Monthly Archives: August 2019
As Airbnb listings in London soar to 80,000, up 400% from 2015 figures, Westminster Council is cracking down on those who use the site to unlawfully sublet social housing, with over 1,500 investigations underway.
The council recovered £100,974 from Toby Harman, a social housing tenant who had been unlawfully letting his flat on Airbnb since 2013. He has also been evicted so the flat can be let to someone in genuine need.
Last year, the council recovered 24 homes from unlawful sub-letters.
Subletting social housing was made an offence in the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013. It is a crime to sublet secure or assured tenancies with local authorities or other registered social housing providers.
A tenant (with a secure or assured tenancy) commits an offence if –
- he or she sub-lets the whole, or sometimes part, of the dwelling,
- the tenant ceases to occupy the dwelling as his or her only or principal home, and
- the tenant knows he or she is acting in breach of the tenancy.
A different, more serious offence is committed if you act dishonestly.
The law says that it is a defence if the sub-letting takes place as a result of violence or threats toward certain people. A further defence may arise if the person then occupying the house is entitled to apply to the court for a right to occupy or to have the tenancy transferred.
A person convicted of one of these offences is liable to a fine and, if they act dishonestly, could face six months in prison.
They are also liable to a new type of order introduced in the Act, Unlawful Profit Orders.
The making of one of these orders is how Westminster Council were able to recover the money from Mr Harman. Under this power, the court must consider making an order that the defendant repays any profit to the landlord.
The maximum amount payable under Unlawful Profit Orders is the illicit amount received by the offender minus any rent paid to the landlord. The court may make an order for payment of any amount up to that ceiling, depending on the offender’s current means.
Unlawful profit orders can also be made in civil proceedings, where no criminal charges are brought.
Contact a crime and regulatory law solicitor
Contact crime and regulatory solicitor Martin Hadley on 0115 9599550 of you are contacted by a local authority who are investigating unlawful sub-letting. Alternatively you can use the contact form below. You will then be able to discuss any allegations of criminal conduct arising out of your use of your property with him.
We will be able to provide you with free and independent legal advice if the police are involved in any interview process, whether you are a volunteer or under arrest. This is because be have a contract with the government to provide criminal legal aid.
Martin will discuss with you your options for funding any other interviews with the local authority or court proceedings.
Contact
Monthly Archives: August 2019
We all know that the use of mobile phones is banned whilst driving.
Or are they?
The answer, according to the High Court’s recent decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Barreto, is that it depends what you’re doing with it.
What did Mr Barreto do?
Ramsey Barreto had been convicted in the Magistrates’ Court of using his mobile phone to film an accident while he was driving. The prosecution was under s41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
What do these laws say?
These provisions make it an offence to use ‘a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device.’
‘Interactive communication’ means ‘sending or receiving oral or written messages, sending or receiving facsimile documents, sending or receiving still or moving images, and providing access to the internet.’
How did Mr Barreto overturn his conviction?
Barreto appealed his conviction to the Crown Court. The Crown Court acquitted him on the basis that videoing on a phone did not come within the definition of the offence, because no interactive communication was taking place.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, appealed on that point of law to the High Court.
As the High Court pointed out, the Crown had assumed the legislation banned all mobile phone use. Mr Barreto said that was not the case.
What did the High Court say?
The High Court agreed with Mr Barreto and the Crown Court. He was allowed to go free without a stain on his character. The Court said:
“The legislation does not prohibit all use of a mobile phone held while driving. It prohibits driving while using a mobile phone or other device for calls and other interactive communication (and holding it at some stage during that process).”
Does this mean you can play Candy Crush while you’re driving?
No, probably not. The High Court made the point in their concluding paragraphs, saying:
“It should not be thought that this is a green light for people to make films as they drive. As I have already said, driving while filming events or taking photographs whether with a separate camera or with the camera on a phone, may be cogent evidence of careless driving, and possibly of dangerous driving.”
There is also a related offence (although it carries fewer penalty points) of not being in control of a motor vehicle.
Once again, road traffic law has proved to be one of the trickiest areas of criminal work – don’t leave your licence to chance, ensure you use a firm that is fully up to date with all developing legal arguments.
Contact an expert motoring law solicitor
Your driving licence is likely to be extremely important to you, whether for work, family or social purposes.
As a result, you will only want to trust the preparation of your case to a specialist in mobile phone offences and road traffic offending.
You can read the detail of a case where we successfully defended a motorist for mobile phone offences here.
You can read more about our fixed fees for defending such cases here.
You can find your nearest office here or use the contact form below.
