Redbridge man fined £24k for renting out beds in 'appalling' extension

East London and West Essex Guardian Series: The illegal structure housed six residents The illegal structure housed six residents

A rogue landlord has been fined £24,000 for housing tenants in a illegal extension.

Mohammed Saleem, of High Road, Ilford illegally rented out beds to a family-of-three and three men in a small building in an 'appalling condition'.

The illegal single-storey dwelling had a leaking roof, dangerous electrics, no fire alarm or fire doors, and some rooms had no ventilation or windows.

Redbridge Council say people could have been killed in the event of a fire.

Saleem failed to attend Havering Magistrates Court on December 13, and in his absence he was found guilty of eight housing management offences under the 2004 Housing Act.

He received fines of £3,000 per offence, ordered to pay costs of £1, 638 and a victim surcharge of £120, all of which is was ordered to be paid within 28 days.

Rebridge Council was tipped-off about the illegal structure last year and in April, the Housing Standards Team obtained a court warrant to launch an enforcement operation.

Redbridge Community Police Team, Building Control, Planning Enforcement, London Fire Brigade and a Home Office Immigration Enforcement team were all involved.

Cabinet member for housing, Cllr Michelle Dunn, said, "This fine for failing to keep residents safe is one of the largest in the country and shows the seriousness of the offences.

"The tenants were living in dangerous conditions and we will not tolerate landlords allowing people to live in our Borough like this and will continue to take tough enforcement action."

 

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:18pm Wed 8 Jan 14

cynicalsue says...

No doubt they have been housed in a nice cosy council house with full benefits
No doubt they have been housed in a nice cosy council house with full benefits cynicalsue

2:04pm Wed 8 Jan 14

MorrisHickey says...

Mud hut culture comes to Ilford.
Mud hut culture comes to Ilford. MorrisHickey

4:46pm Wed 8 Jan 14

stickmanny says...

cynicalsue wrote:
No doubt they have been housed in a nice cosy council house with full benefits
Oh really? If you doubt it so little you must have the evidence. Where is it?
[quote][p][bold]cynicalsue[/bold] wrote: No doubt they have been housed in a nice cosy council house with full benefits[/p][/quote]Oh really? If you doubt it so little you must have the evidence. Where is it? stickmanny

10:21am Thu 9 Jan 14

myopinioncounts says...

Planning permission has been granted for a "DIY Workshop" to be built in the garden of a house in Carisbrooke Road, Walthamstow. This 'workshop' is 7 X 3 metres, has two front doors and 4 windows and on the plans (viewable online) it shows that the building is divided into 2 down the middle (justifying the 2 front doors). If any member of the planning committee seriously thought that this was going to be used solely for DIY they must live in 'cloud cuckoo land'. They have virtually given permission for what would otherwise be an illegal dwelling as there is nothing in the planning consent stating that it's use must be restricted to non residential use.
Planning permission has been granted for a "DIY Workshop" to be built in the garden of a house in Carisbrooke Road, Walthamstow. This 'workshop' is 7 X 3 metres, has two front doors and 4 windows and on the plans (viewable online) it shows that the building is divided into 2 down the middle (justifying the 2 front doors). If any member of the planning committee seriously thought that this was going to be used solely for DIY they must live in 'cloud cuckoo land'. They have virtually given permission for what would otherwise be an illegal dwelling as there is nothing in the planning consent stating that it's use must be restricted to non residential use. myopinioncounts

12:16pm Thu 9 Jan 14

fabster says...

This is the sort of welcome prosecution we should be seeing. Not the compulsory Licensing scheme being proposed by the Council which will just pass on the burden of the fee to tenants while rendering the rest of us unable to let our non-compliant houses out if our personal circumstances change
This is the sort of welcome prosecution we should be seeing. Not the compulsory Licensing scheme being proposed by the Council which will just pass on the burden of the fee to tenants while rendering the rest of us unable to let our non-compliant houses out if our personal circumstances change fabster

12:19pm Thu 9 Jan 14

fabster says...

fabster wrote:
This is the sort of welcome prosecution we should be seeing. Not the compulsory Licensing scheme being proposed by the Council which will just pass on the burden of the fee to tenants while rendering the rest of us unable to let our non-compliant houses out if our personal circumstances change
I should point out the compulsory Landlord Licensing scheme being proposed is by Waltham Forest Council (not Redbridge)
[quote][p][bold]fabster[/bold] wrote: This is the sort of welcome prosecution we should be seeing. Not the compulsory Licensing scheme being proposed by the Council which will just pass on the burden of the fee to tenants while rendering the rest of us unable to let our non-compliant houses out if our personal circumstances change[/p][/quote]I should point out the compulsory Landlord Licensing scheme being proposed is by Waltham Forest Council (not Redbridge) fabster

12:29pm Thu 9 Jan 14

MorrisHickey says...

fabster wrote:
fabster wrote:
This is the sort of welcome prosecution we should be seeing. Not the compulsory Licensing scheme being proposed by the Council which will just pass on the burden of the fee to tenants while rendering the rest of us unable to let our non-compliant houses out if our personal circumstances change
I should point out the compulsory Landlord Licensing scheme being proposed is by Waltham Forest Council (not Redbridge)
Aping what Newham already does.
[quote][p][bold]fabster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fabster[/bold] wrote: This is the sort of welcome prosecution we should be seeing. Not the compulsory Licensing scheme being proposed by the Council which will just pass on the burden of the fee to tenants while rendering the rest of us unable to let our non-compliant houses out if our personal circumstances change[/p][/quote]I should point out the compulsory Landlord Licensing scheme being proposed is by Waltham Forest Council (not Redbridge)[/p][/quote]Aping what Newham already does. MorrisHickey

4:46pm Thu 9 Jan 14

mdj says...

'I should point out the compulsory Landlord Licensing scheme being proposed is by Waltham Forest Council'
Curiously the proposed licence fee does not seem to vary, whether you rent out your own house to your children when you retire, or whether you rent out 150 for profit, like certain councillors..

Shanties like this are appearing all over gardens in Waltham Forest, and enforcement appears to be very 'selective'.
'I should point out the compulsory Landlord Licensing scheme being proposed is by Waltham Forest Council' Curiously the proposed licence fee does not seem to vary, whether you rent out your own house to your children when you retire, or whether you rent out 150 for profit, like certain councillors.. Shanties like this are appearing all over gardens in Waltham Forest, and enforcement appears to be very 'selective'. mdj

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree