Kenilworth landlord left with bill of nearly £9,000 after illegally evicting her tenant during Covid-19 pandemic

A landlord from Kenilworth has been left with a bill of nearly £9,000 after she illegally evicted her tenant during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Dr Amy Eskander, owner of an apartment in Kenilworth, was sentenced at Wolverhampton Crown Court after she had previously been found guilty of illegal eviction by a jury at Warwick Crown Court back in August 2022.

She has been ordered to pay a fine of £2,000, a compensation award of £3,600 to the tenant, costs of £3,000 to Warwick District Council and a victim surcharge of £190, making a total of £8,790.

Recorder Brand KC said Eskander "displayed an arrogance" when dealing with the council and she left her tenant with no heating or hot water.

Eskander rented a bedroom out in the two-bedroom flat between February 2019 and September 2020 and kept a locked bedroom in the apartment for herself.

The tenant was asked in June 2020 for a rent increase, and when he said he was unable to afford it, Eskander told him he had to leave and sent him a text message telling him he had to vacate by August 12.

The tenant continued to live at the apartment and pay his rent and on September 18 2020 while he was at work, he received a text from Dr Eskander to confirm that she had changed the locks and removed his possessions from the apartment. The tenant alerted

the Private Sector Housing team at Warwick District Council, who had already issued a warning letter to Dr Eskander advising her that she needed to obtain a Possession Order from the county court if she wanted to evict her tenant.

Shortly before the eviction, the Private Sector Housing team had served an Improvement Notice on Dr Eskander to repair a defective gas boiler and provide a Gas Safety Certificate. No certificate was provided, and the boiler was eventually renewed after the

tenant had been evicted.

The matter was brought before Magistrates in 2021 when Dr Eskander elected to have the case heard in the crown court. Dr Eskander was convicted with a unanimous jury verdict under Section 1 Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Eskander had tried to argue that she shared the flat in Kenilworth with her tenant as her principal or only home and therefore he should not be afforded legal protection from eviction. However, the court heard evidence that Dr Eskander had signed an assured shorthold tenancy at a premises in London and had provided evidence in official documents that her home was in London and later in Plymouth.

When passing sentence, Recorder Brand KC made the following comments: “Dr Eskander, I am quite satisfied that the relationship between you and (the tenant) had been entirely amicable before you asked him for more rent, and when he didn’t agree you were peeved and annoyed. The irony is that if you had given him a reasonable time, it seemed he was the type of personality who would have packed up and left of his own accord.

“You gave him two weeks and that prompted him to contact the council. What followed is that the council warned you of their understanding of his legal position, in clear terms they told you in writing that his occupation was protected. They advised you that you should serve a notice and if he declined to leave you should seek a court order. They warned you in clear terms in writing if you didn’t comply you would be committing an offence.

“In your correspondence with the council, you displayed an arrogance which was unattractive. In his last few weeks (the tenant) had no heating or hot water, and while you did not cause this you did little to help it. You ejected (the tenant) from his rented home on a Friday evening because you felt you were entitled to have your way. I have suspicions that your text that Friday at 16.20 was deliberately timed to align with closure of council offices.

“It is an aggravating factor that you evicted (the tenant) in the midst of the Covid pandemic. You kept his deposit and the rent he had paid in advance, which he was entitled to. You had a trial which of course you are entitled to but the consequences are that (the tenant) had to give evidence, during which his credibility was challenged.

“During that trial you repeatedly lied and made false accusations that (the tenant) had been threatening towards you. I have seen little or no sign of genuine remorse from you.”

Jan Matecki, portfolio holder for housing services said: “This case demonstrates that the Council will not tolerate landlords who evict tenants without following the legal process of serving notice and applying for a Possession Order.

“This eviction took place in the Covid pandemic when the Government had introduced a ban on evictions taking place. The fact that this action was taken by an NHS doctor makes this case particularly shocking.

“When letting, landlords cannot keep a locked bedroom for themselves, live elsewhere and then claim to be ‘sharing accommodation with their lodger.’ I hope this case sends out a strong message to landlords who may be tempted to do the same.

“It is reassuring to see that the tenant who was the victim of this offence has been awarded £3600 in compensation for the loss of deposit as well as the stress and disruption caused following the eviction.”