Landlord who put tenants’ health and safety at risk fined

Landlord who put tenants’ health and safety at risk fined

A LANDLORD who failed to carry out repairs at his properties and put tenants health and safety at risk has been fined.

Kassim Kurbanali (48) pleaded guilty to three offences relating to two properties that he owned and rented out in Brinsworth and Wales.

He appeared at Rotherham Magistrates’ Court on April 4 and pleaded guilty to failing to comply with improvement notices.

Kurbanali, of Manor Road, Wales, was fined £1,400 and also ordered to pay a £140 victim surcharge and £678 costs.

Read on… http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/102828/landlord-who-put-tenants-health-and-safety-at-risk-fined.aspx

Landlords urged to follow new safety rules

Posted On: 19 April 2016

LANDLORDS have been reminded they have to comply with new rules about smoke and carbon monoxide detectors which were brought in six months ago.

Read on… http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/102746/landlords-urged-to-follow-new-safety-rules.aspx

7 thoughts on “Landlord who put tenants’ health and safety at risk fined

  1. What again!

    Probably financial difficulty, I read elsewhere wife also fined historically, banks have seized assets.

    What I don’t understand is, on the laws of probability our council is still unfit for purpose.

    How!
    Just the toilet leaking, would make the property unfit for human habitation, the leaky roof and mold would render the properties unfit for human habitation.

    Why hasn’t our beloved council, used these powers, to condemn the properties in question.

    Oh sorry! They wouldn’t want to condemn the properties for human habitation, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO REHOUSE ANY SUCH PERSON.

    The shame is if the law was used correctly. I’m going to have a go, a person who neglects an animal, through the powers to be, once found out can be banned from taking care of the same, for an indefinite period, so why the shortfall when it comes to humans.

    Shame on you RMBC you just justifying, landlord licensing.

    But am I the only one to see, some people like to live in $#!t holes, they make their environment so miserable it hurts, or are we talking above our station, probably we are discriminating against the mentally disabled.

    So why are the housing associations and the council themselves above the law, by default the tenant can be as bad, I know many to be below standard as a result of tenant.

    Like

    • You are correct in everything you say regarding the landlord’s and the COUNCIL they are not applying the law because there is an upcoming election and they won’t want to lose votes so things will be left as is. The still unfit for purpose COUNCIL will do nothing unless it follows party lines, UKIP councillors are not ones who will be tied by the party but will act on behalf of the electorate

      Like

  2. I am not defending these slum landlords, but it is not correct to say a toilet leaking, mold and a leaky roof would render a property unfit for habitation. A few years ago there was a judgement in the House of Lords on properties that had no sound insulation, which is a requirement of building regulations since 1979.
    The judgement can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd991021/mills-1.htm
    This says that if the defects were there when the tenant first took the property he/she cannot expect the landlord to improve the property over and above what it was when the tenant first took the property.
    The legal phrase is “caveat lessee”, which means let the renter beware.

    Like

    • I think there is a difference between sound insulation and a leaky toilet.

      What I am talking about is condemning a building, lookup in the law dictionary.

      What you are talking about is condemning a contract no recourse back.

      Let’s say that you are right in your disposition, then the whole of the landlord licensing argument is lost.

      Like

      • If a property does not comply with the building regulations, and noncompliance is a criminal offence, not a civil one, then it is not fit for human habitation. The lack of sound insulation in flats in particular is considered “a major defect”, It is not a trivial matter as you insinuate.
        RMBC is the landlord of 23 pairs of flats in Masbrough. After a long and acrimonious dispute with the tenants, which necessitated in sound transference tests and an inspection of the party floors which revealed there was no sound insulation and various building defects in the party floors the council agreed to rectify the flats and had done some remedial work on two of the flats when the Law Lords gave their judgement, which I have quoted.
        The council then immediately ceased rectifying the flats in 2003 and have done nothing to them since. The flats still have major defects, but anyone accepting the tenancy of one of them takes the property as it stands. That’s what caveat lessee means. You cannot expect the landlord to improve the property beyond what it was when you took it .
        That judgement by the Law Lords is now the law of the land and it got councils up and down the country of the hook and saved them a great deal of money.

        Like

      • Mal

        I’ve been trying to keep it simple, so what you’re saying is sound proofing is in the same league as leaking toilets.

        How would anyone use that in court, me thinks that Mr Kurbanali missed a trick, please mal keep to the relevant subject matter.

        I am sorry that you are going in a different angle altogether, so let’s say on your arguments sake now you were the council, you had tenants whose accommodation toilets were leaky and there was water penertration and damp, as a council landlord you would be a HYPOCRITE.

        Using your argument, what about fire safety, would the council be absolved of any short coming, I’d check with the local fire authority in regards to public buildings, before chatting nonsense.

        I will give it to you though Mal, it seems like you’re so wrong even you don’t know it.

        Like

  3. UKIP are opposed to the current form of landlord and property registration in the hope of chiselling a few Kashmiri votes away from the Labour Party.

    My evidence comes in the form of their continued repetition of a completely false argument put around by the landlords themselves…an assertion they simply couldn’t be bothered to check.

    They assert that Council and Housing Association/ALMO properties aren’t subject to the same rules and regulations as they are now applying to private landlords…

    This is rubbish, and a mistruth so regularly repeated by the Landlords and Caven Vine that one has to question whether it is wilfull ignorance or plain lying on their part.

    All public landlords are far more heavily regulated than private ones. As well as the EU health and safety laws, they also have to comply with a wide variety of standards and management quality regulations.

    If UKIP and some of the whinging private landlords did a very basic Google, they would discover hundreds of regulations and laws that public landlords must comply with…way beyond what is required under the landlord and property registration scheme.

    One has to ask why UKIP and Caven Vines can’t be bothered to do a Google search that takes two minutes?

    Because they want the votes, not the truth.

    If you doubt me Check out. http://www.swan.org.uk/media/29894/regulatory_framework_2012.pdf

    Like

Leave your comment

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.