Landlord sued by Paralysed Man After Pool Accident

A man who became paralysed from the neck down after using a pool he was illegally squatting in is reportedly suing the pool’s owner in France, claiming negligence.

The incident occurred in a communal apartment complex in Toulouse, where Crédit Agricole Immobilier, the company managing the property, owns the pool.

The squatter, who was aged just 18 at the time of the incident sustained life-altering injuries that left him tetraplegic, is now seeking damages, alleging that the accident was due to the owner’s failure to maintain the pool properly.

According to Alexandra, one of the co-owners in the apartment block who spoke to *Le Figaro*, the man’s legal case could hinge on Article 1244 of the French Civil Code. This article, recently upheld by the Conseil Constitutionnel, stipulates that a property owner is liable for damage caused by poor maintenance or construction defects. This liability extends to all users of the property, including those using it without permission, such as squatters.

Property lawyer Romain Rossi-Landi told *Le Figaro that cases like this are judged individually. To avoid liability, the property owner would need to demonstrate that the pool was well-maintained prior to the squatting incident, or that the squatter’s actions prevented proper upkeep. This could involve providing evidence such as photos or maintenance records.

.

What is Pool Squatting?

Pool squatting is a phenomenon that occurs during the summer months when high temperatures drive some individuals to illegally access and use private pools. While some instances are brief, others involve squatters hosting disruptive pool parties that disturb neighbours.

In Toulouse alone, there have been nearly 140 complaints of illegal pool squatting since the beginning of the summer, according to TF1. Squatters risk facing severe consequences, including potential imprisonment and fines of up to €45,000 for trespassing on private property.

Rising Cost of Living in Europe: Where Are People Paying the Most for Essentials?

The rising cost of living is a top concern for over 90% of Europeans, with official statistics shedding light on the factors fuelling this growing anxiety.

In 2022, housing, water, electricity, gas, and other fuels made up the largest portion of household spending in the EU, accounting for 24.1% of total consumption, according to Eurostat data.

Food and non-alcoholic beverages followed at 13.6%, with transport costs making up 12.5%.

While these categories have consistently ranked at the top over the last 20 years, their relative importance has shifted.

From 2002 to 2022, housing costs saw the most significant increase, rising from 21.1% to 24.1% of household budgets—a 3 percentage point (pp) jump.

To put this in perspective, if a household's total spending was €1,000 in 2002, €211 would have gone to housing. By 2022, this figure would have risen to €241.

This increase highlights the growing financial strain of essential living costs on European households, likely driven by rising housing prices and energy expenses over the past two decades.

In terms of percentage growth, health expenditures saw a 22% increase, compared to a 14% rise in housing costs.

However, since housing expenses represent a much larger share of household budgets, the overall impact of rising housing costs is far more substantial.

Starting just above 20% in the early 2000s, the share of household spending on housing and utilities steadily increased, peaking at nearly 25% in 2013.

This period marked the most significant growth, reflecting the escalating costs associated with housing and utilities.

After a slight decline, the share surged again during the COVID-19 pandemic, hitting a record high of 25.6% in 2020. This overall rise in housing and utility costs over the past two decades indicates that these expenses have become an increasingly significant part of household budgets, mirroring broader economic pressures and shifts in living costs across the EU.

Ireland Leads in Housing Cost Increases

In some countries, the increase in housing costs has been even more pronounced, exceeding 5%.

Between 2002 and 2022, Ireland experienced the largest rise, with a staggering 7.1% increase, followed by Spain at 6.3% and Italy at 5.4%.

Which European Countries Spend the Most on Housing?

The share of household spending on housing varies significantly across Europe. In 2022, Slovakia topped the list, with more than 30% of household expenditure dedicated to housing. Finland and Denmark followed closely, with shares of 29.6% and 29.1%, respectively.

 These figures suggest that Northern and Central European countries face considerable financial pressure related to housing and utilities, likely due to higher energy costs or more expensive housing markets.

Conversely, Southern and Eastern European countries like Montenegro, Turkey, and Albania have much lower housing cost shares.

In 2022, Montenegro allocated just 11.6% of household spending to housing, while Turkey and Albania spent 12.4% and 12.5%, respectively.

Lower-Income Households Hit Hardest by Housing Costs

A recent OECD report on affordable housing emphasises that housing costs can impose a significant financial burden on households, especially those with lower incomes.

