In late November 2009 Jim Knight MP held a public meeting in Weymouth with the primary objective of finding ways to solve the borough`s House of Multiple Occupancy problems (and associated anti-social behaviour) that were deemed serious and out of control by many residents who lived in close proximity to such establishments. There had also been considerable concern that Weymouth & Portland Borough Council, despite their statutory obligations and powers (2004 Housing Act), had been doing their utmost to avoid their responsibilities thus contributing to the escalating problem that had been blighting the lives of many people.


At this large gathering we handed out leaflets to all attending (which, in addition to all the disgruntled members of the public, also included members of the police, representatives from the Council, and several landlords etc). Below is a copy of this tract:

HMO Anti-social Tenants, their Landlord, and the Council: Experiences of M and G B

Mr XXX owns an HMO next door to us in H Road, as well as one in L Street. Both are notorious for the anti-social behaviour of many of the tenants, and as well as for Mr XXX`s poor management and a manner familiar to those who have complained to him. He has been licensed by the Council for both HMOs despite all the complaints. Arguably, by proxy, he personally has been inflicting anti-social behaviour/intimidation on us.

Listed are just some of the problems we`ve endured for 15 months as a result of anti-social tenant behaviour from the HMO next door. As a result of naturally attempting to significantly reduce these problems, we have faced further problems (a few are listed) caused both by appalling management of the HMO, and also by the Council which has conducted itself negligently and contemptuously. 

We have had to contend with: littering (front and back) which includes an intravenous drug addict`s injecting paraphernalia; damage to our rear, low pitched roof caused by hard objects being thrown at it; urine thrown from a top floor rear window (hitting us in our garden), and poured into the guttering and contaminating our drainage system and open drain; vandalism to our car including tyres being spiked; threats of violence; thudding music so bad it was almost deafening in every room of our property and caused the radiators to vibrate loudly; frequent door-slams very audible on all three floors of our property; clattering and banging against the partition wall; obscene and intimidating verbal abuse shouted from inside and outside; a carrier bag of faeces thrown at our property; people shouting and partying late at night, sometimes (including week days) until 04:00hrs; dogs from next door defecating on our driveway; various objects thrown at our property front and rear; broken glass, amongst other things, thrown into our garden from the HMO garden; sharp objects placed beneath our front door step, presumably intended to injure our dog.

TB, the then Environmental Chief correctly stated (2004 Housing Act) in a letter to us letter dated 16/12/`08 (with reference to Mr XXX in the process of being licensed for his H Road HMO) that “one of the general conditions that will be applied to the licence is the `good management of the property` which will I hope, help resolve any future issues (anti-social tenant behaviour) should they occur”.  Unfortunately Mr XXX`s management has fallen well short of this. Mr XXX stubbornly refused to evict one anti-social tenant, JV, who, amongst other things, played music extremely loudly and regularly threatened us with severe violence (he also shoved, threatened and intimidated vulnerable residents of a care home). Mr XXX stated that he was unconcerned about this and how we were affected, and would only evict this tenant should he fail to pay his rent (Housing Benefit) on time.  For many months all our complaints against the landlord were ignored by the council, thus ignoring their own licensing criteria, and also flagrantly neglecting statutory obligations. Tenant JV left the HMO only because he was arrested by the police for harassing us. He was eventually bailed on strict conditions, and eventually admitted to all the charges in Court. 

One Environmental Health officer, SH, kept reminding us that he would disregard all complaints against the landlord. Eg on one such occasion (audio recorded) he stated, “So.... each time you bring Mr (XXX) into... the equation.....I will remove Mr (XXX) from that equation.”   

