NEWS
Fines and prosecutions Keighley landlord fined for failure to fix breaches
ASHFAQ HUSSAIN failed to comply with improvement notices which were handed out by Bradford Council concerning a bedroom described as a ‘fire hazard’. Keighley News reported on the
prosecution of Mr Hussain, whose terraced house in North Street was visited by council housing officers in June 2017. The house had been converted into six one room flats, and one ‘had no safe means of evacuation if a fire had started in the kitchen’, with Mr Hussain telling officers he rented that room out ‘because he needed the income’. Other issues included a non functioning fire alarm system and ‘outdated electrical fittings’, as well as a broken window and ‘loose carpets on the stairs’, with none of these defects having been rectified. Bradford and Keighley Magistrates’ Court heard the case, with those present told that Mr Hussain ‘had been warned’ the bedroom ‘was a fire hazard’,
but that he did not make the necessary changes. At court, he was found guilty ‘in his absence’ of 12 offences, relating to the breaching of housing regulations and a failure to comply with improvement notices, with magistrates fining him
£4,020 and ordering him to pay costs of £1,865. Steve Hartley, the council’s
strategic director with responsibility for housing, said of the prosecution that it showed ‘how seriously’ the courts and council regarded tenant safety
SUSAN JUBB was prosecuted by Bassetlaw District Council after she failed to make improvements to her property in Worksop. Last December, the property was
Prosecution relating to unsafe property concludes Mrs Jubb had previously failed
given a closure notice due to fire safety and electrical faults, as well as ‘persistent anti-social behaviour’. It was found to have ‘no fire alarm, a front door nailed shut, electrical faults and missing floorboards’, with tenants living in ‘uninhabitable and unsafe conditions’. Eventually, it was ‘deemed too dangerous to live in’ and the ‘source of persistent anti- social behaviour’, while 17 areas of concern were highlighted in a prohibition order. These issues were brought
to the attention of the council by Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service following a request by the tenant for a fire safety check. Mrs Jubb was ordered to ‘take immediate action’ on 11 of those counts, but Nottinghamshire Police later served a closure notice relating to the anti social behaviour.
to comply with an improvement notice issued in August 2016, after ‘serious safety concerns were raised’ about the house. In addition to the lack of fire alarms and nailed shut door, the house had ‘no adequate fire escapes’, loose cabling, and ‘other doors and windows’ were not secured. The closure notice applied until February 2018, while the prohibition order prevented anyone from living there ‘until all repairs and remedial works ha[d] taken place’, and the former tenant has been rehoused. Lincolnshire Live has now reported
on the prosecution of Mrs Jubb, who was said to have taken ‘advantage of a tenant’ by ‘forcing’ them to live in the property while it had ‘electrical faults, no fire alarms and insecure windows’. However, under the prohibition
order , she ‘cannot allow anyone to live in the property until all of the work has been completed to the satisfaction of housing officers’.
12 JUNE 2018
www.frmjournal.com
At Mansfield County Court, Mrs Jubb pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an improvement notice. She was fined £2,666, and will
have to pay the council’s legal costs of £3,519 as well as a victim surcharge of £266, while the former tenant has now been rehoused by the council’s housing needs team. Julie Leigh, member for neighbourhoods at the council, said: ‘We welcome the court’s decision and a significant fine is justified after Jubb had taken advantage of a tenant and forced them to live in uninhabitable and unsafe conditions. ‘Thanks to the council’s
prohibition order, Jubb must also bring her property up to the necessary standard before she will be allowed to rent out the property or allow anyone to live in the property. We hope that this serves as a warning to other landlords whose properties are not up to the required standard or pose a danger to their tenants.’
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
