NEWS


Fines and prosecutions HMOs’ fire safety concerns prompt prosecution


ISLINGTON COUNCIL prosecuted two private landlords in relation to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), specifically concerning three properties’ with ‘dangerous and sub-standard’ conditions. The council stated that the


landlords were prosecuted over 35 breaches of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation Regulations at three properties in the London borough, with the council’s environmental health officers visiting the properties and finding that residents and tenants ‘were found to be at risk from serious fire safety hazards, overcrowding and disrepair’. At one property, a converted


semi detached Victorian building, 35 people were found living in four two bedroom flats, with bunk beds housing five or six people in one room. This property also had no fire alarm system, partitions creating new rooms ‘that were not fire resistant’, and other fire risks such as ‘dangerous’ electrics. In addition, there were broken windows, and occupants ‘did not have tenancy agreements’, instead paying rent in cash. Anti social behaviour was also


reported to police and landlord Arun Bajaj ‘a number of times’ in 2016, with the council contacted ‘after the disturbances became so frequent and extreme we were


fearful for our family’. After the council visit, officers then discovered that some of the tenants had been moved to the two other properties, which were – as a consequence – ‘overcrowded’, while fire safety ‘was again compromised’, and the rental payment situation was identical. The council took Mr Bajaj to


court, as his family owns all three properties, and he was found guilty of 15 HMO offences relating to the second two properties, which had ‘inadequate’ fire precautions and ‘disrepair’, including unsafe electrics’. Mr Bajaj’s associate, Antonio Ferraivolo, was found guilty of 35 HMO offences in regard to the three properties, with sentencing for both men referred to the Crown Court, at which the council will


seek confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act. District Judge Williams


concluded that photographs clearly demonstrated the ‘appalling’ state of the houses, adding that the ‘serious overcrowding’ and regulations breaches were ‘clearly proved’ by the council’s evidence. Diarmaid Ward, executive


member for housing and development, said: ‘Islington Council is committed to improving conditions for private tenants, and is determined that private landlords provide homes that are decent, safe and suitable to live in. Many landlords do the right thing and look after their tenants, but landlords who put tenants at risk will be held to account by the council and by the courts.’


Landlord fined for ‘dangerous’ conditions


DAVID SANSOM was prosecuted by North West Leicestershire District Council due to a ‘lack’ of fire precautions and a licence for a house in multiple occupation (HMO). Leicester Mercury reported on


the prosecution over a Coalville property, which had ‘crammed’ six families into three bedrooms. The unlicensed HMO allowed families to rent space, but ‘failed to secure the necessary permission, which resulted in ‘at least eight tenants crammed into the house, with some living in a dangerous roof space’. The trial at Leicester Magistrates


Court heard from the council, for whom a spokesman stated:


‘Environmental Protection Officers from the council made the discovery after a tip off from a member of the public. After visiting the home in Waterworks Road, they immediately issued an emergency prohibition to prevent the loft from being used as a habitable space.’ Three families had been living in


each of the three bedrooms, while the ground floor living room ‘had been partitioned’ to create another two rooms for an extra two families, and a sixth family was living in the ‘hastily- converted loft’. The spokesman added: ‘In total, 14 issues were identified, with 10 offences used in a criminal prosecution’ against Mr Sansom.


10 NOVEMBER 2018 www.frmjournal.com These charges included not


having an HMO licence and electrics ‘not being maintained in a safe condition’ and a ‘lack of adequate fire precautions, obstructions to escape routes’ and ‘no fire or smoke alarms in the loft’. The only exit from the loft was a collapsible ladder. Mr Sansom’s defence stated he had ‘not realised so many people would move into’ each of the rooms after renting them out, while work ‘was planned’ to improve the living conditions. Magistrates fined Mr Sansom


£145 for each offence, totalling £1,015, and he was also ordered to pay a £30 victim surcharge and the council’s £1,911 legal costs


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