Demonstrators disrupted a property auction to protest against the sale of rental properties occupied by families with children.
Renters union Acorn staged the demonstration outside Liverpool Town Hall, where well-known agents and auctioneers Venmores were holding the sale.
Venmores had advertised the two properties as ideal for those looking to turn them into student house shares, increasing the amount of rent that could be brought in.
While some Acorn members protested outside the auction sale, others went to disrupt the sale.
An Acorn spokesperson said: “When the time came for our members’ homes to be sold, our members stood up and made clear that the properties being sold were family homes.
“Our members in the auction room made so much commotion that the sale of one of the homes had to be abandoned.”
The other home was sold, to a telephone bidder, and Acorn said it would monitor the situation and object to any attempts to evict the tenant.
A Liverpool councillor, Nick Small, was among the protesters.
He said: “I’m appalled that auctions like this where investors are being encouraged to evict longstanding tenants, including children, and increase rents by over 80%, are taking place.”
Cllr Small said that he has also raised concerns with Liverpool City Council that such auctions are being held at the town hall, which it owns.
However, Venmores auction director Ronan Connolly said: “At no time have Venmore Auctions encouraged landlords to evict tenants.
“We act as sales agents to owners of properties who want to sell via auction.
“These vendors have a legal right to sell their property.”
Connolly said that tenants have rights and are protected by law, but that if Cllr Small “deems these insufficient then his protest should be brought to Westminster, not against an employed auctioneer merely trying to process the sale and especially not against an owner of a property who is just trying to sell for personal reasons and has done absolutely nothing wrong”.
When people see politicians behaving with a flagrant disregard for the norms of civilised debate and protest, is it any wonder that they then behave in a similar manner? This country coarsens by the day.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So a councillor not doing his job in acting to provide social housing causing disruption of a sale room. This is not appropriate behaviour for a public servant. I hope the sale room is making a formal complaint to the council concerned.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Incredible. I wonder if anyone involved at the Acorn side of this gave even a moments thought for the landlord? Why their selling? Who they are? How hard they’ve worked to own what they own? Or for that matter the absolute legal right to dispose of their asset? It’s beginning to feel like anyone who owns a second property, regardless of the reason, must be viewed as a pampered capitalist *******, to be reviled for their greed. Unbelievable.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ronan Collins spoke very well. We need more people like this who can clearly defend the landlord’s position.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Completely agree
Well done Ronan!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Is it a surprise with Nick Small?
He needs to learn that you were given 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason
Landlords have a right to sell their properties and the auction house has a right to advertise them for sale with particulars that show potential clients what the property potential is
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Are these people completely oblivious to who actually owns the property and takes all the risk on it?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Whether by choice or otherwise (just like taxes), we -including the protesters- live in a free-market, capitalist society/economy/country. *If* the new owner chooses to legally evict the existing tenant in pursuit of profits, then that has to be accepted, BUT…there is no mention of what the new owner intends to do at this stage and is there are hierarchy of importance when it comes to those in need of housing? I guess a single-mum with two kids is worth more than five (per academic year) students, right? Just because the auctioneers advertised it as, “…ideal for those looking to turn them into student house shares, increasing the amount of rent that could be brought in.” and as is their job to maximise the sale price achievable, does not mean that will definitely happen. The protesters themselves will earn their salaries from companies that also maximise profits and the end user or customer ultimately pays for; will they voluntarily cut their incomes so that someone somewhere further down the chain, who may also be a rent paying tenant with children, for the greater good, or is that too indirect for them to comprehend?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“The protesters themselves will earn their salaries from companies that also maximise profits and the end user ultimately pays for; will they voluntarily cut their incomes so that someone somewhere further down the chain, who may also be a rent paying tenant with children, for the greater good, or is that too indirect for them to comprehend?”
See there’s your mistake. Assuming these protesters actually work….
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It’s the Landlord’s legal property. He purchased it, maintains it, insures it and is in every way that counts, the OWNER of the property.
Therefore, if he wants to sell it, he can. If he wants to evict the Tenants and leave it empty apart from a piece of cheese and a pot plant, he can!
These protesters, and the idiots that backed them up, need to remember that the Landlord is not legally, or even really ethically, required to let anyone live there!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Whilst I completely agree, at absolute very best, there could, I can conceive, a (quite ridiculous and practically unworkable) ruling that an owner could not leave a property empty with nothing more than a pot plant and a piece of cheese…but even then, students would satisfy that criteria and the protesters would *still* be playing up, such is their warped logic! What I’m trying to say is, even when we push boundaries, in their favour, within the realms of reasonably conceivable, they won’t be happy…in which case they should perhaps reassess their thought-processes. Especially the Councillor.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Wait till Corbyn brings in RTB and wouldn’t be surprised if he pushes for ban on sales with sitting tenants to go with his 3 year protected tenancies. Which political party will you be voting for at the next general election!!!!!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register