The new provisions relating to banning orders and the rogue landlord database are expected to come into force on 1 October 2017. These allow steps to be taken against a person who has been convicted of a “banning order offence”. This was one of the new provisions introduced by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. You can read more about banning orders and other provisions here.

What constitutes a banning order offence was not specified in the Act, instead this has been left to the Secretary of State to specify by regulation. The Government has released a consultation on the proposed offences which would constitute a banning order offence. You can read the consultation here.

The government have proposed a range of offences which would include the following:

Relevant Housing offences:

This is likely to include a range of offences including illegal eviction and a range of offences under the Housing Act 2004.

Immigration offences:

This will include offences committed under the Immigration Act 2014 in relation to Right to Rent. You can read more about that here.

Serious criminal offences:

This is likely to include those convicted of fraud; production, possession or supply of drugs; and specified violent or sexual offences.

Other criminal offences:

This class of offences will include offences committed against, or in conjunction with, any person who was residing at the property owned by the offender or other associated persons.

Consequences of a Banning Order

If a local authority are successful in gaining a banning order, the Landlord/Letting Agent involved will be highly restricted in their ability to operate in the sector. Under S.14(1) of the Housing and Planning Act 2016: a banning order can prevent a person from;

1.       Letting a house in England;

2.       Engaging in English letting agency work;

3.       Engaging in English property agency work; or

4.       Doing two or more of those things

In effect therefore a banning order can, if all of its provisions are used, entirely prevent a person or organization from being a landlord or letting agent at all.

The banning order specifies how long a ban is in place for however each ban will have a minimum duration of 12 months. If a landlord is unable to immediately terminate a tenancy or a letting agent requires time to wind down the business exceptions can be made for a period of time to permit this. Alternatively, there is a possibility that the Local Authority will make a management order permitting them to have control and management of the properties concerned.

A banning order can only be made by the local authority making application to the First Tier Tribunal. Therefore a landlord can challenge it as part of the procedure. The banning order may be revoked or varied if the criminal offence has been spent or overturned on appeal. It is important to note however it is a criminal offence to breach a banning order and this is punishable by means of a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Rogue Landlord Database

There will also be a central database created by the Secretary of State, to include rogue Landlords and Letting Agents who have been found guilty of an offence. It will be down to the Local Authority to gather and input the names onto the database and manage it. If a banning order has been made, the details must be entered onto the database and remain there for the duration of the banning order. After the banning order has been completed, the details of the landlord or letting agent must then be removed from the database.

It is intended that all local authorities will have access to the entire rogue landlord database, to allow them to gain information regarding additional properties owned or managed by landlords or letting agents who are currently on the database. There is no mechanism for tenants or other interested parties to see the database at all other than in an anonymized form for research purposes.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

Rent repayments orders (RROs) were introduced in the Housing Act 2004. They enable tenants to reclaim rent paid during a tenancy where their landlord has failed to obtain a property licence. Applications are made to the first tier tribunal property chamber. I have previously provided a three-part guide on rent repayment orders which can be accessed here. Local authorities are also able to apply for an RRO to reclaim housing benefit paid.

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (HPA) makes significant changes to RROs. These changes are due to come into force in April 2017 and will widen the scope of RROs as well as make it easier for tenants to make applications to the tribunal. The most important changes that tenants need to be aware of are as follows:

1. RROs now apply to a number of different housing offences

Under the Housing Act 2004, RROs only applied where a landlord who was required to have a residential property licence failed to obtain one. Most landlords of large houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are required to obtain a property licence but also landlords of non-HMO accommodation may be required to have a licence, depending on their local authority’s licensing schemes. Londoners can check the licensing schemes in place within their borough by clicking here.

In addition to failing to license offences, the HPA introduces 5 other offences where RROs will now be available. These are:

• Violent re-entry
• Unlawful eviction or harassment
• Breach of improvement notice
• Breach of prohibition order
• Breach of banning order

Banning orders are a new enforcement measures introduced by the HPA designed to target the worst landlords by banning them from letting and managing property. More information on banning orders can be accessed here.

