The rules will apply from 23 August 2020 until 28 March 2021.

We will go over some of the main changes that will impact you as a private landlord if you are seeking to evict tenants.

If You Have An Ongoing Eviction Case

If you have an ongoing case that has been stayed due to the temporary ban on evictions, you are likely to need to issue a “reactivation notice” to the court and the defendant. If you do not do this, the case will remain dormant.

This may not apply if the case was “brought on or after 3 August 2020 or in which a final order for possession has been made”.

Coronavirus Impact Statement

Where you are evicting someone for not paying their rent, you will now need to include a statement setting out any knowledge you have about “the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the Defendant and their dependants”.

Updated Rent Account

The “reactivation notice” must contain an “updated rent account for the previous two years”. This means you will need to provide the rent history beforehand, rather than at court.

The Courts Don’t Have To Hear Your Case Within 8 Weeks

Normally the date from the issue of the claim form until a hearing should not be more than 8 weeks. However, this requirement has been lifted due to the expected backlog of cases.

High Court Eviction Notice Period

High Court bailiffs will now have to give notice to the tenant of an eviction in the same manner as County Court bailiffs already have to do. This comes in separately from the other provisions and is not a temporary measure.

Priority Cases

The purpose of the new rules is to limit the number of eviction cases coming before the courts. According to Compliance Officer for The Guild of Property Professionals, Paul Offley:

…the Government is eager to only have cases that are a priority go through the courts if possible. Priority cases have been defined as those that include anti-social behaviour, extreme rent arrears, domestic abuse, cases involving squatters, fraud or unlawful subletting….If a case does not fall into the category of being a priority, the Government is encouraging parties to use an independent third-party mediator to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement to resolve their dispute, rather than going to court.

New rules for possession proceedings

Further Reading

You can find full details about the changes on the Judiciary website: Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) (Coronavirus) Rules 2020 & the 123rd Practice Direction Update and Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2020 & the 122^nd Practice Direction Update.

Conclusion

It is likely to be more difficult to evict tenants even after the ban is lifted in August. The new rules coupled with extremely busy courts means bad news for landlords with tenant troubles. The courts are going to prioritise the worst cases and expect landlords to try to resolve issues with renters wherever possible.

If you are impacted by the new rules in anyway, you should speak to a legal professional immediately.

The BBC is meant to be an unbiased commentator which acts solely in the public interest. However, there are a number of financial incentives which I believe may bias it against new independent entrepreneurs and small individual property investors. I will lay out my case and leave you to be the judge.

What Control Does The Government Have Over The BBC?

The Chairman of the BBC Board is appointed by the Queen under the advice of Ministers. As Britain is a constitutional Monarchy this means that the advice of Ministers is always taken by the Queen. Essentially Ministers of the Government select this person. The BBC Board then select the Director-General of the BBC who is “responsible for the creative, editorial and operational leadership” of the broadcaster.

Furthermore, the BBC is paid for via the TV licence fee and the Government have the power to propose legislation to remove this source of funding should they choose to do so.

Of course, this arrangement does not lead to a potential for bias in favour of the political party in power, as they could be replaced by the opposition, therefore it would not be in the interest of the BBC to lean entirely in one direction or the other. What does make sense however is for the BBC to have a bias – conscious or otherwise – in favour of the interests that back both main political parties.

Following The Money In Politics

As generally speaking, the Government is either controlled by Labour or The Conservatives, we will focus on these two parties.

The Labour Party receives many of its largest donations from trade unions. In Q1 of 2020, for example, it received £401,875 from Unite the Union, £291,575 from UNISON and £290,125 from GMB. Unions represent the interests of workers, not business owners and may have a negative view of landlords. Unite the Union, for example, is in favour of rent controls which would set limits on the amount that can be charged by landlords.

The Conservative Party’s big donors tend to be rich individuals and large companies. Donations in Q1 of 2020 include £250,000 from a former banker and head of an online trading company, £200,000 from a Russian government-linked businesswoman and £125,000 from a construction machinery company, Unatrac Limited.

Although it may seem at first glance that the Labour Party might be seen to be biased in favour of workers, and the Conservatives might be considered to have a bias in favour of big business, we need to consider the incomes of outgoing prime ministers.

Following Ex-Prime Ministers’ Money

When a Prime Minister leaves office, they will look for work in the private sector. It, therefore, makes sense for a PM to pay heed to the recommendations of big business when they are in power to build up such relationships.

Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken a number of roles after leaving office including appointments with JPMorgan Chase, earning £2 million “in his part-time role as adviser….without ever having to go into the office” according to the Telegraph, and a role with Zurich Financial Services. He has also spoken at corporate events including being paid £182,000 for a 30 minutes speech. Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown took an advisory role at PIMCO, the world’s biggest asset manager (although his fee went to the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown to support his charitable and public service work rather than to him directly).

