In what can only be described as a deeply embarrassing, indeed humiliating turn of events, the new Labour MP for Ilford South, Jas Athwal, has provided a clear lesson in poor practice in the private rented sector. (BBC report here, and Guardian report here.)
Mr Athwal MP is a landlord, with some 15 rental flats (apparently making him the largest landlord in the House of Commons. A former Tory MP had 16 properties, but he was defenestrated at the last election).
Seven of those flats are in one block. A BBC investigation found the following:
- At least three of the flats suffered mould growth to bathroom ceilings, despite frequent cleaning.
- Flats had ant infestations.
- Fire detectors and CO detectors were not operational, with a fire detector in the communal corridor hanging from the ceiling by a wire.
- A washing machine was dumped in the communal access and the communal lights didn’t work.
- One tenant reported having been threatened with eviction by the managing agent when reporting issues.
To make matters worse, while the BBC reporter was there, the managing agent, having apparently been tipped off, started calling the tenants:
While I was at the block, the property manager was tipped off about my visit and tenants started to get calls from him. After receiving these calls they became hesitant about talking to me. This appeared to me to be intimidation.
One resident who had spoken on camera about problems with their flat later asked that we not use the interview and another asked me not to use images of the mould two days after allowing me to take pictures of it.
Then, as the icing on the cake, it appears that the flats were in LB Redbridge’s selective licensing area and there was no licence for any of the flats on the council register. Mr Athwal MP was the former leader of LB Redbridge, and was when the selective licensing scheme was introduced.
Mr Athwal MP’s initial response to the BBC is one to file under ‘might have been better not said’.
“My properties are managed by an agency, selected for their quick response times and excellent customer service. This is evidenced by the long tenure of the tenants – over 87 years across 15 properties.
“I pride myself on being a good landlord and no tenants have ever been evicted. Repairs and improvements have been made to properties as recently as two weeks ago.
“To ensure tenants enjoy a secure, long-term home, rents are kept below market rate and, in many cases rents are frozen at the rate first agreed.”
He added he did not take on tenants on housing benefit to avoid conflicts of interest with his role as the local council leader.
So, managing to add another potentially unlawful act to the list. We’ll come back to the list below, but for now, the idea that there could be any ‘conflict of interest’ in taking tenants on housing benefit is ludicrous. It would be LHA/Universal Credit, administered by the DWP, not the council, but even if it were housing benefit, the idea that the leader of the council would have had any part in the administration of housing benefit is daft. I suspect what he meant is it would have been potentially embarrassing if anyone found out his tenants’ rent was paid by the local authority. That is not the same thing.
By the next morning, Mr Athwal MP had clearly had a rethink. He acknowledged that the properties were in a poor state, blamed the managing agents and said it would be sorted immediately.
Mr Athwal described himself as a “renters’ champion” who is “proud” to rent out homes with secure tenancies at below-market rents and who wants every one of his tenants “to have excellent accommodation”.
“I’m shocked at the reported condition of a number of the properties and have asked the managing agent for an explanation and immediate action to rectify any issues,” he said.
“I know it’s my responsibility to have issues addressed as soon as they arise and have met the property management company to understand failures in communication.
“I’m profoundly sorry that tenants have been let down and will be reviewing the property management and how matters are escalated going forward.”
On the licences, Mr Athwal said: “It was my understanding all the licences for my properties were up to date, but I have recently seen an email which shared that licences are due to expire. I am in the process of renewing all licences.”
We have to take it that this last bit means the properties were indeed unlicensed at the time.
Calling oneself a ‘renters’ champion’ while actually apologising for the state of the properties takes some chutzpah, too.
Now for the teachable moment. How many breaches of legal and regulatory obligations can we identify and what are the possible consequences?
Lack of required licences – there is no grace period at the expiry of a previous licence (if there was one), the property requires licensing at all times. An application must be made at or before the point of expiry (though the licence may take a little while to process, the application if the key point). Not having a licence is an offence.
Consequences? Potentially a prosecution (unlikely) or imposition of a civil penalty of up to £30,000 by the local authority for each offence. Each flat here would need a licence. No section 21 notice can be served when a property that requires a licence is not licensed.
Also, tenants can apply for a rent repayment order for rent paid during the period for which the property was unlicensed of up to 12 months (this is likely to be doubled in the Renters’ Rights Bill). This can be for up to 100% of rent, though a lower award is more common.
It is not a defence to either a penalty or a rent repayment order application that you thought your managing agents would do the licensing.
Pest infestation/mould/non functional fire and CO2 alarms/possible blockage of fire escape route – these are all obvious hazards causing risk to health under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). If the local council found these hazards on an inspection, they would be able to serve one of a variety of notices. Most likely would be an improvement notice, requiring the hazards to be remedied within a specific period of time.
Breach of an improvement notice is an offence, which could lead to prosecution or civil penalty, as above, and is also a relevant offence for a rent repayment order application. No section 21 notice can be served for 6 months after an improvement notice.
But the hazards would also be a breach of the landlord’s obligation under section 9A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the property fit for human habitation during the course of the tenancy. This is an obligation implied into the tenancy agreement and the tenant can bring a county court claim for works and damages on the breach. (This would be separate from and additional to any rent repayment order that might be made).
Again, it is not a defence that you expected your managing agents to carry out this obligation for you.
If this had have been a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) rather than flats, there would have been a number of other offences.
Having a blanket policy of not letting to tenants on ‘housing benefit’ – as announced by Mr Athwal himself? Well, that is highly likely to be currently unlawful as indirectly discriminatory. A potential embarrassment as a council leader would not be a justification defence. A blanket ‘no benefits’ policy will also almost certainly be prohibited under the forthcoming Renters’ Rights Bill.
The suggestion of intimidation and threats of eviction from the managing agent? If that is true, then it is arguably harassment for the purposes of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 by the agent. It would take a lot more to make the landlord responsible for this, and it does not look like harassment for the purposes of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 or section 29 Housing Act 1988, because not intended to cause the occupier to give up occupation.
What the managing agent’s obligations to Mr Athwal MP were would be a matter of the contract between them. If the managing agent has failed, then the landlord may have a claim in breach of contract against the agents, but – as emphasised above – having an agent who was supposed to do X, Y and Z is not a get out for the landlord for any breach of their legal and regulatory obligations.
[Update 1 September, Mr Athwal MP has indeed doubled down on blaming his managing agents, who he is now sacking.]