A woman has been successfully prosecuted for serious health and safety breaches in two properties that she let out as unlicensed HMOs.
Camden Council in London said Mrs Alba Lopez had divided the flats to create extra bedrooms, without installing safe fire exits and fire alarms.
Camden Council described Mrs Lopez initially as a landlord but later clarified that she is a letting agent, who in this case acted for the father and son owners.
It said that Mrs Lopez, who operates from a commercial unit near Euston station, had signed agreements to let two former right-to-buy flats, and had constructed a partition to divide each flat’s living room into two separate bedrooms.
The design of the two flats was the same, and the unauthorised adaptations meant that the only escape route for five of the six tenants was via the shared kitchen.
The two flats had no operational fire detection and alarm system. Room doors were thin, and were not made of half-hour fire-resisting material, and were not self-closing. The shared kitchen in each flat had no doors, said the council.
Mrs Lopez was prosecuted for failing to apply for a licence in respect of each flat, and management offences relating to the lack of fire precautions and shortcomings with respect to the wiring. She pleaded guilty to the failure to license each flat in multiple occupation and for failure to provide adequate structural fire precautions in one flat.
The corresponding offence for failing to install structural fire precautions in the other flat, and failure to install suitable fire detection and alarm systems in both flats, were taken into consideration by the Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court.
She was fined a total of £2,000 and was ordered to pay £1,000 towards the council’s costs plus £15 victim support payment.
Cllr Abdul Hai, cabinet member for Community Safety at Camden Council, said: “We do not want flats, designed for families, to be altered and sub-let in multiple occupation. We take the health and safety of our residents extremely seriously and will use the strongest powers possible to prosecute unscrupulous landlords. Negligent landlords who flout the law will not be tolerated in Camden.”
After the case, the council said that its environmental health officers have encountered several instances where a landlord has entered into an Assured Shorthold tenancy with an individual operating a letting agency.
A council spokesperson said: “Then in order to make a profit, that individual or agency packs the property with as many tenants as they can, charging each individual a rent.
“Often they advertise on websites, and do not operate from premises with their name and business displayed. In some instances, the sub-let property has been altered, without consent, by dividing rooms, but little regard has been had to the safety of the tenants.
“In this case the flats were designed to be occupied by one family, and if a fire starts in a family home, a member of the family usually knows who else is in occupation and where they are likely to be. In a flat let to six separate tenants, each tenant comes and goes independently. Therefore it’s even more important to comply with health and safety regulations and apply for proper licensing which protects people living this way.
“Owners of ex right-to-buy properties are subject to the ‘permitted use’ clause in the lease which requires them to keep their property as a self-contained residential flat.
“There are important management reasons for including this clause within the lease. Whilst all applications to carry out structural alterations to properties are considered on their merits, any application to subdivide an ex right-to-buy flat or use it as a House in Multiple Occupation is unlikely to be agreed.”
%20(002).png)
.jpg)
Comments
Glad the victim got his £15, I can sleep at night now.
We had what would appear to have to been a respectable woman with apparently excellent references rent a four bedroom house which, after living there herself for a while, she subsequently sub-let to various un-related people whilst moving elsewhere. The sub-letting was picked up at a routine inspection but it still took over four months to gain possession of the property with a consequential loss of revenue for the landlords. It would appear that she has done the same with a couple of other properties in the area and the matter is now in the hands of the Police. Proves the worth of carrying out regular checks particularly where a tenant claims a visit is not convenient as happened in this case - we told her we would be visiting on a certain day at a certain time and, if she was unable to be there, we would use the office set of keys to gain access. We then interviewed the various occupants, most of whom were on Housing Benefit, who told us that that they were each paying a weekly rent and had also paid the 'real' tenant deposits which she had not, of coure, registered!
Another wrong headline - why "Woman fined" when the article quickly confirms she was in fact a letting agent which surely is more relevant?