The council have attempted to either ignore, or narrow our complaints to make the procedures as difficult and as ineffective for us as possible. They`ve been evasive, and always looking “to close the case down” prematurely. With each hasty attempt at case-closure we were warned that we would have to go through a very lengthy procedure all over again to initiate a new (often actually the same) case. SH also attempted to trivialise our problems with tenant  JV, thus removing or limiting council responsibility, by claiming it was nothing more than a neighbour dispute. Further, he tried repeatedly to dissuade us from making our very valid complaints by inferring that it was us, and not the anti-social tenants, who were at fault for complaining. On one such occasion (audio recorded) he stated, “...and let them (the anti-social HMO tenants) get on, do their own thing. Whatever they want. They`ve got their rights to live their life. Okay?...”. He later added, “let them get on with their lives”, and continued in this manner ad nauseam.

In January `09 TB suggested that we should use Section 82 of the Environment Act to deal with individual nuisance tenants through the Magistrates` Court. He duly sent us details in the post. Not only was this an attempt to remove the Council`s responsibility for dealing with the tenants and their landlord, but also it would have been very financially expensive for us (with almost no hope of recovering costs), and possibly continued with one case after another indefinitely. Further, to use this procedure, we would have had to submit the full names of any individuals concerned to the Court. Curiously, when we recently asked the Council for the names of some tenants who had been a long-term nuisance, they declined to provide them –making even more of a mockery of TB`s suggestion.   

After witnessing loud music that disturbed him at night, a guest staying with us, MW, wrote to the council to complain after learning, to his astonishment, that we had been making little progress with the council. The Council responded by inviting MW to `phone them to further discuss the complaint. MW accepted this offer a few weeks later (without our knowledge), and subsequently `phoned us about the experience. SH had not only made it obvious that he was highly disinterested in hearing what he had to say, but when MW tried to persevere, SH asked him if someone had put him up to making the call. 

Another Environmental Health officer, JL, stated to Mr B on three separate occasions on the day of a group meeting with Rt. Hon. Jim Knight MP (a campaign to try to reduce HMO tenant anti-social behaviour by improving HMO management) that there was absolutely nothing that could be done by the Council to enforce better landlord management of their HMOs with respect to effectively dealing with anti-social behaviour. This was palpable nonsense, as the 2004 Housing Act provides plenty of measures councils can employ to enforce better HMO management accordingly. Astonishingly, even after various documents had been read out in the meeting, and handed to Jim Knight describing the use of such powers by other councils, JL reiterated her nonsensical claim straight after this meeting, adding that their legal team should know.

On 12/06/`09 after much campaigning pressure, intervention from Jim Knight and others (most notably Dave Burchill), the Council finally agreed to add extra conditions to Mr XXX`s H Road licence. This was for the purpose of ensuring that he dealt more robustly with any anti-social tenants. This was subsequently confirmed in writing, as was the fact that the whole process should take no more than three months, and that by law Mr XXX is unable to decline this licence variation.  It is now over four months later and these conditions have still not been added to Mr XXX`s licence. And guess what? The council are continuing to negotiate licence variations with Mr XXX that are mutually agreeable with him. Never mind us, they are pandering to Mr XXX!

We have refrained in this tract from disclosing details of all but one conversation with Mr XXX. Although the value of this appears to be very limited, we have repeatedly informed the council of his conduct. More pertinently, perhaps, our solicitor has been fully briefed. As for the council, when challenged about their policies and conduct, they have far too frequently reacted in ways symptomatic of very poor authority. These include avoiding disclosing information helpful to our cause, closing ranks, making sarcastic and provocative remarks (even the Chief executive agreed with us on one occasion), and generally heaping more contempt upon us. It has only been the police (PC Mike Green and colleagues), Jim Knight, Dave Burchill, Joy Stanley, and a handful of residents who have offered us genuine and much appreciated support.

On 24/09/`09 we submitted a 20 page complaints letter to the Council with additional documentary evidence. To date we have only received an acknowledgement of receipt.