49% Private tenants spend over 40% of income on rent

In 2022, nearly half of the low-income private tenants in the UK (49%) spent more than 40% of their income on rent, followed by 32% in France and 28% in Italy.

These figures underscore the severe impact of rising housing costs on Europe's most economically vulnerable populations.

Southport Riot Convictions: Sentencing and Implications for convicted Tenants

In a significant development, 4 men involved in the recent riots in Southport have been sentenced in court, highlighting the severe repercussions of participating in such violent disturbances. These individuals, whose identities are now public, face not only legal consequences but also potential eviction from their homes under specific housing regulations.

The Southport riots, which erupted following the stabbing of 3 young children, led to widespread chaos and damage. Sir Kier Starmer vowed to bring those who committed this atrocity to justice and he has done just take. The court has handed down sentences to 4 men found guilty of participating in these events. The convictions underscore the seriousness with which the judicial system treats riot-related offences, sending a clear message that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Justice minister Heidi Alexander said courts would sit through the night to ensure justice is quickly dispensed.

Riots and the Path to Eviction

For those convicted of indictable offences during a riot, there are additional repercussions beyond their legal sentences.  Tenant convicted of an indictable offence that took place during and at the scene of a riot can face eviction with just two weeks' notice. This provision empowers landlords to take swift action to remove tenants who have engaged in criminal activities that jeopardise the safety and stability of the community.

The recent convictions put the convicted individuals at risk of losing their homes with as little as 2 weeks notice. Landlords are advised to be vigilant in monitoring their properties and the behaviour of their tenants.

By doing so, they can ensure that those involved in criminal activities, particularly riots, are identified and dealt with appropriately.

Eviction under Section 8 Ground 14za serves as a deterrent and a measure to protect other residents and maintain order.

Landlords must remain proactive in managing their properties and the conduct of their tenants. In light of the Southport riot convictions, it is crucial for landlords to:

1. Stay Informed: Keep abreast of local news and court rulings to identify tenants who may be involved in criminal activities.

2. Communicate with Authorities: Maintain open lines of communication with local law enforcement and judicial bodies to receive updates on ongoing investigations and convictions.

3. Implement Due Diligence: Regularly review tenant conduct and take immediate action if there is evidence of involvement in criminal behaviour, especially riot-related activities.

4. Follow Legal Procedures: Ensure that any eviction processes comply with the legal requirements under Section 8 Ground 14za, providing the necessary notices and documentation to support the action.

The recent court sentences for the Southport riots serve as a stark reminder of the far-reaching consequences of participating in such events. For tenants, a conviction can lead not only to legal penalties but also to the loss of their homes under specific eviction grounds.

Private Renting tenants not in fear of eviction at all

With a new government only 27 days in power and the uncertainty of what a new Renters Rights Bill will hold for the Private Rented Sector (PRS), the latest English Housing Survey has been a little overlooked since its publication on 18th July.

The collective narrative from tenant activist groups such as Acorn, Shelter, and Generation Rent, lead us and the Government to believe that all tenants in the private sector are living in fear of eviction. 

Rarely do these organisations provide evidence to back up their claims, instead opting for orchestrated stats manipulated from promoted surveys of their own audience.

The English Housing Survey, on the other hand, has no hidden agenda and surveys the Nation. 

The latest stats show the PRS is actually more stable than the activists would have you believe. 

In the last 3 years, only 9% of tenants in the PRS were evicted. Of these, 67% were evicted because the landlord wanted to sell or use the property in another way. 

37% of tenants who were evicted were issued a Section 21, with only 2% saying this was due to the landlord increasing rent that they refused or were unable to pay. Moreover, 78% of the tenants surveyed said they currently felt safe from eviction, and 75% said their current private rented property felt like home.

This data doesn’t really support the narrative being claimed that tenants are living in fear of a ticking time-bomb of impending homelessness. But the media, of course, are not always interested in the good news stories, as that doesn’t have the same impact as dramatic headlines such as “Greedy landlords leaving single parents homeless” or “Tenants in fear of losing their home.”

Facts matter. Just because the anti-landlord activists shout the loudest doesn’t mean they are right. 

The English Housing Survey provides a more balanced and accurate portrayal of the PRS, showing that many tenants feel secure and at home in their rented properties. 