Former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has received a number of appointments in the private sector including with life sciences company Illumina Inc and consultancy for First Data Corporation. Former Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May has received a number of speaking fees including £100,000 from bank UBS Switzerland.

This means that the leadership of both major parties have a financial reason to support big business, regardless of their public political positions.

What BBC Bias Could This Lead To?

As we have seen the BBC is indirectly influenced by the government. The government is invariably run by parties that are either backed by big business or the unions.

Big business has a financial interest in preventing competition from smaller firms so parties backed by them are likely to support legislation which favours larger enterprise over smaller businesses.

The Unions represent the interests of workers rather than business owners and investors and therefore parties backed by them are more likely to be biased against business more generally. However, the politicians that lead these parties also have a personal interest in listening to big business and therefore may turn their attention to smaller players.

This means the pressure from both sides is for the BBC to be biased against small business owners and property investors, particularly ones that are not seeking the backing of major corporations.

If my hypothesis is correct, this would mean the BBC would be more likely to run programming that is biased against wealth creation education, small entrepreneurs that are not seeking funding from large enterprise and individual landlords. Where property and starting a business is mentioned, little instructional information would be provided and conventional paths would be advocated for. The BBC would also be more likely to back more traditional career paths and university education.

I will leave you to judge if you think my hypothesis is correct and if this is reflective of BBC programming or not. Either way, every business and organisation has the potential for bias in favour of its backers and its own products/services. This is not a problem. The problem only arises when you are not aware of the potential bias. Even if you disagree with my conclusions, I hope this gets you thinking about this topic more deeply.

The Case

A single disabled mother of two children aged 21 and 16 contacted a letting agent to view a property. She told the letting agent that “I work part time and receive some Housing Benefit”. The letting agent replied: “Many thanks for your enquiry regarding the above property for let. Unfortunately we do not accept housing benefit so could not proceed with a let on this basis.” The mother then brought a claim for indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Why Did The Court Rule No DSS Policies Are “Indirect Discrimination”?

The court found that women and people with disabilities are more likely to be on housing benefit. It is unlawful to indirectly discriminate against protected characteristics, in this case sex and disability.

Indirect discrimination is defined in law as:

1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s if—

(a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,

(b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,

(c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and

(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

– Section 19 of Equality Act 2010

The court looked at statistics from the housing charity Shelter showing that women and disabled people are more likely to be on housing benefit. The court said:

The policy applied to persons with whom the Claimant does not share the protected characteristics, namely men and non-disabled people, as well as women and disabled people….

The policy put persons with whom the Claimant shares the protected characteristics of sex and disability (namely women and disabled people) at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the Claimant does not share the characteristics (namely men and non-disabled people).

County Court at York

The parties in the case agreed that the policy wasn’t justified so arguments as to why this type of policy could be considered proportionate were not heard by the court. The judge ruled:

The burden is (or would be) on the Respondent to prove that the policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The parties are agreed that the policy was not justified.

County Court at York

Does This Case Set Precedent?

This case was heard in the County Court so it does not set precedent, meaning the ruling is not binding on other judges. However, if letting agents or landlords continue to have “no DSS policies” in place they will need to show the courts why they are “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Does This Mean Landlords Cannot Refuse DSS Tenants?

No. It means that landlords cannot refuse tenants on the basis that they are DSS tenants, but if a DSS applicant is refused on other “proportionate grounds” this is lawful.

That means if a DSS applicant fails referencing, for example, it is unlikely that it would be unlawful to reject the tenant on this basis. However, not accepting an application on the grounds that the prospective tenant is on housing benefit is likely to be unlawful.

If you are a landlord or letting agent that has a “no DSS” policy it may be advisable to remove those words from any advertising you have and to contact a solicitor for full legal advice regarding your policies.

So when Samuel Leeds offered me the opportunity to interview him, it seemed like a great chance to get his view on things. In this interview I will ask Samuel about his opinion on his critics, his top bit of advice, about the future of his company and much more.

Hi Samuel, thank you for agreeing to do this interview! Much appreciated. As a property investor and educator you have inspired so many people to get into property. What inspires you most about property?

The thing that inspires me most about property is that it is bricks and mortar, you can see it and touch it. I love being able to make a living whilst providing homes for people.

You have made hundreds of videos, written books and have put on countless training courses. If you could teach only one lesson to people about property what would it be and why?

If I could teach one lesson about property it would be to invest with your formulas and not your feelings. Property is a business and it is so important to know how to calculate the numbers and not get wrapped up in the emotion of the houses.

Who is your role model in business and what have you learnt from them?

I have many role models in business but one of the most influential mentors in my life was Jim Rohn. I never had the honour of meeting him before he died but have listened to thousands of hours of his seminars and talks.

Can anyone do well in property or are there personality types it is not suited to?

Anybody can do well in property if they really choose to, but the reality is that not everybody will. Becoming successful in anything takes hard work, commitment and patience.

Some people say that ‘no money down’ deals are impossible. Is this true? Can you give some examples of ‘no money down’ deals you have done?

