to losing your home leads to families living in hardship:
The problem is worst where the housing crisis is most acute – 14% of families renting in London have been hit with revenge evictions in the last year alone. The figures for black and minority ethnic renters (10%) and families receiving housing benefit (7%) are also shocking.
More difficult to measure is the fear of revenge eviction, but a study by Shelter found that one in nine renters in London last year was in this position. When you are faced with the prospect of leaving your local community and taking your children out of the local school, you may decide reporting even a very serious problem is not worth the risk.
Having spoken to landlords, I know they feel frustrated when their tenants fail to report problems. Many only discover that there is a serious issue at the end of a tenancy, and in the time it takes to fix the problem, they lose out on rental income.
And what will Sarah’s bill do – and not do?
In taking action against rogue landlords, my bill will not catch those who are meeting their legal responsibilities. Landlords will only be stopped from using their section 21 powers following intervention by the council. When a complaint is received, a local authority will contact the landlord to resolve the problem, only serving a statutory notice if the landlord is clearly at fault and there is a serious issue with the property. So if an environmental health officer finds that the tenant has caused the problem or has not given the landlord access to the property, they will not be protected.
Landlords will still be able to evict tenants who are in rent arrears and exemptions will also apply where a landlord is selling the property. In short, law-abiding landlords will still be able to evict as before, and they will also benefit from tenants who feel more confident to report issues as they arise.
You can read the whole piece here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
4 Comments
I think it’s an excellent idea and well worded by Sarah too. Reassurance and speaking to landlords is always necessary when strengthening tenants rights.
Maybe, if the party can’t hold onto MPs such as Sarah then it has a problem. Maybe.
What has happened to fit for human habitation? Back in the 1980s I rented a room in London Hammersmith, someone in a basement room looked for a rent reduction and the landlady was told it was not fit for human habitation. Mind you the bathroom and kitchen for those of us on higher floors was almost as bad.
Is it acceptable that this site takes adverts from a Gypsy eviction company?
Hey Peter,
It doesn’t, it’s Google Ads I think. I installed ad-block for LDV during the AV referendum, where this site was (to me – ads are personalised for each person) covered in ads for the “No to AV campaign”, some specifically using Clegg as the reason to vote No. It looked hilarious, but made me realised that a political site should never be funded by advertising. It’s a terrible situation and can make authors seem hypocritical, because after your article there can be an advert for the very thing you’re trying to stop! I would happily pay a tenner a year, but I’ve blocked the ads, nags about adblock and everything else I don’t like about the site too.
Back to the topic, it sounds like a really good idea in principle and seems well thought out. The Shelter blog piece regarding the bill is interesting and a good source of further info, answers a lot of any potential criticisms.