As the government considers new policies for the PRS, it is crucial that they base their decisions on comprehensive data rather than selective statistics promoted by activist groups. 

The real narrative, supported by the latest survey, reveals a sector that is far more stable and secure than it is often portrayed.

Landlords Seek to Restrict Lodgers Working from Home

In a recent development within the housing sector, landlords are increasingly attempting to restrict lodgers from working from home. This move has sparked controversy and raised questions about the rights and limitations placed on different types of occupants within a property.

An article in the Independent Worrying trend of landlords banning tenants from working from home | The Independent has raised some eyebrows in the industry, the article lacks clarity and leaves the reader believing this trend is suffocating the rights of tenants.

The property advert that is under discussion actually relates to a live-in landlord, this set up is very different to that of a tenant who rents a dwelling separately from that of the property owner.

Lodgers vs. Tenants: Understanding the Distinction

It is crucial to distinguish between lodgers and tenants when discussing this issue. Lodgers, who typically rent a room within a landlord's primary residence and share common areas, do not have the same legal protections as tenants. Unlike lodgers, tenants have exclusive possession of a property and are covered by more extensive legal rights, including the right to work from home.

Lodgers’ Limited Rights

Landlords argue that allowing lodgers to work from home can lead to several issues, including increased utility costs and wear and tear on the property. Additionally, landlords express concerns about the potential for lodgers to blur the lines between living space and workspace, possibly transforming residential areas into business environments.

Given the nature of a lodger's agreement, landlords often retain greater control over the terms of occupation. This allows them to set specific rules and conditions, including prohibitions on working from home. The legal framework supporting these restrictions on lodgers is generally upheld, as lodgers are not afforded the same statutory protections as tenants.

Tenants’ Right to Work from Home

In contrast, tenants, who have a more formal and legally binding rental agreement, possess the right to work from home. However, this right does not extend to running a business from the property without the landlord's consent. Landlords can seek to exclude a tenant’s right to work from home within the terms of the lease, but they must tread carefully to avoid breaching the law.

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015

A key piece of legislation relevant to this issue is the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. This Act stipulates that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to work from home, subject to several exclusions. This provision was introduced to support the growing trend of flexible working arrangements and the increasing number of people working from home.

Balancing Interests

The tension between landlords and lodgers highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers the rights and responsibilities of both parties. For landlords, clear communication and well-drafted agreements are essential to prevent misunderstandings and conflicts. Lodgers, on the other hand, should be fully aware of the terms of their occupancy and the limitations it entails.

As the nature of work continues to evolve, with remote working becoming more commonplace, the housing sector must adapt to these changes. Ensuring that both landlords and lodgers are informed of their rights and obligations will be key to maintaining harmonious living arrangements and addressing the challenges posed by the modern working environment.

Equally tenants must be aware that working from home and running a business are separate undertakings. If the tenant is to receive and service clients at the property or take delivery of stock to be sold from and stored at the premises, then this could cross the line into making the residential dwelling into one that is classed as commercial.

Judge rules early termination fees unlawful

 It is common for landlords and/or their agents to charge a tenant the cost of terminating a tenancy early when no break clause is available, but agents and landlords need to be careful what they charge the tenant for.

In a First Tier Tribunal case earlier this month (June 2024) the judge ruled that the early termination fees being charged to the tenant were actually unlawful according to the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Here property expert Julie Ford explores the case in more detail.

A 24 month assured shorthold tenancy was entered into on 3^rd July 2023 there was a 12 month break clause, however, the tenants circumstances changed and they needed to break the tenancy in November 2023 just 4 months later, the landlord agreed but explained the tenants would need to abide by the agent ( Winkworths) early termination policy, the tenants agreed.

This is where it starts to unravel for the landlord and agent, now under Schedule 1  s7 of Tenant Fees Act 2019 landlords are permitted to charge early termination fees, which are capped at £50, but these need to be the reasonable costs they also cannot exceed the loss suffered by the landlord as a result of the termination of the tenancy as the amount of the excess is a prohibited payment.

The property was put on the market and re-let within 2 days, albeit at a lower rent of £2,600, £200pcm less than the exiting tenants were paying.

So what did the agents termination policy expect the tenant to pay

·       Rent and bills up to the date a new tenant moved in

·       £1,325.02- This was the difference in rent from the £2,800 the tenants were paying to the £2,600 of the agreed new rent, for the remaining 7 month sup to the ASTS natural break clauses.

