Tenant Harassment
The first thing that you, as a Landlord, will know that you have been accused of Harassment, is when a letter is received from the local authority that has claims of alleged harassment by you or one of your tenants.
Be very careful in your contact with that particular tenant and always cover yourself by keeping a detailed record of all meetings and telephone conversations.
The motive of the tenant could be an attempt to move them up the housing list and or to sue you, as substantial costs can be awarded against Landlords by the Civil Courts, in some cases, when tenants are able to claim for special and general damages.
Local authorities do take accusations of harassment very seriously and may prosecute Landlords who harass tenants because the penalties are the same as for unlawful eviction.
Harassment is when you try to contact a tenant(s) outside the area of the property and land that you are letting to them. Any discussions or form of communication that are not held within the property may have dangerous consequences! Any person that harasses a residential occupier in such a way, that as a result, they could be expected to give up their accommodation, is committing a criminal offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
The key elements of harassment are acts likely to interfere with the peace and comfort of the Residential Occupier OR the persistent withdrawal of essential services AS WELL AS:
1. Is committed by any person with the intention of causing the Residential Occupier to leave OR
2. Is committed by any person with intent to stop the Residential Occupier pursuing their legal rights (for example, complaining about disrepair) OR
3. Is committed by a Landlord or Agent who knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that a likely result of their actions will lead to the Residential Occupier leaving, or causes them not to pursue their legal rights.
Common acts of harassment can include:
- Entering the property without the tenant's permission.
- Threats of violence or unlawful eviction.
- Frequent visits made at unreasonable hours.
- Disconnection of the gas, electricity or water.
-
Repair works being carried out that deliberately disrupts the tenant's life in the property.
Remember, it is not Harassment to send rend reminders, issue Notices, inform Guarantors of breaches, issue a small claims summons, applying for possession orders, appoint Bailiffs. These are all lawful acts.
Case Law - If somebody harrasses the Tenant without your knowledge or instigation
In R v Q a legal loophole, no tenant will be pleased to hear about has been revealed.
Q either owned or managed a property on behalf of his niece. The Property was divided up into bedsit style accommodation and it was accepted that Q wanted the tenants to leave.
Q had served a 2 month Notice to Quit however this notice was defective and the tenants refused to leave until Q obtained a court order. Upon the expiry of the notice Q’s son visited the property along with 5 men and threatened the tenants with a knife and subjected them to other types of abuse which included turning off the utility supplies.
The harassment by Q’s son continued but there was no evidence to show Qs involvement in any of the activities. It was crucially for this reason that the case was dismissed by the Crown Court. However the local authority pursued the matter up to the Appeal Court.
The Court of Appeal considered the primary question to be whether Q was guilty of an offence under section 1 (3A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 on the footing that he was vicariously liable for the acts of his son. The Court held that no because on its true construction section 1(3A) requires the actual participation of Q and in this case there was no room for vicarious liability.
S1(3A) reads:
Subject to subsection (3B) below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or
(b)he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,
and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
The court held that the phrase ‘does acts’ suggests a requirement of actual participation by Q and more importantly that there is a requirement of knowledge or having reasonable case to believe that Q’s son would take the action he did for Q to be found guilty under the above section. Neither of these elements had been established by the prosecution and therefore the Appeal was also dismissed.
The Court of Appeal emphasised that with this decision they were not suggesting that offenders may not on appropriate evidence, be convicted as a secondary party in a joint enterprise or incitement, or indeed as a co-conspirator. However without the evidence linking the landlord to the harassment the decision in this case will no doubt be followed by the lower courts.