I remembered seeing this on the news a while ago and found a BBC article here

Q: My friend who is a landlord has placed a sign outside his property stating “rent dodger lives here”. Is this legal?

A: S.40 [amember_protect levels='keywee' user_action='error' user_error='amember_error_default_user' visitor_action='error' visitor_error='amember_error_default_guest']Administration of Justice Act 1970 states: [highlights inserted by author]

40.Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

(c) falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

(3) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

(a) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.

On first glance, it would seem an offence is committed because it states an offence includes: “or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation”

However, on careful reading, it does require the publicity “by which any demand is accompanied“. Maybe therefore, if the sign is simply placed up with no demand for payment (most tenancy agreements don’t require rent to be formally demanded), maybe the section doesn’t apply. I think this is grasping at straws though in an attempt to try and find in favour of landlords!

The other point worthy of particular note is that the offence is not committed “if it is reasonable for the purpose of … protecting himself … from future loss” [ss.(3) & (3)(a)].

The final point worthy of note, assuming if convicted the landlord removes the sign promptly, the maximum fine would be £100.00 [ss.(4)] although of course he would also have a criminal record which could affect the fit and proper test should the landlord ever require an HMO licence in the future.[/amember_protect]

Salah v Munro    Willesden County Court    April 2009

Ms Salah signed an assured shorthold tenancy agreement (AST) for a room for a period of 6 months. The tenant applied for housing benefit which was granted, but only for part of the rent.  Mr Munro, the landlord had a ‘no housing benefit’ policy – and decided to enforce it.

He told Ms Salah to leave. Subsequently, in May 2008 Mr Munro’s brother and girlfriend visited the property and again demanded that the tenant leave and return the key. Ms Salah refused to comply and went out, taking the key with her. On her return to the property Ms Salah found that the locks had been changed and some of her property was in bags in the street and other items were missing. She spent a night in hospital following an asthma attack, then stayed with various different people until being re-admitted to the property ten days late following a court order.

Missing furniture was not replaced and Mr Munro accused Ms Salah of being a prostitute. After the 6 month term had expired, Mr Munro disconnected the gas and electricity supply to the room. Following this Ms Salah stayed at a friend’s house for a month.

Mr Munro re-connected the electricity supply once he was notified this Ms Salah had been granted funding for a committal hearing. Ms Salah only stayed occasionally at the property after this time. In January 2009 Mr Munro saw Ms Salah at the property and called the police. The police confiscated Ms Salah’s keys!

Willesden County Court awarded the following:

Unlawful eviction         –  £8600 – calculated at £200 per night for 43 nights

Aggravated damages   –  £2000

Exemplary damages     –  £2000

Special damages          –  £1000

Total                             -  £13600

The tenants rent arrears of £750 were deducted from the damages, not including the period when Ms Salah was excluded from the property. The court assessed the rent at 50% for the period without gas.