A London landlord has had his leasehold cancelled after ignoring neighbours’ pleas to deal with an aggressive, anti-social tenant for more than a decade.

Neighbours Mr and Mrs Kandala claimed Andrew Cripps, who owns the leasehold on a property in St Ann’s Way, South Croydon, was in breach of lease covenant for allowing his tenant to cause damage, annoyance or inconvenience to the neighbourhood for 11 years.

Prolonged abuse had taken its toll and led to serious mental and physical health issues for Mrs Kandala.

Failure to respond

A First Tier Property Tribunal heard that despite writing to the landlord many times, he had failed to respond constructively to their letters or take any action. In an email from October 2019, Cripps replied to a letter complaining about the sub-tenant’s conduct, saying: “I apologise for any inconvenience/damage caused and please be advised I am taking this matter extremely seriously.

- Advertisement -

“We will of course give him notice if he continues to behave in this way.”

In 2010, the tenant was issued with a harassment warning by the police after setting fire to the Kandala’s back garden, but Cripps again did not reply to letters and the cost of repairs was met by the residents association.

“The tenant also let his dog foul in neighbours’ front gardens, parked across their garage and made regular threats of violence, screaming and shouting directly at the couple.

They said: “The residents association recently informed us that a notice requiring possession was served on the subtenant by Andrew Cripps. The subtenant immediately took to making repeated offensive sexual gestures to Mrs Kandala.”

The tribunal was satisfied that this was clear evidence of completely anti-social behaviour, amounting to breach of covenant. It also ruled that as Cripps was not named as a joint party on the building insurance policy, this was also a breach of covenant.


  1. Why did the police not act? What does it mean that he has his leasehoold cancelled? Can we have more information, please ?

    • The tribunal can cause the lease to revert to the freeholder ..
      who may well be the the residents association or residents owned management company …..

      it reverts without compensation for xhat he paid for it. … and he may even pay costs …. all for persistent breach of lease

  2. Surely the police & the council should’ve acted & taken action. Shouldn’t they be prosecuted? – it is their job after all & they have been paid to do that job through the victims taxes & not fulfilled their role?

  3. Yet another disgrace of our pathetic courts and law. If someone misbehaves they should be held responsible not the landlord!! If the landlord had actually managed to evict this character and moved him on, what of the poor NEW neighbours having to endure this idiot.

    • While writing this I was astounded that the residents’ association AKA the Kandalas had put up with the errant landlord and his awful tenant for so long.

  4. It just shows being a LL is a poisoned chalice.

    LL would do well to get rid of wrongun tenants as soon as their wtongness flags up.
    Setting a garden alight and I would have that tenant booted out forthwith.

    Having a tenant arsonist is a ‘material fact’ and should have been notified to the BTL insurer.
    That insurer would most likely have withdrawn cover.

    This dopey LL perhaps didn’t understand ramifications of this wrongun tenant behaviour.

  5. Don’t worry though because licensing will stop this ever happening again………………………….they would have us believe.

  6. It really shouldn’t be made difficult to get rid of wrongun tenants.

    Unfortunately the law protects tenants far too much.

    This makes it impossible for a LL to manage his business CORRECTLY.

    This is why LL are moving away from the single household AST.

    Then idiots wonder why LL are abandoning such AST lettings in favour of short-term ones.

    It is the completely dysfunctional eviction process which is causing this.

    The more rights are given to tenants the more LL will stop letting to them.

    It is a self fulfilling situation.

    Very few tenants are ever evicted inappropriately.

    The rights that these wrongun tenants have accrued means fewer LL wish to let to them.

    For a start wrongun tenants cause LL rent losses of over £9 billion per year.

    The losses caused by ASB are a minor detail.

    Regulations need to be changed in favour of LL to evict wrongun tenants quickly.

    Unless this occurs the PRS will continue to shrink.

    Will just mean lots more homeless tenants.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here