Significantly tenants who have been unlawfully evicted will now have an additional remedy against their landlord. Currently tenants who are illegal evicted can claim compensation from their landlords in the county court. Now they will also be able to ask the tribunal to make an order that their landlords pay back some of the rent they paid.

2. Tenants wishing to apply for an RRO are no longer dependent on the local authority prosecuting their landlord

Under the Housing Act 2004, tenants were not able to make an application for an RRO unless the local authority had first obtained a criminal conviction against the landlord in the magistrates’ court or had obtained their own RRO for the return of housing benefit.

This restriction on tenant applications has been removed by the HPA 2016. Tenants can now apply straight to the tribunal for an RRO and no longer have to rely on their local authority taking action first. However, for an RRO to be made tenants will need to satisfy the tribunal, beyond reasonable doubt, that their landlord has committed one of the above offences. Tenants will still need the help of local authorities in proving their case to this high criminal standard which is where the following provision is useful:

3. Local authorities are encouraged to help tenants apply for an RRO

The HPA 2016 states that a local authority may help a tenant apply for an RRO. This could be, for example, by giving advice or by conducting proceedings on the tenant’s behalf. Tenants are likely to need the assistance of local authorities in making applications for RRO, particularly in cases such as breach of improvement notice or breach of banning order where the tenants may have little of their own documentary evidence to prove that an offence has been committed. Local authorities will also need the co-operation of tenants in proving offences in their own RRO applications, so this provision reinforces the benefit to local authorities and tenants of working together in preparing their cases. In certain circumstances, where rent is paid partly by way of housing benefit and partly out of the tenant’s own funds, it may be advantageous for the local authority and tenant to make a joint application for an RRO.

Other comments

There are still strict time limits that apply to tenant RRO applications: tenants must make their applications within 12 months of their landlord committing an offence. There is also a cap on how much rent can be reclaimed. Tenants can never be awarded more than 12 months’ rent and, in practice, may obtain far less than this. In assessing the level of the RRO, the tribunal will consider the offence, whether the landlord has already been convicted or received a financial penalty from the local authority and in certain cases will also look at the landlord’s financial position and conduct and also the conduct of the tenant.

Overall the changes implemented by the HPA are helpful to private sector tenants providing them with additional remedies if their landlords fail to comply with housing law. Many local authorities are already assisting tenants with RROs by providing information packs on how to make applications to the tribunal. Further help for tenants from local authorities should be forthcoming with the implementation of these new provisions next spring.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

Over recent months short letting of residential premises has received a lot of media coverage in the national and legal press. I have previously written about the perils of short letting in London which you can read here.

The use of short term letting sites has been criticised for contributing to London’s housing crisis, with some landlords using short lets as a quick money making scheme and removing properties from the Capital’s housing stock. There has been growing pressure from the Mayor of London, MPs and government ministers for short term letting sites to introduce restrictions on the amount of nights which a property can be let.

Airbnb, the world’s leading short-letting site, has today announced that it will be imposing restrictions on “hosts” from letting entire homes in the Capital for more than 90 days a year. The Guardian has reported that Airbnb have sent letters to hosts today notifying them of the changes. Of course, there is a 90 day restriction for short term lets in the Capital, which was relaxed by the Deregulation Act 2015; any breach of the aggregate figure would be a breach of planning consent. However, this was seldom enforced by local authorities due to a lack of resources and evidence.

Airbnb will introduce the new limit from 2017 and will be imposed unless the host confirms that they have obtained planning permission to exceed the limit. These restrictions will only apply to entire home listings and only to properties within London.

It is yet to be seen whether other short-letting platforms will follow suit.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

My colleague Robin Stewart, has written recently about the new provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 which will come into force on 1 December 2016. A summary by me of the new provisions by me can be found here.

