A landlord who failed to provide a council with information about one of his properties when served notices requiring him to do so has been fined.
The landlord was found guilty of offences under the Housing Act 2004 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
On 24 January 2023, an officer from Coventry council inspected a property in the city as they suspected it was an unlicensed HMO.
As part of its investigation into potential breaches of housing legislation, the council served the landlord with a Requisition for Information Notice under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, and a notice requiring him to produce documents under section 235 of the Housing Act 2004.
The landlord failed to respond to both of the notices and was found guilty in his absence at Birmingham and Solihull Magistrates’ Court.
He was fined £770 for the offences, ordered to pay £300 in court costs and a £308 victim surcharge.
A spokesperson from the council says: “We are committed to improving standards of private sector housing accommodation across the city.
“When accommodation is not being responsibly managed and regulations are breached, we will use the range of legal powers at our disposal to take action to help ensure that tenants can enjoy a safe and healthy home.
“This prosecution sends a clear message to landlords that notices from the Council need to be taken seriously, and that we will not hesitate to prosecute those who choose to ignore their legal obligations.”
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Not doing the proper paperwork is the greatest sin of all in the eyes of petty bureaucrats.
BTW who was the victim who got the £308 windfall "victim surcharge " and how was/were he/she/it/they (only valid options) victimised?
The Victim Surcharge is a sum of money that a magistrate orders a defendant to pay. This amount is transferred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and is awarded to claimants who have been victims of physical crimes.
Michael
Thanks for this explanation. I wasn't aware of this.
I have been defrauded of thousandsof physical pounds sterling by rent dodgers and had to spend thousands of physical hours of physical work and physical pounds sterling repairing physical criminal damage.
Where do I apply for my victim surcharge compensation?
Hello Robert
I'm very sorry indeed to hear about your situation but I'm afraid to say it wouldn't apply to you.
You can only claim for being the victim of a serious physical attack on yourself or you were injured whilst trying to prevent a crime from being carried out or if a close relative has been killed.
The claim has to be made within two years of the incident and has to be reported to the police beforehand.
Michael
I understand what you mean but suspect that being a landlord would probably mean any crime against me, even physical violence, would be dismissed as a "civil" matter and not a crime just as theft of or damage to a landlord's property is dismissed as civil and not criminal matters.
So how did failing to provide a council with information about one of his properties when served notices requiring him to do so, lower the standards of private sector housing accommodation across the city?
The absence of any explanation of who, why and what constituted the 'victim surcharge' renders the whole article nothing more than a 'bureaucratic sulk'.
A magistrate automatically imposes a Victim Surcharge on any defendant who has been issued with a fine and is a variable amount.
Please login to comment