A buy to let investor has been hit with a £4,000 fine plus costs of over £5,000 after failing to license a property in multiple occupation.
The case, heard at Thames Magistrates court, found that Mohammed Saleh Ahmed had failed to license the property.
In a statement after the decision, Tower Hamlets council said that its licensing scheme “provides protection against anti-social behaviour by ensuring landlords take up references from tenants and give new responsibilities to landlords to account for their tenants’ behaviour.”
John Biggs, Mayor of Tower Hamlets says: “This case sends out a message to show that the council can and will enforce against landlords who fail to register their properties and that they face serious penalties for failing to do so.”
And councillor Sirajul Islam, deputy mayor for Housing, adds: “The council cares about renters and will insist that landlords get the necessary licensing that protects both landlord and tenants. Housing is at such a premium in the borough that shared overcrowded flats used by multiple tenants are common. The scheme is essential in protecting health and safety for tenants and has real teeth.”
Now Tower Hamlets says it is developing a service to help tenants apply for a rent repayment order that could see up to 12 months rent repaid to them if they are living in an unlicensed property.
It claims its £520 five year HMO licence is one of the lowest in London and “represents a small investment for good landlords who also want to see criminal landlords driven out of business.”
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).jpg)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
What a load of crap. Another money making machine claiming protection for tenants. They probably aimed at landlords not up to date with the regulations and instead of giving the notice to apply for a licence and educate the landlord, they like to shove their power in the landlord's face. Bravo. Antisocial behaviour is not the responsibilities of the landlord, The tenants are grown up and should be held accountable for their own actions. Its the council's responsibilities to help curb anti-social behaviour especially from their benefit street instead of the pot calling the kettle black
To this day i still not see the council curbing anti-social behaviour of their tenants in their social housing all over england.
Is there any chance that a council will prosecute a LL with a traditional British name.
It is almost as though the councils are racially profiling as it seems all the dodgy LL are from ethnic minorities.
Is this not racism?
Cannot councils find some LL of white rather than LL of colour to prosecute?
The way councils behave anyone would think that it is ethnic minority LL that cause all the problems.
This surely CAN'T be the case can it!!!!!!!????
But in the media generally there are far too few LL of white compared to LL of colour that end up being prosecuted.
Surely LL of white cannot be less prone to being rogues than those of colour!?
Thank you for pointing that out. The council are more likely to make an example of the non white than the white landlord, Moreover, they are more lenient and work with white landlord but would shove their power in the face of the non white. They failed to appreciate that many of them probably not very good in english let alone legally savvy whilst white landlord would be more able torebutt and defend themselves. IF you check and google any county in uk, and you will find that its the non white landlord mostly being prosecuted instead of guided even for a very minor matters which the council will make a mountain our of a molehill. Its as though that the saying " we got to protect our own" comes alive not just in school but also in our working lifes
Licence.... Not license.
Please login to comment