Martin Callan, Bowling & Co Solicitors
There are a number of statutory codes governing different types of tenancies. However, not all tenants will fall within the scope of the statutory codes. An occupier may be a licensee rather than a tenant, or may be a tenant who is excluded from the statutory codes. As a result, The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 provides a general minimum of protection for the majority of residential occupiers. There are four key aspects to this Act. First it provides for a criminal liability for harassment and unlawful eviction, which needs to be considered alongside the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Second, a Landlord cannot forfeit a tenancy by peaceable re-entry. Third, possession cannot be recovered by a landlord or licensor without court proceedings. Finally it provides a prescribed form of Notice to Quit and a minimum notice period of at least 4 weeks.
As a landlord or licensor, the most worrying aspects of the Act would be the criminal liability. There are three offences: unlawfully depriving the occupier of occupation under section 1(2) and, harassment under sections 1(3) and more recently 1(3A). The section 1(2) offence can be committed by any person whether or not the immediate landlord. Examples of this offence would be entering the property, removing belongings and changing the locks. However, where a tenant lost keys and a landlord refused to replace them for a day and a night this would not be an offence, R v Yuthiwattana (1984) CA. The two harassment offences are broadly similar but section 1(3) can be committed by “any person” and section 1(3A) can only be committed by the landlord or his agent. The offence is where acts are done which seek to get the occupier to give up occupation of the whole or part of the premises or prevent the occupier from exercising some right in respect of the property.
The difficulty for a landlord is that neither section demands that the “acts” themselves be unlawful. This means that obvious acts such as turning off gas, water and electricity sit along side less obvious acts, such as applying to a rent officer or a rent assessment committee or pursuing a lawful remedy against the occupier. In both instances the acts done are likely to interfere with the occupier’s peace and comfort, R v Burke (1991). Under section 1(3) the prosecution must show, however, that the acts or withdrawal of services were done with intent to cause the occupier to give up occupation or refrain from exercising a right. Under section 1(3A) it is only necessary to show the landlord knew, or had reasonable cause to know that the conduct was likely to have this effect.
If found guilty of any of the three criminal offences in section 1 of the Act, a the convicted person will be liable on summary conviction (magistrates court) to a fine or to imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both. On conviction on indictment (Crown court) this increases to imprisonment for up to two years. If you have any questions relating to this article or the issues raised in it please email martin.callan@bowlinglaw.co.uk.
www.bowlinglaw.co.uk