·       £1802.60 – 7 months management fees for the agent

The first of this list, rent & bills is totally acceptable, it is reasonable to expect a tenant to continue to pay the rent and bills until the day before a new tenant moves in these costs are not in question

The charge for the difference in rent and the agents management fees however, do breach the Tenants Fees act Sch 1 S7. The judge went on to say

“The tribunal finds the applicants are not liable for the loss to the landlord for the lower rent charged to the new incoming tenants. Having accepted and early termination of the tenancy, the landlord is liable to mitigate his losses. The applicants cannot be held responsible for the alleged changes in the letting market”

The judge ruled that the tenants cannot be charge the agents managements fees, stating

“The tribunal finds the landlords loss of letting fees is essentially a ‘double recovery’ as the payment of those fees could reasonably be transferred to the new letting of the premises and do not represent a genuine loss. Therefore, the tribunal finds the fees of £1802.06 forms a prohibited payment and are to be returned to the applicants”

The tenants in this case did agree that the agent/landlord was owed some money for the additional work, but their argument was that the fees put to them in this case were excessive and fell outside the Tenant Fees act and the realm of permitted payments

The total to be refunded to the tenants was £2252.06

Similar cases have been ruled on at Tribunal in recent years for early termination payments.

October 2023 Watfi v  El Hady full £1,178.00 refunded to tenant

October 2022 Stainer v S B Lets Limited, partial refund of £957

September 2022 Watkins v Hogg Check out and Check in fees refunded to tenant

August 2022 Hayes v Rawlins Refund to tenant £111, landlord awarded £50 re-let costs

Brennan v Ludlow Thompsom £343.54 refunded to tenant, agent awarded £50

Its important to remember that the Tenant Fees Act 2019 sets an upper limit on charges of £50 for early termination, only if a landlord or agent can clearly show that their reasonable costs were higher than this would it avoid being a prohibited payment

It is also wise to remember that even it a tenant agrees and pays these fees, they can appeal to the tribunal after the fact and still get a refund as happened in the cases above.

Agents nor landlord can financially benefit from a tenants need to terminate a tenancy early and a landlord is expected to do everything they can to mitigate their losses.

 

140% increase in tenancy application fraud

 As if landlords and agents didnt have enough to worry about, recent data has shown a significant increase in rental market competition is driving a rise in tenancy application fraud.

An analysis by tenant referencing firm Goodlord revealed a 140% increase in tenancy application fraud between 2022 and 2023.

The most common method involves manipulating payslips, either by inflating income or altering the source entirely.

Goodlord analysed over 300,000 applications from each year, showing an increase from 1.2 cases of fraud per 1,000 applications in 2022 to 2.9 cases per 1,000 in 2023.

Nishma Parekh, Goodlord’s head of referencing, stated, "Fraud can take many forms. Some tenants, desperate to secure a property, believe inflating their salary will help.

Given the current pressures on the housing market, it's understandable why we're seeing a rise in this type of fraud."

She added, "However, this approach is inadvisable as it could lead to being listed in the National Fraud Database, impacting future job prospects and other significant life events like securing loans."

The increase in digitalisation also brings new challenges, with criminals using increasingly sophisticated methods, including fake IDs and forged documents to rent a home.

To combat this growing threat, Goodlord advocates for robust referencing practices.

The firm advises landlords and agents to utilise technology such as Open Banking and AI-powered solutions to detect inconsistencies and prevent fraud attempts.

Investing in skilled referencing teams trained to identify red flags in tenant applications is also crucial.

This highlights the  "darker side" to tenant fraud, with criminals using false IDs to secure properties or applicants submitting forged documents.

As the tools for committing fraud become more sophisticated and personal information is increasingly digitised, it's vital that landlords and agents have access to cutting-edge technology designed to combat fraud, ensuring they can let their properties in good faith."

Collaborations with entities like HMRC, payroll providers, and the fraud database, along with Open Banking, enable experts to tackle tenant fraud, making it difficult for fraudsters to exploit the system.

It is more important than ever for landlords and agents to ensure comprehensive referencing is carried out and not to cut costs or corners with minimal checks in the haste to minimise voids and limit short term losses.

These short coming could adult lead to a very costly ending