and now for something completely different

Rotherham landlord fined over flats

Published Friday, 13th March 2015

A Rotherham landlord has been fined over £13,000 for failing to maintain a house containing several flats.

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/news/article/415/rotherham_landlord_fined_over_flats

RR

15 thoughts on “and now for something completely different

  1. Houses of multiple occupational are subject to a wide range of conditions, for the law abiding landlord not an issue, for those aiming to exploit every cm of space then watch out.

    Let’s hope that the new commissioners will ensure that RMBC carries out their responsibilities towards tenants of private landlords.

    A good start would be for every landlord receiving tax payers money must be subject to an unannounced inspection of their properties.

    An even better start would be inspecting any properties belonging to a landlord connected with a certain political party past or present.

    Like

  2. This is why the Pakistani landlords do not want to have licences. This is just the tip of the iceburg, there are plenty more houses just like this if not worse in Eastwood, they all need checking even if it means going from door to door these landlords need rooting out.

    Like

  3. pakistani landlords think themself above the law just see tenants as a money making machine this is a good reason why the landlord scheme is needed .

    Like

    • not ALL Pakistani landlords are as bad, only those with links to Lord Ahmed, Jhangir Akhtar, Maroof Hussain and Cllr Shokat ali- probably because they thought they can get away with it as they had connections with RMBC and SYP

      Like

      • It is not just Pakistani landlords who need regulating.
        I’m not at all convinced that is is just those landlords with links to the people you mention, nor to all of those who are linked to them, that need regulating.

        Like

  4. I remember very clearly the Rackman era when he had houses and flats in London and got the tenants out with violence and cutting off all services. At this Mondays Dinnington Town Council meeting we had a private landlord asking us to write to Rotherham condemning the licensing proposals. She went on to tell us that they had £55,000 in a fund to fight it through the courts; she then went on to attempt to frighten the people of Dinnington into believing that if RMBC got their way all our insurance rates would rise astronomically because we would be classed as a high asbo area. However she did make one salient point, and the above proves her correct, the council already has enough laws at their disposal to fine bad landlords, why don’t they use them? I can’t help feeling that the commissioners come in and a private landlord gets prosecuted for having dangerous and unfit for habitation premises; there are hundreds of these around our area so why hasn’t there been more prosecutions. In Rotherham this seems to be the most used question whether it be CSE or any thing else, WHY HASN’T THERE BEEN MORE PROSECUTIONS?
    Dave Smith

    Like

    • Dave
      That “the council already has enough laws at their disposal to fine bad landlords, ” has been an argument used by Landlord Groups every time that any council consults on Selective Licencing – and many councils have already implemented Selective Licencing.
      I think the problem lay in getting the evidence to successfully prosecute – but I can’t remember my source for that.

      Like

  5. Dave Smith is right, councils have enough powers to prosecute landlords who endanger their tenants.
    All rented properties must meet certain standards to make them safe and fit to live in. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is used to assesses these standards. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) aims to ensure that your home doesn’t have any serious hazards, and enables a council to take action against landlords whose properties are dangerous.
    http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repairs_and_bad_conditions/health_and_safety/hhsrs
    Plus safeguards under Environmental Health legislation also give councils statutory powers.
    I have not seen any persuasive evidence from RMBC that charging private landlords nearly £600 for a Selective Licence is better than-or an improvement on-existing laws.

    Like

    • Hi Colin
      There is a pdf on the RMBC site “A Guide for Landlords and Managing Agents on Selective Licensing in Rotherham” , and it covers HHSRS in some detail.
      As I see it, and after reading the Shelter pdf, is that currently the onus is on the tenant to know about HHSRS and report an problems to the Landlord in writing, the wait ,and if nothing gets done write again to the Landlord and finally to the Council. I can see a few problems with that, particularly in the locations in question.
      The £600 for a 5 year licence however funds extra staff within RMBC to go and pro-actively ensure that the landlords are fulfilling the law.

      Like

      • @rr
        Is there any evidence the ‘extra staff’ are fully versed in what is required and they will not make subjective assessments?
        I have past experiences of RMBC building and housing staff being out of their depth when asked simple questions and to provide evidence of their assertions/opinions.
        I fully support the concept of decent housing but it has been shown time and time again that chucking money at problems is not always the answer.

        Like

Leave a Reply to A regular reader Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.