By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.


Landlord ordered to repay £39,000 rent

A buy-to-let landlord who failed to obtain a license for a property in London has been ordered to repay close to £40,000 in rent after action was taken by Islington Council.

The Council opted to reclaim the money it paid to Landhouse Ltd in housing benefits relating to an HMO, after the firm admitted to renting out the property without the correct HMO license.

The council’s environmental health officers had conducted an inspection of the property, finding it to be overcrowded and badly managed. Fire hazards were also found throughout the property.


In a hearing at the Property Chamber, London Residential Property First Tier Tribunal, the landlord was ordered to pay £14,140 in fines and costs, as well as repay the council £39,022.52 in housing benefit relating to the period during which the flat was rented without a licence.

Landhouse Ltd has now applied for a licence, but is still liable to repay the benefit, which will be returned to a central government housing benefit consolidation fund.

Councillor Diarmaid Ward, Islington Council’s executive member for housing and development, said: “More and more people rent privately in Islington, and we’re committed to helping make sure they have decent homes to live in. We will take action when landlords do not keep within the law, and as this case shows the costs can be very significant.” 

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.

  • icon

    Now that's what I call a fine as so many fines are just a token amount. £53,162.52 is a lot of money and all the landlord had to do was get legal. What a fool and how good is that that the court took the whole thing seriously.

  • icon

    Paul, don’t agree with you at all it means people can have no trust in the Council or legal System. Its a clear warning to LL’s not to Rent to Council or Housing Benefit Tenants. They were quite happy for him to take the Tenants of their hands use his Property and facilities then turn around and grab the money back plus loaded him with costs. I don’t know about the hansards were they as a result of something the Tenants had done. Overcrowding I’ll pass on that one who made it overcrowded & were the Council negligent in their duty placing Tenants in an overcrowded Property without checking. Why did Council not check that the Properties didn’t have a HMO license again before placing Tenants, the Council above all should know the rules they made them.

  • icon

    Simple, stick to decent working tenants, avoid HMOs and the great unwashed , just not worth it.

  • icon

    Yes I agree but not possible to avoid them even if we wanted to with so Schemes, HMO’s mandatory, Additional licensing Scheme, Selective licensing Scheme, one is bound to impinge on you and can’t be avoid all unless you select the type of person that it don’t apply to mostly false Claimant Benefit families.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up