There are some new and important provisions regarding eviction. The Secretary of State will now be able to serve a notice on a landlord which informs them that some or all of the occupiers in a property do not have a right to rent. If such a notice is served then the landlord will be placed under an obligation to take steps within a reasonable time to evict those tenants.

There is formal guidance on what is meant by a “reasonable time”. In general, landlords who cannot agree with their tenants that they should leave within four weeks will need to take further formal action to pursue eviction. There are other time periods for other events. The guidance is already published in draft form and it is not expected to change before being finalised.

Where the secretary of state has served a notice or notices which inform the landlord that all the occupiers of a property have no right to rent then the landlord may serve a notice to end the tenancy in a prescribed form. Once it expires the tenant has no right to be in the property and can be evicted by the landlord without needing to obtain a court order. This prescribed notice has been published and is found as a schedule to the Immigration (Residential Accommodation) (Termination of Residential Tenancy Agreements) (Guidance etc.) Regulations 2016.

Where the notice from the secretary of state only specifies that some of the occupiers do not have a right to rent then the landlord must still go to court for possession. This is made possible for Assured and Assured Shorthold tenancies by a new ground for possession in Schedule II of the Housing Act 1988, this is ground 7B. Ground 7B can be used with the new form of section 8 notice which also comes into effect on 1 December. This ground must give not less than two weeks notice.

The creation of the new ground for possession means that a new form of section 8 notice will come into effect in England only from 1 December and this will need to be used in any case where a section 8 notice is being served. The new form of notice can be found as a schedule to the Assured Tenancies and Agricultural Occupancies (Forms) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2016.

Anthony Gold is holding a seminar on 13 December to discuss the new changes and the new eviction process. More details on this and the method of booking can be found here.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

The short answer is no. The supposed ease of evicting a property guardian no doubt attracts landowners involved in these arrangements, but if the guardian company does not follow the correct procedures when evicting a property guardian, the guardian may have a claim for harassment and/or unlawful eviction.

Licence to occupy

The lack of clarity around (and often brazen disregard for) property guardian’s rights stems from the fact that guardians usually occupy spaces under a licence rather than a tenancy agreement (this is not to say all do and you should seek legal advice if you think you might have a tenancy). While a licensee does have fewer rights than a tenant, this does not mean that they are without any protection, especially in relation to eviction. As a “residential occupier” of a building, unless the licensee is an excluded occupier – for example, if you share your accommodation with your landlord – re-possession of the property must be in accordance with the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Protection from Eviction Act provisions

Correct notice period

Guardians often receive notice giving them a short period of time to leave the property. Many are told they must leave within two weeks, others report being given as little as twenty four hours. Such scenarios are familiar, and the property guardian, unaware of their rights, often packs their belongings and leaves by the deadline imposed by the guardian company. They don’t have to. The guardian company must give the guardian at least four weeks’ written notice to leave. The notice must also contain information prescribed by law. Failure to comply with these requirements means the notice is not valid.

Court order and warrant

 Even if the guardian company has served a valid four week notice, this isn’t the end of the story. Many property guardians are told that if they don’t leave the property following expiry of the notice, they will be trespassing. This is not correct. If you don’t leave by the end of the notice period, and the guardian company still want you out, they must successfully apply to court for a possession order, and once this has been made, obtain a warrant for eviction by court bailiffs. They can’t simply change the locks, physically throw you out or threaten and harass you to leave.

If your guardian company, or someone acting on their behalf, is threatening you or using violence to try to evict you, you should call the police.

Claim?

If the guardian company fails to follow the procedure outlined above, they will have breached the Protection from Eviction Act. Breach of this Act creates both criminal and civil offences.

The local authority are able to prosecute guardian companies for criminal offences but for various reasons, often don’t. It is still worth complaining to the local authority as they might be able to assist in negotiating re-entry to the property. If the local authority can’t help, the best way forward may be to instruct a solicitor to make a civil claim. Under such a claim, if you have been unlawfully evicted or harassed into leaving your home, you may be entitled to compensation, and if the premises have not already been re-let, obtain an injunction to get back in the property.

