A landlord has been banned for two and half years after repeatedly putting tenants’ lives at risk by letting unsafe housing.
This landlord banning order - in Doncaster - is reportedly the first in the North of England and only the third achieved by a council since the order came into effect in April 2018.
Following a hearing in October the Property Tribunal Service banned Almas Rashid of Doncaster from letting any housing in England and engaging in English letting agency work or property management work for a period of two years and six months.
The ban takes effect from February 14 2020.
If the banning order is breached, penalties can include imprisonment for up to 51 weeks or a court fine – or both – or a civil financial penalty of up to £30,000.
The successful Doncaster council application to ban Rashid followed a string of prosecutions in January 2019 for constantly failing to comply with improvement notices, not obtaining a Houses in Multiple Occupation licence and breaches of the HMO Management Regulations in respect of two multiple occupied houses.
Rashid pleaded guilty to seven offences under the Housing Act 2004 and was ordered to pay £400 per offence, £2,800 in total. He also had to pay costs of £2,579.73 and a £40 victim surcharge.
A council spokesman says: “The granting of this banning order sends out a clear message to all rogue landlords that our housing enforcement team are at the cutting edge of enforcement. When tenants are put at risk through the actions or lack of action by a landlord, we will clamp down by using all the enforcement tools at our disposal.”
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Great news however not nearly enough rogues being prosecuted. Not enough agents being prosecuted. There is no serious consequences.
On the other hand, perhaps most landlords and agents are adhering the law and there are not many rogue landlord or letting agents. thumbs up
Fines seem very low - lenient, especially given his record !
Lifetime ban should be applied- or at least a 10 year ban.
If they dealt with these rogues properly (and this is not properly) then they wouldn’t have to vilify the majority of us.
Great words James
This is good news that rogue landlords are being dealt with.
Just as a question of a 'level playing field' when will rogue tenants get penalised?
Rogue tenants will NEVER be dealt with.
ALL a LL can do is to try their very best to avoid the wronguns.
Easy to say NOT so easy to achieve.
If a LL can't obtain RGI on a tenant or their guarantor then a a LL is simply gambling their tenant choice DOESN'T turn into a wrongun!
Without RGI a LL has no alternative than to self-insure against a wrongun tenant.
That means at least £10000 per wrongun tenant.
Once you have used up your self-insurance kitty a LL will need to create another self-insurance kitty.
It could easily take decades to recover from a rent defaulting tenant who has to be evicted.
Without RGI LL are financially defenceless.
The problem is that very few tenants are capable of qualifying for RGI.
This means letting to tenants without RGI is a very risky business.
Not that any LA will advise a LL of this very important detail!
Unfortunately with the dysfunctional eviction process as it is now being a LL without RGI is very much a relatively informed gamble.
Hi Paul, how and where do i get insurance kitty. thanks
can i hijack this thread. i just had tds refused to grant council tax payment from tenant. reason being the council tax issued in tenant name and a letter from council saying tenant not liable for council tax. however, when i call the council tax office, they said because teannt rent a room in 4 bedroom house, they bill the landlord not the tenant but tds decide against landlord ignoring the clearly stated clause in tenancy agreement that tenant are liable for council tax. what can i do? do i get to appeal against this grossly negligence decision? or can i still go to court as tds have a clause that said that their decision is final.
Paul Barrett,
Good advice.
This banning order is good news since it is a step in the right direction.
Will the local council now take charge of his properties and run them for him? I can't see that they will make his tenants homeless!
Please login to comment