R v Jay Allen and Razwan Mohammed [2013] EWCA Crim

The landlords, Jay Allen and Razwan Mohammed rented a property to Chris Blades and later forced Mr Blades to leave the property without obtaining a possession order after he had run up £900 of rent arrears.  

R v Qureshi [2011] EWCA Crim 1584

Mr Qureshi, the landlord, had a property which was divided into bed sit style accommodation.  Mr Qureshi let one to a couple.  He served a defective section 21 notice on the tenants but when it expired Mr Quershi's son and five other men visited the property and acted in a threatening manner.  The landlord was charged with two counts of harassment contrary to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

At Peterborough Crown Court it was concluded

Abbas v Iqba (2009)

The landlord granted this elderly tenant a weekly tenancy of a single room with shared use of bathroom and kitchen at a rent of £60. In 2007 the landlord informed the tenant that he was going to convert the property into flats. In April 2008 the landlord gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy, but this notice did not comply with the requirements of the Housing Act 1988. In May the gas and water supplies were disconnected. In June the tenant obtained an injunction against the landlord, requiring him to reinstate the utility supplies. The landlord ignored this and building work continued. Within a week the property was a shell and unsafe. The tenant was forced from the property and slept at friends’ homes until the local authority rehoused him. The tenant’s possessions, which remained in his room, were removed and disposed of.

The judge found

A tenant who was unlawfully evicted by her landlord, as he disconnected the utilities, changed the locks and threw her possessions onto the pavement outside, was awarded damages totalling £30,000.

An assured shorthold tenant was, from the beginning of her tenancy, subjected to a series of problems from her landlord. He interfered with her post, then disconnected her electricity. He later also disconnected the gas and hot water, and finally he cut off the cold water supply. The tenant obtained an injunction compelling him to reconnect the supplies, and it took him two weeks to do this.

The police do not owe a duty of care to a tenant who has been unlawfully evicted, unless there has been breach of a court order.

A tenant had an assured tenancy of a room in a shared house. He received a letter from his landlord asking him to leave, but the tenant did not.
One afternoon two months later, two men went to the property and told the tenant that he had to leave by 6pm that day. They threatened to break his legs if he did not leave, so the tenant called the police. Two police officers attended, and told the tenant that he should call them again if the men returned.

At about 6pm, four men arrived and began removing the tenant’s belongings from the property. The tenant called the police, and the same two officers attended. They found several of the tenant’s possessions in the street, and neighbours congregating nearby to watch. There was an excited atmosphere, and the tenant was angry and upset.

The police called for backup as they were concerned that they were outnumbered, but said that it was not urgent. The police officers were informed by one of the men that he had recently bought the property and, via solicitors’ letters and verbal requests, had asked the tenant to leave. The police contacted the tenant’s original landlord to confirm this.

A landlord was not convicted of unlawful eviction because the tenant was not a residential occupier under the PEA 1977.

The landlord and tenant entered into an informal arrangement, allowing the tenant to use their house for two weeks. The tenant was not required to pay for use of water, electricity, gas and some food left in the fridge, but he did agree to.

At the end of the two weeks, the tenant would not leave the property. He was  later arrested for damage to property. The landlords were also prosecuted under s.1(3) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, but the charge was dismissed because the tenant was not a residential occupier within the meaning of the PEA 1977 s1 (1).  The tenant appealed. 

This case highlights the need for landlords and agents to carefully follow  the correct possession procedures, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the tenancy.

The tenant rented a one bedroomed flat from the council on  a weekly secure tenancy.  Six months into the tenancy, the tenant was arrested and taken into custody as an 'overstayer' under the Immigration Act 1971.  On his release a few days later he found that the locks had been changed and he was unable to gain entry.  The tenant claimed damages and an injunction to restrain the council from interfering with his quiet enjoyment of the flat and to enable him to re-enter. 

Three tenants shared a house. Following a schizophrenic episode and complaints from two of the tenants, the landlord unlawfully evicted the third tenant by removing her possessions and dumping them in the driveway outside her parent's house. The tenant brought an action for unlawful eviction.