We say that Mr XXX is not `fit and proper` to hold an HMO licence, that this Council is not fit for purpose of licensing HMOs, and that some of it`s staff are not fit for office. The Council, like Mr XXX, appear to be suffering from the same delusion that they are untouchable. En masse, we can not only support one another, but also bring about change. This council must change, and some staff need to be swept away and replaced by recruits with more competence and integrity. Bad landlords must also be evicted from the system, in the same way as their anti-social tenants need to be either evicted or firmly taught that bad behaviour will not be tolerated. Thank you for reading this.                                                                                                                 23/10/`09

A few days after the meeting I (MB) received an email from Mr Ian Bruce who, as far as we know did not attend the meeting but presumably was subsequently shown our leaflet. Ian Bruce is a senior figure in the Weymouth and Portland Landlords Association, and consequently has a significant input in discussions with the Council concerning HMO issues. He was formerly the member of Parliament for Dorset South between `87 and 2001, and his wife, Hazel, is a councillor at W&PBC. She currently sits on four committees: Policy Development, Licensing (Vice Chair), Appeals (Vice Chair), and Standards. The email, dated 26/11/2009 states:

Dear Mr B

I have been asked by the Weymouth & Portlands Landlords Association to look into problems reported by residents who live next door to HMOs. David Burchill referred two properties to me including XXXXXXX Road.

Before reporting back to W&PLA I would be very grateful for your comments about the issues you raised in your letter handed out to people at Jim Knight`s recent meeting. In your letter you catalogue a series of events which you said resulted in "JV" being arrested, bailed and admitting to all the charges in court. I have been unable to find any record of the court proceedings and a number of people have said that your claim is inaccurate and that a case which was brought by the police on your behalf was abandoned. I would be grateful for your comments about this. 

I do appreciate that you in dispute with a number of people about the facts surrounding your case and understand that you are referring the matter to the Ombudsman. However can I reassure you that the W&PLA are keen to work on practical solutions to difficult problems but we do need to establish the full facts so our help can be properly directed.

Please either drop me back an e-mail or feel free to `phone me. I am off to spend Christmas XXXXX soon and be grateful for your response as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Ian

(In the above email I have made the alterations: converting to initials, use of XXX, bolder type, and underlining. Otherwise the email is represented verbatim.) 

Given that the landlords were overtly opposed to the proposed tightening up of new HMO licence conditions plus proposed legislation we were sceptical. This is because the proposed changes would, amongst other improvements, ensure that landlords would be (inconveniently!) forced to deal more effectively with anti-social tenants whose unfettered behaviour caused much suffering to neighbours while the landlords raked in the money (mostly courtesy of Housing Benefits/the tax payer). Hence we had our doubts about the sincerity of this offer of help. The reference to us being "in dispute with a number of people about the facts surrounding" our case was also a little odd, and masked the fact that we were essentially unhappy with the Council`s handling of our case and failure to enforce licence conditions  which was why our complaint had gone to the Local Government Ombudsman. Most alarming was the assertion that our claim about the ex tenant from next door, JV, was grossly inaccurate. Asking us to summarily account for this was also taking a tone we did not appreciate. We had been (and have continued to do so) encountered a great deal of dishonesty here from persons in a position of influence and authority regarding our problems with the HMO next door. We, however, apalled by the lack of integrity we have consistently encountered by parties of whom we have been justifiably critical, always prefer the policy of honesty as a general philosophy. We have doggedly  stuck to telling the truth.

Despite our many misgivings about Mr Bruce`s email, we naturally had to give him the benefit of the doubt - and after all we didn`t know him. Of most concern, and certainly something that needed to be addressed and rectified, was the extraordinary claim that we had not told the truth about JV. Consequently I telephoned Mr Bruce on the number he had provided, pointing out that we hadn`t done any misinforming whilst it was he who had been misinformed. Of course, correcting Mr Bruce`s understanding of the truth was straightforward since we could not only provide him with the court case number, but also confirmation of the outcome from the CPS. Naturally I next asked Mr Bruce for the identity of these people were who had apparently told him that the case against JV had been abandoned, and that we had given incorrect information on this matter. He instantly named the landlord of the HMO next door, Mr N, as one. While we did not, of course, witness this conversation, we cannot therefore confirm the veracity of what Mr Bruce claimed Mr N said. However, in keeping with our experiences of Mr N we were not at all surprised. I pressed Mr Bruce further, pointing out that he had stated in his email that "a number of people" had said our claim was inaccurate etc. Initially Mr Bruce seemed reticent about divulging any further identities. Concerned, however that Mr N might also have misled the Council on this matter, I asked if any Council officers/staff were the others. He acknowledged that they were.