“No Money Down” deals are deals where you personally put none of your own money into the deal. All deals require some money somewhere, but it absolutely doesn’t have to be the buyer.

An example of this would be that when I bought my castle using a combination of bridging finance and other peoples money. I myself didn’t pay a penny to purchase that castle and the profits will pay back the investors and the bridging company. Most of my property transactions have been no money down deals.

You have given out so much advice and information to people freely, there must be very little you haven’t shared before. However, is there any advice that you would like to give people that you haven’t said publicly yet?

I hold very little back when teaching what I know, namely, property investing. I rarely talk about auction properties because I fear encouraging people to bid at an auction and buying a dud property, of which there are many! The rules are very different from buying at auction so I only teach my advanced students usually. If I had to offer a piece of advice I would say make sure you pay for a survey before you bid and never resent the money spent even if you lose the bid.

Clearly, you are passionate about property and education, but if you weren’t doing that what would you do?

If I wasn’t doing property and education I would most likely work full time within the church because I love helping people and my faith is very important to me.

Recently, you have been dealing with a lot of criticism both from social media and mainstream media. You have replied to it all and explained your case. Do you think any of the criticism has been justified? What do you think motivates the criticism?

I don’t try to understand why people say the things they do or even think the way they do. My job is to deliver a top quality service to my customers, provide good accommodation to my tenants and be a good husband and dad to my family. I believe I do a good job of that.

If you could speak to one of your critics face-to-face who would it be and what would you say to them?

I would have very little to say apart from continue to let my actions speak for themselves. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and free to believe what will serve them best in their life. I am not here to convince anybody of anything, but to train those in property that want to be trained.

What are your plans for the future of your business? Anything coming up that you haven’t yet spoken about?

I am very excited about some online software and property tech that we are building. Most recently I have partnered with “Deal Sourcr” which is an app that streamlines the best property deals from the internet and calculates the return on investment automatically.

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this interview. Is there anything more you would like to add before I let you get on with your busy day?

Property is the second best investment, the best is yourself. Thanks for the great questions and thank you for your excellent contribution to the property community.

In conclusion…

I very much appreciate Samuel’s willingness to share his time and provide the community with his insights. You can find more info about Samuel Leeds on his website here.

In the future I intend to interview various people in the property industry including deal sourcers, rent to rent experts, property investors, landlords, new arrivals to the property industry and more. If you would like to be interviewed for this blog, please do get in touch with some details about yourself.

Before Samuel Leeds video was released I made the following prediction on Facebook:

“This is my pre-video prediction:

Having listened to Lord Sugar’s video carefully, he says he met Samuel Leeds at a conference.

In one video clip being shared of Samuel, he says he was at a boardroom meeting with Lord Sugar. In another clip, Samuel talks about paying for mentoring from Lord Sugar.

I predict they are talking about the same event. I would predict that Samuel paid a significant amount of money to sit at a table with Lord Sugar and talk to him about business. In modern parlance, this could be described as a mentoring session and, informally, as business advice.

For people of Lord Sugar’s generation, however, mentoring meant working alongside someone helping them over many years. Business advice to him means something very formal with agreements, reports, etc.

I believe they are both talking about the same thing from very different perspectives. That’s my prediction, we will have to see!”

One person responded saying that a single session could not be described as mentoring and that “Mentoring implies a formal, long term 121 relationship”.

However, Cambridge University says “[m]entoring can be a short-term arrangement until the original reason for the partnership is fulfilled (or ceases), or it can last many years” and a number of places offer single session mentoring including UK charity No Panic. If you do a Google search for “single session mentoring” you will see many places offering this as a service. This shows that it is possible to get mentoring in a single meeting and negates this criticism of my prediction.

Summing up my hypothesis I said on Facebook:

“I believe Lord Sugar has a more old-fashioned view of mentoring so he would not view such a session as mentoring. Samuel being a younger man, and being in the training space where so many things are described as mentoring, would view the session as mentoring.”

Samuel Leeds then published the video on YouTube. You can watch it here:

Was My Prediction Correct?

I think I was bang on! Samuel Leeds shows that he paid over £4000 to be at a business round table with Lord Sugar. He shows booking confirmations and emails from the host of the event. This shows, in modern parlance, a group mentoring session occurred. Lord Sugar probably has a more traditional interpretation of old-fashioned, long term mentorship but that isn’t Mr Leeds’ fault!

Lord Sugar should clarify that Samuel Leeds did indeed participate in a session with him where they sat down and spoke about business. Saying that they met at a conference is technically true, but gives a misleading impression about the nature of the meeting.

Either way, it is clear that Samuel Leeds was not lying. Rather Mr Leeds has an interpretation of events that was entirely reasonable. His use of language is simply different and more modern than Lord Sugar’s.

PS. You can get everything Samuel Leeds learnt from Lord Sugar at Mr Leeds’ website. Enter the code SUGAR and get it all for free!