Making it happen. Holding officialdom to account. Frank, fearless and free. THE DIGITAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH BLOG. Join our conversation YOU MAY NOW VIEW PETERBOROUGH TRIBUNE OVER A SECURE WEB LINK: PASS IT ON!

PBROtrib PAGEview COUNTER excludes casual browsers scrolling through a selection of posts

Tuesday, September 27, 2016


Word reaches the PBROTRIB that several hundred Peterborough City private landlord tenants and 'guardian company' short-term tenants (ironically mainly in Conservative MP Stewart Jacksons constituency) are allegedly being given 'highly suspect' home made notices to urgently quit their rented properties, primarily so that other tenants can be installed at higher rental values, or take advantage of better local authority payments for short term emergency accommodation.  You may well ask why should Travelodge Hotels pocket over £1 Million in room rentals from  Peterborough City Council, private landlords, we are told, are now also cashing in. Cushty! 

This latest blog from the highly acclaimed Nearly Legal website, may provide the ammunition you need when you take your 'notice' and a copy of this blog directly to the Citizens Advice Bureau, legal help centre, or specialist housing law solicitor for urgent assistance and legal protection under Section 1 of The Prevention From Eviction Act 1977. Alternatively direct your own councillor to this blog page, (unless of course they are also private landlords!) In the case of Cllr Turnip, someone can read it to him!

If you are on the receiving end of one of these official looking but packed full of legal mumbo jumbo homespun documents, take a copy of it and mail it to us, we'll take up the media publicity battle on your behalf to expose this kind of cruel, heartless and totally unlawful nonsense...

Very nasty 'homemade' Notice to Quit? Click on picture to enlarge     Author: Giles Peaker
Property guardian companies. Just when you think that most of the firms involved have managed some form of legality around their possession and eviction practices, they go and disappoint you.
Way back in 2012, we noted the widespread failure of property guardian firms to adhere to the requirements of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 – which they didn’t seem to have realised extended to residential licencees.

Indeed, I took a (successfully settled) unlawful eviction claim against one of the larger companies, after which they amended their notice to quit requirements.

The speed of response to publication of the issue varied, and Camelot – to whom we will return in a moment – took a couple of years to actually amend their licence notice periods from two weeks to four weeks. I had pointed this out to them, regularly, and was on the brink of creating a weekly automatic tweet when they changed.
But of course, 28 day notice is not the only requirement of the PEA, a fact that still appears to have escaped Camelot.  Here is Section 3
(1)Where any premises have been let as a dwelling under a tenancy which is neither a statutorily protected tenancy nor an excluded tenancy and—
(a)the tenancy (in this section referred to as the former tenancy) has come to an end, but
(b)the occupier continues to reside in the premises or part of them,
it shall not be lawful for the owner to enforce against the occupier, otherwise than by proceedings in the court, his right to recover possession of the premises.
(2)In this section “the occupier”, in relation to any premises, means any person lawfully residing in the premises or part of them at the termination of the former tenancy.
(As we have previously established, a ‘tenancy’ includes a residential licence – section 3 (2B) PEA).
So what to make of this (pictured) ‘notice’, served on Camelot guardians at the end of a 28 day notice to quit period? A notice full of what we can only call pseudo-legal and semi-literate gibberish.
“Self help action”?
“The police are aware of your trespass on this land”
And, my favourite bits:
“We would bring to your attention the case of Street v Mountford. Whilst it is arguable that exclusive possession could be found, if in the absence of a fixed term of the agreement would fail to satisfy the ‘tenancy test’. Alternatively please see in Gray v Taylor 1 WLR 1093.
(…) This right under Common Law is set out in Halsbury’s Laws of England (Volume 97 (2010) 5th Edition)”.
All ‘signed’ “Enforcement Officers On behalf of Camelot Properties”.
If anyone knows this whether farrago of nonsense, complete with CAPITAL LETTERS, underlining and red ink, was drafted by private bailiffs or by Camelot, please do let us know. If it was private bailiffs, do name and shame the firm.
So, it appears that Camelot are serving (or causing to be served) these notices, presumably with the intention of scaring people out of the properties without having to have recourse to possession proceedings.
It should go without saying that if Camelot (or their ‘Enforcement Officers’) did try to exercise ‘self help’ or their ‘common law right to physically remove’ the former licensee (always assuming it is a licence, not a tenancy – Street v Mountford), then this would be an unlawful eviction and an offence under section 1 Protection from Eviction Act.
But what of the act of simply threatening such steps, in order to make people leave?
Well, that would look a bit like a breach of sections 1(3) and 1(3A) of the PEA.
(3)If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises—
(a)to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; or
(b)to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof;
does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3A)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.
I think the threat of ‘Enforcement Officers’ and police ‘physically removing’ them from the property without further notice might indeed count as likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier. And a breach of s.1(3) or (3A) is a criminal offence.
Oh dear, Camelot. This is behaviour we expect from rogue landlords, not responsible businesses. Do please provide an explanation, if you have one. E&OE Tel:+44 (0) 1733 345581 > PETERBOROUGH TRIB NEWSREEL .
Post a Comment





UPDATES: Post are transmitted from a variety of remote sources, immediately published on servers in the USA, additions, updates and any corrections added later on the blog version only.

Editorial policy: WE DON'T CENSOR NEWS, we will however come down hard on lawbreakers, all forms of ASB - Anti Social Behaviour, and anyone or group who seek to disturb or disrupt our neighbourhoods and communities, or in anyway abuse, take unfair advantage or financially disadvantage our citizens. We support the Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch and digitally carry the messages from this independent Neighbourhood Watch Scheme.

We are openly but constructively critical of all political parties (actual and sham), pressure groups, overbearing 'jobsworths' and those who seek to waste public funds, abuse public office, ramp up expenses, BUY VOTES and/or engage in any form of directed or robotic voting.

Whilst accepting that many in Public Office perform a valuable service and make a worthwhile contribution, there are others who are frankly rubbish. Although Julian Bray is the editor, there are several Blog administrators / correspondents who actively contribute by remote transmission to this blog.

So it could be some days before the copy (content) is seen by the Editor and properly formatted. We consider all representations and correct any facts that are clearly deficient.


THE HIGH COURT has ruled....People have a right to lampoon and criticise politicians and public officials under the Human Rights Act, the High Court has ruled.

We have the full High Court judgment, saved as a page on here. l

ampoon (lampoon) Pronunciation: /lamˈpuːn/ verb [with object] publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule, irony, or sarcasm: the actor was lampooned by the press noun a speech or text lampooning someone or something: the magazine fired at God, Royalty, and politicians, using cartoons and lampoons.

Derivatives: lampooner noun lampoonery noun lampoonist noun Origin: mid 17th century: from French lampon, said to be from lampons 'let us drink' (used as a refrain), from lamper 'gulp down', nasalized form of laper 'to lap (liquid).


NUJ Code of Conduct

The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936.

The code is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to the it.

Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles:

A journalist:

1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed

2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair

3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies

4 Differentiates between fact and opinion

5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means

6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest

7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work

8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge

9 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation

10 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed

11 A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare

12 Avoids plagiarism The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code.

The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code

The NUJ logo is always a link to the home page.

(As modified at Delegate Meeting 2011)