After this conversation I wrote to the Council and told them about my correspondence with Mr Bruce. I not only pointed out that they should have serious concerns about a landlord who deliberately misinforms others about his tenant`s court case, but asked whether Mr N had also misinformed Council staff. Further I added that should this be the case, then the Council needed to know the truth and have this logged in their records. Again I provided all the relevant CPS information/reference numbers etc. Subsequently I received a response from the Council which  confirmed that its staff were unaware of the court case outcome and thus hadn`t given Mr Bruce this wrong information. The Council also added that they would contact the police  to ensure their records on the court case were correct.

On 02/02/`10 I received a second email from Mr Bruce. It reads as follows:

Dear Mr B

Council Officers had no involvement in suggesting that the facts regarding the court case were wrong they did not speak to me at all about that matter. The only information I had from Council Officers was that they confirmed they had had complaints about the addresses of a number of HMOs which David Burchill had passed on to me and that they were doing their best to resolve those complaints. They were not able to give me any details as they were restricted by issues of data protection. As you may recall I was seeking to find out what, if anything the Landlords Association could be doing to help resolve these problems.

I told you clearly the denial of your version of events came from Mr N. Further Mr N on being challenged after you kindly gave me further and better particulars more or less confirmed to me that your original version was correct. He further informed me that a few days after the court case where Mr V had been bound over, that Mr V left his property.

Why you should now be wishing to claim that Council Officers told me about Mr N claim is beyond me.

I am afraid I have no further wish to be involved with your case and this correspondence is now closed.

Regards

Ian

So now Mr Bruce is stating that only one person had given him an incorrect version of the JV case, specifically landlord Mr N (and apparently Mr N now had little option but to admit to the truth when challenged!). Mr Bruce must have overlooked the fact that in his original email he referred to "a number of people". This, of course, is a plural form of person and means more than one. "Have" is the 3rd person plural form of the verb. Quite why Mr Bruce should find it "beyond" him why I had claimed that he had said Council staff had also given him the incorrect claim is, in fact, beyond me - since that is precisely what Mr Bruce did say to me over the `phone when I asked him if they had. Mr Bruce`s tone and final sentence is rather enlightening - it somewhat confirms our original scepticism about the motives behind his involvement. Perhaps Mr Bruce exaggerated (from one person to a number of people) in his first email. If so then maybe this only led to him getting himself into a tangle, and stating things that were worse than exaggeration when put on the spot. This does not excuse the subsequent hubris and (classic get-out ruse!) attempt to take the higher moral ground having been found out. Little more needs to be said. One only has to read both emails to reach various conclusions with a degree of confidence.

As a postscript, it should be noted that this episode took an even stranger and possibly yet murkier turn when my wife and I had a meeting at the Council offices with the then Chief Executive, Tom Grainger, and Kate Hindson at the end of January 2010. During this session Kate Hindson revealed that either Michelle Tett or another Environmental Health Colleague had spoken with Mr Bruce about the JV case around the time of the Jim Knight MP public meeting where our tracts were disseminated. However she wasn`t able to confirm whether the nonsensical version of the case (that it had been dropped by the police etc) had been discussed. According to Ms Hindson, Ms Tett had stated that she didn`t have any information about it. This, semantically, is rather different from Mr Bruce`s claim that "they did not speak to (him) at all about the matter". Further Ms Hindson stated (and she repeated this when, astonished, we asked her to) that Mr Bruce had denied to her that he had told me that Mr N had given him the incorrect version of the JV case. So here`s yet another bizarre contradiction. Is the entire HMO-related community psychotic? Are these people all flitting in and out of parallel universes? Indeed it does all become stranger and murkier - as has been typical of our experiences of all those who had vested interests in not wanting to take - or have action taken - against problem (or even potentially problematic) HMOs and their landlords.