NEWS
Fines and prosecutions Landlords fined for home left ‘at serious risk of fire’
GORDON AND Sylvia Wellings were prosecuted at a property tribunal because of fire risks at two properties in Leeds which left a number of tenants ‘at serious risk of fire’. Yorkshire Evening Post reported on the tribunal and the case against Mr and Mrs Wellings, which was undertaken by Leeds City Council (LCC) over two of the couple’s properties in the Crosby View area of the city. The council had served improvement notices for both properties in May 2018, after inspections found that the first property left tenants ‘at serious risk of fire from the basement and at risk of a fall from the stairs’. An elderly tenant housed in the
second property was left to suffer ‘a serious lack of heating in her property and a serious risk of fire safety’. LCC ordered the couple – in relation to the first property – to fit fire doors, ‘complete the mains-wired fire detection system’ and ‘remedy damp and mould’, with it noting that ‘there was also a danger that a child could fall between levels due to a gap between balustrades’. Improvements demanded at the second property were similar, with the addition of ‘the need for an appropriate heating system’. The Wellings were told to complete all improvements by mid July 2018 for the first and mid August 2018 for the second, ‘due to the tenant being elderly and the fact she had a lot of property’. It was established however that ‘minimal works had been carried out’ by either deadline.
The tribunal found that the
tenants were ‘at risk for more than 18 months’ due to the lack of works being undertaken, and it established that the only reason the repairs had not been undertaken was ‘due to the cost’. Judge Phillip Barber described Mr Wellings’ actions as ‘reprehensible’, and added that he had ‘attempted to blame others for his inaction’, having ‘at various times instructed builders to carry out works but again it is not clear what they were instructed to do or even who they were’.
On being asked why the works had not been completed, Mr Wellings stated that he was unable to check on progress due to ‘being away from Leeds on emergency family business’, and that there were ‘issues’ in obtaining full access to the second property – he also blamed the ‘Beast from the East’ storm for further delays. LCC decided not to prosecute the couple, but rather to impose the fine of £33,500 for ‘failing to carry out all the works’. The couple then appealed
the fine, stating in regard to the second property that ‘the council have known from the outset of the difficulty working in a house where the 80-year-old tenant has accumulated possessions over many years preventing access to work areas and creating a hazard to workmen. She is pleased with the work that has been done and has said on many occasion that she is content with this and does not want further disturbance’.
18 JUNE 2020
www.frmjournal.com
Their contractor had ‘carried out the majority of work required’ at the first property, they added, but LCC noted that ‘significant amounts’ of work had ‘still not’ been completed at the time of the hearing. Judge Barber rejected their arguments, commenting: ‘Mr Wellings has a high degree of culpability in relation to the failure to comply with the terms of the improvement notices. ‘As a professional landlord he should be well aware of his responsibility to ensure the health and safety of his tenants and despite this, and for well over 18 months, he has continued to leave these tenants at risk of falls and at a serious risk of injury as a result of fire. We find that Mr Wellings’ arguments as to why he has been unable to do the works to be without any reasonable degree of foundation and we are satisfied that the only reason why he failed to comply with the terms of the improvement notices was due to the cost. ‘We found his conduct towards the Respondent [LCC] and his tenants to be reprehensible: these were relatively straight forward works which could have been started and completed within a matter of weeks and certainly within the time given in the notices. We are satisfied that Mr Wellings has demonstrated throughout a serious disregard for his professional responsibilities as a landlord and has throughout attempted to blame others for his inaction.’
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
