A ‘beds in sheds’ landlord has been stung with a huge £15,377 penalty after being taken to court by his local council, as the new generation of slum landlords continues to embarrass Britain at the time of the Olympics.

Last night's BBC news carried an item on the problem, showing tenants living in appalling and unsafe accommodation on the doorstep of where London's Games are taking place.

In one of the latest cases to be taken to court, the London borough of Hillingdon was tipped off by a resident about landlord Jamal Uddin and his use of an outbuilding as accommodation for tenants.

Uddin, of Gloucester Road, London, was fined £5,400 for breaching a house of multiple occupation licence and £6,600 for failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice ordering him to stop using the outbuilding as accommodation. He was also ordered to pay council costs of £3,377.

Read the rest of the article >>> here.

And this from the BBC:

The Olympics are bringing billions in investment to east London, with thousands of new homes being built. But the area near the Olympic Park remains plagued by slum housing and it is bad landlords that are being blamed.

Met officers wearing stab vests knock loudly and repeatedly on the door of a scruffy terraced house in east London and shout: "Police! Open the door!"

There are rats here and many things are lacking. I have killed three big rats. The small ones I have killed are uncountable. ”

Eventually the door is opened by a man wrapped in a towel. "We need to come inside," says an officer. They are followed by council housing officials, there to inspect one of the many shared rental properties in the area.

Housing officers are sometimes accompanied by police as they never know what might await them inside.

Crossing the threshold a stale stench assaults the nostrils.

The hall carpets are dirty, light bulbs are missing from ceiling lamps and the house is split into several rooms, each rented out.

'Life threatening'
Housing officers begin inspecting the house in Ashford Road, East Ham.

Russell Moffatt, Newham Council's private housing manager, points to live wires spilling out from the mains electrical unit downstairs.

He said: "If anyone, like a child, put their fingers in there's a good chance they could get a full 230 volt shock, which is life threatening."

Next he indicates a leaking waste pipe beneath a toilet. Upstairs there is an infestation of cockroaches.

The cooker is filthy, coated in brown stains and the boiler is not working. Tenants say they have not had hot water in the kitchen for weeks.

Mr Moffatt said: "We have safety concerns about this property. There are certain defects - a leaking soil stack, the main electrical board is in very poor repair, there's no heating.

"So, fundamental things you expect in any property to keep people safe and warm are just not there. It makes tenants' lives very difficult."

Upstairs a bedroom door has come off its hinges. The tenant says he pays £400 a month to live there.

Newham prides itself on being one of the Olympic boroughs and many Games venues, including the Olympic Stadium, are within its boundaries.

Read the full story >>> here.

These stories are sad and shocking. What is your view of the penalties these slumlords should face?

Bad landlords cast shame on us all, I think they deserve everything they get. It doesnt even make sense, regular routine maintenance is so much cheaper that leaving it having to tackle major works, these people are operating a business, why on earth do you not want to look after major assets.
The PRS is not alone though, what little council housing remains doesnt seem to me to be that well maintained, we regularly receive applications from people who are in council accomodation and regularly hear they have been waiting years for repairs.

Our philosophy has always been we wouldnt let something that we wouldnt live in ourselves. Our hope is that if you give a tenant a nice property they will take pride in it and make it even better, most of the time it pays off but you do get the odd one that slips through the net.

Phil Stewardson.
Stewardson Developments Ltd.
http://www.stewardson.co.uk
@philstewardson

I'd be happy to live in any of my properties.

A £15,000 fine to a beds in sheds landlord is hardly a deterrent. If anything, it's more likely to encourage others to think "if that's all the fine is I might as well have a god myself. I can make that in a week renting beds in sheds to refugees and immigrants".

Prison is far too good for them too as the facilities there are much better than the slum landlords provide.

I agree with phil, these criminals are the scourge of our industry!

Phil and Mark have said it all.

The house I live in was once one of my furnished rented properties. I lived here for a year before doing anything more than painting it. My children have lived in my rented properties and so has my nephew. If they are good enough for me and those I love then I am sure that they are good enough for my tenants who I respect and value.

Even where a landlord is providing homes to those on modest income they must be safe, clean and comfortable - we have chosen to provide human beings with their most basic need and if we don't want to do that important job well we should find another way to make a living.

Follow me on Twitter @landlordtweets

Playing Devils advocate here, I got the impression from the report that the blame for slum housing lies totally with the "slum landlords" however this has been going on for years, the local councils have the powers to fine & even jail these rogue landlords, so what have they been doing?