If, once you have been evicted, your possessions remain in the property, the guardian company is responsible for them and must take reasonable steps to protect them, and to allow you to come and collect them. If they fail to do so, you may also be entitled to compensation for loss and damage to your possessions.

It is a defence to a claim for unlawful eviction if the guardian company can prove that they believed, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the guardian was no longer residing at the property. It is also important to note that if the guardian leaves voluntarily, even if the notice was not valid, they are unlikely to have a claim for unlawful eviction. However, depending on the circumstances, they might still have a claim for harassment.

Obviously any successful claim for re-entry to the property provides only short term respite. The guardian company does have a right to possession of the property provided they do it the right way.

Anthony Gold have successfully acted for property guardians who have been illegally evicted. If you are having problems with your guardian company, call us on 0207 940 4000 or email us by clicking here and we can see if we can help. Legal aid is still available for claims for unlawful eviction and harassment. Alternatively, if you do not qualify for legal aid, other funding arrangements, such as no-win no-fee, can be agreed.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has released its latest consultation paper on Houses in Multiple Occupation and residential property licensing reforms. Chapter 1 of the paper explains proposals to extend mandatory licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation following the Government’s technical discussion paper published in November 2015.

Current requirements for Mandatory Licensing

The Government proposes to extend the definition on mandatory licensing from 2017, subject to Parliamentary approval. The definition of a mandatory licensable HMOs is set out in Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) (England) Order 2006 (SI 2006/371). The requirements state that any property which:

• comprises of 3 or more storeys; and
• has 5 or more occupiers living in 2 or more single households; and
• contains shared facilities such as a kitchen, bathroom or toilet must be licenced.

This definition must not be confused with the definition of a HMO under s254 Housing Act 2004, which covers many more properties.

Extension of Mandatory Licensing

The Proposals seek to remove the “3 or more storeys” requirement so that any HMO with 5 or more occupiers, regardless of how many floors, will fall within the scope of mandatory licensing. Some local authorities already operate similar schemes through additional licensing schemes. For example, the London Borough of Southwark operates a borough wide additional licensing scheme which requires all HMOs which do not fall within the remit of the mandatory licensing scheme to be licensed.  These additional schemes will fall by the wayside and be subsumed into mandatory licensing. Those already licensing under such schemes will continue to have licences under the new extended mandatory licensing regime.

In addition, the Government intends to extend mandatory licensing to flats which are occupied by five or more persons living in 2 or more households if:

• it is in a converted building;
• where part of a building is used for commercial or other non-residential purposes.

The intention of the expansion is to ensure that flats in multiple occupation, or other HMOs, fall within the remit of mandatory licensing is if the residential premises is above commercial premises but not if:

• the flat is in a purpose built block comprising entirely of self-contained flats; or
• where the flat is in a block which contains commercial premises, but also comprises three or more purpose built flats.

It is estimated that the current proposals will make an additional 174,000 HMOs subject to mandatory licensing.

If the proposals are brought into force then there will be a six month grace period for landlords to comply with the new requirements.

Failure to obtain the correct licence after the end of the grace period would allow the local authority to initiate criminal proceedings with unlimited fines imposed on those found guilty of an offence and the possibility of rent repayment orders being made. Once the new Housing and Planning Act comes into full effect in early 2017 this would also allow for fixed penalty notices of up to £30,000 to be made as well.

The consultation period is open until 13 December 2016.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

If you have received a section 21 notice it means that the landlord has taken the first step towards evicting you. They then have to start court proceedings, win their case and obtain a possession order and then instruct court bailiffs to evict you.

You do not have to have done anything wrong to be evicted using s21 procedure. There is no requirement to be in rent arrears or to have breached the tenancy agreement in any other way. As long as your landlord has done everything correctly the court will grant them a possession order. However, new legislation has made the process increasing complicated and there is a good chance that your landlord has not done everything correctly. This is a very brief overview of some of the defences you might have to an s21 possession claim. This is a starting point but it is a very complex area and you should seek advice if you think you have a defence.

