A letting agency was found guilty yesterday of illegally evicting tenants in Margate, after a court heard that tenants were routinely threatened and evicted without notice; locks were changed and some tenants’ belongings were removed or thrown onto the street. In one case, a tenant was doused in petrol and punched causing the loss of several teeth.
Sohila Tamiz, of Flint Lane, Lenham, was found guilty on five counts of conspiring to unlawfully evict a tenant, eight counts of conspiring to, or interfering with, the peace or comfort of a residential occupier, and one count of conspiring to burgle.
Pedram Tamiz, of Flint Lane, Lenham, was found guilty of two counts of conspiring to unlawfully evict a tenant, and five counts of conspiring to, or interfering with, the peace or comfort of a residential occupier.
Adam McChesney, of Gloucester Avenue, Margate, was found guilty of two counts of conspiring to unlawfully evict a tenant, and three counts of conspiring to interfere with the peace or comfort of a residential occupier.
Kasem El Darrat, Athelstan Road, Margate, was found guilty of one count of conspiring to unlawfully evict a tenant, and one count of conspiring to interfere with the peace or comfort of a residential occupier.
Council officers began investigating after a series of allegations came to light, involving criminal activity in relation to the management of a building containing 26 flats in Athelstan Road, Margate.
Lawful tenants were routinely threatened and evicted without notice. The unlawful actions of the defendants resulted in the council incurring significant costs in rehousing those tenants who had been systematically thrown out of their properties using violence or threats of violence. Council officers said the allegations shared were the most harrowing heard in any investigation relating to tenancy management.
Legal proceedings against Tamiz began in relation to a single incident of unlawful eviction. Following Tamiz’s election of a trial in the Crown Court, the council instructed Michael Polak, a barrister specialising in unlawful evictions, and junior barrister, Llewellyn Culver-Evans, to review the case and prepare it for trial.
Further investigations revealed evidence of other unlawful evictions and harassment against vulnerable tenants. Additional charges were added to the indictment, as were three more defendants: Sohila’s son Pedram, and McChesney and Al Darratt who worked for the Tamiz’s as an enforcer and agent respectively.
The case was presented to the jury over four weeks following which the jury returned unanimous verdicts on 28 counts on the indictment.
Cllr Jill Bayford, cabinet member for housing, said “This is a landmark prosecution for us, and underpins our key priority of ensuring the ongoing safety of all of our residents. We hope that this outcome sends out the serious message to other landlords in the district and further afield that criminal activity, or any intimidatory or threatening behaviour towards tenants, will not be tolerated, but will instead be routinely prosecuted.”
The council will now begin the process of gathering victim impact statements ahead of sentencing, which is due to take place on Monday 10 October 2022.
The council believes this case to be the largest ever prosecution of its type for offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
As part of the anti-landlord narrative, we see calls for the apparently pressing need for yet more legislation to protect tenants from illegal evictions. This case is truly appalling, and I’m sure all decent landlords [by far the majority] will condemn the actions of these people. But it confirms that suitable legislation has existed for 35 years. The reason why these people are able to get away with their criminal behaviour, and in doing so, tarnish the image of the PRS, is the lack of enforcement under the legislation. Landlords don’t need more legislation! Councils don’t need more legislation! Make more use what’s there already.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I agree. The fact that these … individuals… were prosecuted means that they were failing to follow the current legislation, which is fit for purpose, and only has issues when not followed.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Hopefully this will result in custodial sentences. As LVW4 points out, they were prosecuted under 35 year old legislation. There is no need for new legislation, simply a desire to prosecute under existing legislation.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register