The bad example set by these so called landlords could end up with the rest of us good landlords being burdened with over the top regulation. The powers that be already have regulations & the law too deal with this problem so why don't they stop whinging about a small minority, get their fingers out & do something about it

A copy and paste of a local news item:

Landlord prosecuted for shocking property standards
A Leeds landlord has been prosecuted for failing to keep a rented property in East End Park, Leeds in a liveable condition.

On 18 July 2012 Ms ************************ appeared at Leeds Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to fourteen offences relating to breaches of her selective licence held in relation to a rented property.

Ms *************** was fined £1800, which included £300.00 for each of the six serious offences, and ordered to repay costs of £1944.53 to Leeds City Council

Officers visited the property unannounced and were appalled to find that the tenant has spent a cold winter in the property with no heating other than a small electric fire which he had bought himself.

Not only was there no heating, but there were pigeons living in the roof, the house did not have any fire doors or smoke detectors, the roof was leaking and there were missing hand rails. The inspection revealed a total of fourteen beaches of selective licence conditions. Ms ******* was given appropriate time to make the repairs, but when officers visited again, no work had be carried out.

As part of a campaign to improve housing in the Cross Green and East End Park part of the city , the Selective Licensing Scheme ensures that all owners of privately-rented properties need a licence to operate. Failure to get a licence, or comply with the conditions, can lead to a fine.

Councillor Peter Gruen, Leeds City Council executive board member with responsibility for neighbourhoods, planning and support services said:

“It is despicable that any property could be left to get into this state of disrepair.
“Every tenant has the right to live in a home which meets a certain set of standards and that remains safe for them to live in.
“This is the first prosecution in the Selective Licensing Area of a landlord for failing to maintain property standards for a tenant – it is simply not acceptable to leave a house in this state, and this prosecution serves as a key reminder to other landlords to ensure standards are kept high.

Notes to editors:
The cost of the five year Selective Licence is normally £525 which equates to approximately £2.00 per week over a five year period.

A lot of my landlords did live in their properties, prior to renting them out. A lot of landlords after moving up the property ladder rent out their current property.

I have to agree with Mark, that fine is too low. The property was uninhabitable due to electricity and heating - never mind the other factors.

P.S. Go LEEDS!

My opinion:
A problem with LHA/Housing Benefit, is that there is no obligation on councils to make sure the property is fit for purpose before granting a housing benefit payment. I see tenants viewing my properties who are living in poor conditions but wont/cant leave or complain because they at least have a roof over there head and unfortunately are not articulate enough to be able to sort thngs out. I feel sorry for them but I'm not a social worker nor a benefactor.

Thanks for all the great responses!

@Mary I totally agree with you. We have had a number of discussions on here about "emotional involvement" with properties. Nick and I have always set the benchmark "would we live there ourselves?". If the answer was "no", then we wouldn't buy the house.

I have heard other landlords saying "that'll do 'em", treating tenants like dirt, etc. and I can only imagine how it might be to have a business where you treat your customers like s**t. Not very nice.

You also touched on an important word "security".

I think that is such an important and often overlooked point, as people should feel secure in their own home.

I stayed in a flat on a job a few years ago. It was a ground level flat in a very rough area. It had a broken window and the front door lock was faulty.

I remember lying in bed in fear, listening to drunks walking past outside and rowing, and people fighting across the road. It was the most horrible feeling imaginable.

Although we cannot control the outside area, we can repair a broken window and fix a bust lock to help our tenants feel secure.

@Geoff You talk of the most vunerable tenants that are preyed on by these slumlords. They don't know to ask for an inventory or to get their deposit protected. They don't know their rights or who can help them. As long as they are vunerable and unprotected, there will be vultures out there willing to exploit them. It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

(26-07-2012 03:50 PM)Geoff Nosnod Wrote:  A problem with LHA/Housing Benefit, is that there is no obligation on councils to make sure the property is fit for purpose before granting a housing benefit payment.

I let a flat to LHA claimants through a housing association, and they had very stringent standards about the standards of decoration, furnishing and safety the property had to meet before they'd put a tenant in there. To be honest, it ended up in a far better condition than I kept my own place at the time (who doesn't have a few blu-tac marks on their walls?)

The Housing Association model clearly works in tenants' best interests, and gives landlords no choice but to have high standards. Unfortunately, I can't see it ever being used more widely: enforcing it on a mass scale would be too expensive, and it might exacerbate the housing shortage as dodgy landlords drag their heels with bringing properties up to scratch.