It is very important to note that if your landlord uses the accelerated possession procedure and you do not send a defence to court in response to your landlord’s claim then you may not be given a court hearing and a possession order may be made against you in your absence. It is, therefore, crucial to respond in time to court papers, ideally with the benefit of legal representation. If you are told that there is a court hearing it is important to attend.

If you do not leave the property before your landlord sends their claim to court, but do not defend then you will be ordered to pay your landlord’s fixed legal costs of a few hundred pounds. If you defend the claim and lose you could be ordered to pay your landlord’s full legal costs of many thousands of pounds.

The notice and time limits

You are likely to have a defence if:

• There is not a two month period between the date you receive the notice and the date it says you have to leave by
• The s21 notice says you have to leave within the fixed term of the tenancy. For example, if you sign a tenancy agreement for a year with no break clause, your landlord can send you an s21 notice after 8 months which expires the day after the tenancy ends. If they send you an s21 notice after 6 months which expires after 8 months, before the term of the tenancy is up, then this notice will not be valid.
• If your tenancy started on or after 1st October 2015 then the s21 notice must be in this form. If it looks different to this but has all the same information in then the court may let your landlord off, but you should certainly bring it to the court’s attention
• If your tenancy started on or after 1st October 2015 then your landlord must start court proceedings within 6 months of sending you the notice. If they don’t then they will have to start again and send you a new notice.

If your tenancy started on or after 1st October 2015 then your landlord can’t rely on a 21 notice given to you in the first four months of the tenancy.

Deposits

If your landlord took a deposit from you and did not protect it in an authorised deposit protection scheme or return it to you in full before sending you the s21 notice then you are very likely to have a defence. Likewise, if you have not received specific information from your landlord about where your deposit is held before getting the s21 notice (called ‘prescribed information’) and your deposit has not been returned then you will have a defence. If someone paid the deposit on your behalf to the landlord or agent then the prescribed information also needs to have been sent to them.

HMO

If your property is an HMO which is not licensed you may have a defence. See this video for an explanation of whether your property is an HMO.

Special provisions for tenancies which began after 1st October 2015

If your tenancy began after 1st October 2015 you are likely to have a defence if:

• Your landlord or agent didn’t give you an energy performance certificate and gas safety certificate before they gave you the s21 notice.
• Your landlord didn’t give you a ‘How to Rent Guide’, or the correct version of that guide, before giving you the s21 notice.
•  Your landlord gave you an s21 notice within 6 months of the council giving them an improvement notice or emergency remedial action notice about the poor condition of the property.
• You complain about conditions in your property to your landlord in writing and don’t receive an adequate response within 14 days, then the council serve an improvement notice or emergency remedial action notice (even if the council do this after you receive the s21 notice, as long as it is before the possession order is made by the court).

Even if you have one of the above defences, it will only buy you time until your landlord gets it right, you will have to leave eventually. It can be crucial to buy some time, as it can be very hard to find a new affordable home in the private sector, especially if you receive welfare benefits.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

I have previously highlighted the proposed relaxation on the prohibition of short-term letting in London. Here I will provide an update on the law and how these provisions are working in practice.

The Deregulation Act
Section 44 of the Deregulation Act 2015 adds a new s25A to the 1973 Act. The Act originally operated by classing short letting in Greater London as a material change of use and so restricting it through the planning system. The new section creates exceptions to the operation of the original provisions. As a re-cap, the original provision provided that the use of residential premises in Greater London for temporary sleeping accommodation for less than 90 consecutive nights was a material change of use for which the owner had to seek planning permission from their local authority.

The new relaxation of this provision applies where two conditions are met. However, both of these provisions must be satisfied in order for the relaxation to be available. The two conditions are:

1. The total number of nights in which the property is used for short lettings does not exceed 90 nights in any one calendar year. This is an aggregate figure and may be reached by multiple lets to more than one person. The calendar year is measured between 1 January and 31 December and resets at each New Year.
2. In respect of each night of short term letting the person authorising that letting must be liable for council tax under Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. In other words, the person letting the property must be paying the council tax for it.

