By Sammie Jones-
The aggrieved landlady of a property in Plumstead has blasted Greenwich Council for failing to criticize a man convicted for assaulting her but remaining in her property due to a procedural error that enabled him to continue to reside in her property for 14 months whilst using the council to pressurize her. The woman who claims to have suffered serious psychological and brain trauma over the saga that has left the successful woman seriously depressed.
On Monday she circulated a maim to Eight members of Greenwich Council and included The Eye Of Media.Com in a damning criticism against Greenwich Council. Angry and frustrated, the landlady, whose identity has been protected throughout our coverage of her story, told The Eye Of Media.Com:
”Greenwich Council are Fools for phoning the Landlord commanding her to buy a new cooker. Where as I bought a brown new cooker in July 2017 from Curries. How did it break. Greenwich Council failed to educate mr. Christian Nwala ona Tenant’s obligation to ensure that payment is made in a timely manner and to his duties to maintain the property. The Council should be ashamed of their acts in condoling wrong doing.
”The Tenancy Agreement outlines the Landlord and Tenants obligations and duties.
How can any one rent a mortgage house, refused to pay for over one year two months, then command the council to ask the Landlord to buy him a cooker, and a bed, to repair this or that.
His Tenancy Agreement expired since September 2017, he refused to pay a penny. He refused to move.
I have never experienced such in my whole life. Christian and Nnenna or Nnedima Nwala are dangerous to the society”, her email stated.
The email continued: ”This man caused substantial amount of damages to the house. Destroyed everything, beat up other tenants and The Landlord, then dominated the property and constantly phone the Council, giving the Council orders to command the Landlord to do this and do that”.
The Courts last week gave violent Christian Nwala 14 days to leave the property after the landlady lost an earlier civil case to eject him from the property , claiming not to have received any eviction notice. He nw has 7 days t leave before it gets to the stage of getting bailiffs to evict him by force. The landlady who has three other properties said she has had to pay the mortgage for the property for the past 14 months, after 47 year old Nwala is believed to have intimidated other tenants away from the property with his aggressive behaviour.
The angry landlady who was forced to involve Plumstead MP Clive Efford in the heated dispute between her and Greenwich Council says her case took too long to get to court after a law firm held her money for too long without actually lodging the case. Mp Efford contacted the Greenwich council, asking them to look into the landlady’s complaint more carefully and reply to her directly bout her complaints.
The application was eventually lodged by a different firm of solicitors after she demanded her money from the law firm whom The Eye Of Media.Com is investigating to confirm why it took so long for them to act.on the instructions they had from their client. Her eventual application was held up in a queue for months, before it was heard.
FRUSTRATION
The frustration of defeat at the first stage of hearing at the civil courts frustrated the woman so much, she says it almost drove her mad. Making matters worse were continuous demands by the tenant for her to conduct repairs, and also buy him a new cooker. Greenwich Council told The Eye Of media.Com on phone and mail that they considered any issues associated with a default in rent and the criminal history of mr.Nwala to be matters for the court, stressing that all they were doing was upholding statute contained in the Housing Act 2004.
The act outlines the obligations of a landlord of an Hmo property to their tenants. but the Eye Of Media.Com last week elaborated on the context in which the literary words of the act should have been applied in this case. ”No enlightened member of any council should need any explanation on how this law should be applied”, the landlady fumed in a phone call to The Eye Of Media.Com. It should be common sense, how can anybody condone a tenant who pays no rent for 14 months and has damaged goods in the same property?”
The extremely angry landlady had contacted other members of the Uk press in her determination to wage a war against her convicted former tenant who still lives in her property with his wife and three kids, but was declined by three of them on the grounds that she did not want her identity revealed.
The landlady’s identity does deserve protection in circumstances as painful as this in which she believes she would be ridiculed by many who know if they were aware of what has happened to her. Journalists usually prefer complainants exposing stories to be willing to identify themselves as part of their credibility, but the anonymity of victims can be protected in certain circumstances.
”I have been criticized by the few close friends I told about this because they all say I should never have allowed a man as a tenant out of sympathy and that I should have monitored the first lawyers I hired closely. others say I should have sent the eviction notice by special delivery instead of normal post, but I know he received that letter. He admitted it in the criminal case but denied it in the civil case. I was amazed he could get away with that”. now has 7 days left before it gets to the stage of getting bailiffs to evict him by force.