A letting company has been hit with a bill for £12,500 after letting out an overcrowded, freezing property as an HMO.
Sumal and Sons Properties, of Stamford Hill, north London, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay nearly £4,000 in costs. The firm must also repay about £6,500 in rent, the Inner London Crown Court ruled.
The defendants had earlier been found guilty in their absence at Stratford Magistrates’ Court of failing to license a Victorian two-bedroom privately rented house.
Newham Council enforcement officers said the house was severely overcrowded, with families sharing single rooms. There was extreme condensation and damp and poor insulation, leading to freezing conditions.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, sentencing was committed to the ILCC to consider a compensation order. The rent paid to the firm while the property was not licensed was deemed to be a criminal benefit.
The prosecution comes as Newham Council is undertaking a consultation exercise, examining the possibility of licensing all private landlords. If given the go-ahead, Newham would be the first borough in the country to do this.
Newham Mayor Sir Robin Wales said: “We will never accept private sector tenants being directly exploited by landlords who force them to live in dangerous and unacceptable conditions.
“Good landlords have nothing to fear from this scheme. For the bad ones, this a clear message they must clean up their act.”
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
@mathawks
The mistake is in thinking that it has to be where a licence was needed before the penalties apply. Any HMO which can be a bungalow but with occupiers forming two or more households is an HMO.
From there on it just depends what type.
Don't just think in terms of licences being needed to make HMO's matter. It's the number of unrelated occupiers sharing an amenity and then the property must be managed in accordance with the HMO Management Regs.
Licansing also is not just mandatory - there is selective (by area/suburb) and additional (by property type).
This is a fast growing issue and problem and agents really need to understand all the nuances - not just the blindingly obvious three storey town house with 5 students in it.
I know that this situation for the tenants isnt right, but why is it a HMO prosecution. This does not come under mandatory Licensing
Licensing is a mandatory requirement for all HMOs that :
• are three storeys or more in height (including basements and HMOs above
shops),
• have five or more occupiers, and
• some or all of the occupiers share a facility (bath, WC or kitchen).
If you can answer ‘yes’ to all three parts then you DO need a licence.
Also Newham Council are not the first to license all private landlords. Thanet council have already introduced this and i have had to pay nearly £500 to license a 1 bed flat ????? makes sence
Well said IO. I just will not let to 3 or more singles and quote on case reported here where the agent appealed his fine and had it reduced to - get this - £99,000! What a stupid agent for getting caught, deserve all they got.
I have even have prospects wanting to argue the point on this with me. They know just how to shoot themselves in the foot.
Makes this £12,500 sum look positively paltry.
Wonder who the landlord was, wonder who actually owned the property?
Biggest danger of all in these cases is not the fine, but the criminal 'record' and above all the status then automatically earned of not being a "fit and proper person".
In other words all (if any) other licences held are automatically revoked, and the agent cannot manage on behalf of a Landlord even if the licence is (as it should be) in the Landlord's name.
This is a really serious tag for an agent to end up with, far more serious than the fine or repayment of rent order. Plus if the property was managed for a Landlord then they have an automatic breach case against the agent for negligence - the list of consequential problems (and losses!) can just go on and on.