Dis-Applying the relaxation
In addition, the Deregulation Act added a new s25B to the 1973 Act. This provision allows individual local authorities or the Secretary of State to make a direction dis-apply the restrictions under s25A. This is at the discretion of the Secretary of State and a local authority may only make such a direction with his consent.

Such a direction can only be made if it is necessary to preserve the amenity value of the local area. Its operation can be relatively blanket, or a local authority can elect to restrict its operation to:

• Just part of the local planning authorities area of responsibility;
• Specific categories of property;
• Certain named premises; or
• Any combination of the above.

Currently, no London Borough has requested that it be allowed by the Secretary of State make such a direction. However, Westminster has indicated that it is considering seeking permission to do so. Westminster is not at all supportive of the relaxation and it rejected the government’s initial proposals, calling for homeowners to register with the local authority when they let out their property for less than 90 days. However, such a measure at this stage would require fresh primary legislation to be passed by the central government and this seems very unlikely to happen.

The provisions in practice
The main aim behind the liberalisation of short-term letting was to change the bureaucratic and disproportionate law surrounding short-term letting in London to be more compatible with the changing way tourists are visiting the Capital. In particular, this has been driven by websites such as “Airbnb” and “booking.com” revolutionising the accommodation market.

One of the main concerns, when the provisions come into force, was how local authorities would enforce the provisions and any breaches of section 25A, particularly those involving aggregate short lets of more than 90 nights in a year. Breaching planning restrictions is not an offence, but it permits entitles the local authority to issue an enforcement notice requiring the cessation of such use. It is only if the use is continued in contravention of the enforcement notice that an offence would be committed and the local authority may then consider a prosecution.

The issue for local authorities is how they enforce the restrictions and prevent short lets exceeding the 90-night threshold. For local authorities with limited resources, this is very difficult to police because the evidence is hard to obtain. In fact, the only local authority to report the issuing of enforcement notices for such activity is the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, following noise complaints received from neighbours and specific evidence supplied by them.

Research conducted by the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) in February 2016 revealed that of the 33,000 listings on short letting website Airbnb, 65% were available for more than 90 days per year. Furthermore, 39% of listings which advertise entire homes and apartments are multi-listings with apparent landlords advertising more than one property and 78% of those are available for more than 90 days. So it seems clear that local authorities are so far unable to enforce these provisions effectively.

Concerns for Landlords

The RLA’s research also highlighted the concerns of landlords. Most Assured Shorthold tenancy agreements contain a standard clause which prohibits the tenants from subletting the property, or any part of the property, without the landlord’s prior written consent. Such a breach would allow the landlord to seek possession. Likewise most longer leases of flats contain a similar provision.

Similarly, the Upper Tribunal has recently held in the case of Nemcova v Fairfield Rents Ltd [2016] UKUT 303 (LC) that a lessee had breached a covenant in her lease which stated that she would “not use the demised premises or permit them to be used for any illegal or immoral purposes or any purpose whatsoever other than as a private residence.” The Upper Tribunal decided that such a clause prohibits all other use save as a private residence. Therefore, by letting out a property on a short-term basis, possibly for a few days or weeks this clause would be breached as a short let was a business use which was incompatible with use as a private residence.

Buy-to-let mortgages also often contain a condition that any tenancy must be granted for no less than 6 months by way of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, so granting occupation for a period of less than 6 months would be a breach of mortgage conditions as would granting a tenancy for the purpose of a holiday which sits outside the AST regime.

There are additional concerns for landlords. A tenant subletting without authorisation could result in the property becoming a licensable HMO and if the correct licence was not obtained then the Landlord could face a criminal prosecution.

The Government’s attempt to liberalise the short term letting market in London and promote the sharing economy has clearly failed to address all the issues and will continue to be a concern for both landlords and local authorities.

* Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*