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


Landlord ordered to pay more than £5k for overcrowded property in Nottingham

A private landlord in Nottingham has appeared at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court where he pleaded guilty to breaching a prohibition order requiring him to limit the number of occupants in a rental flat he owns to a maximum of two people.

Officers from Nottingham City Council’s Safer Housing Team visited the one-bedroom property in Sneinton Boulevard in March and found seven people living there, including five children, aged between two and 16, some of whom were sleeping in a storeroom.

The Council immediately served a prohibition order requiring Matteo Mariano, aged 53, to reduce the number of occupants to no more than two people.


But when officers visited the property again two months later to make sure this had been carried out, they found that the same number of people were still living there from the previous visit, which meant that the landlord was in breach of the prohibition order.

Mariano, of Ranmoor Road, Gedling, was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £1,575 of legal costs, £944.94 investigation costs and a £170 victim surcharge.

Cllr David Mellen, leader of Nottingham City Council and portfolio holder for community safety, said: “It was a major concern for officers to find so many people cramped into a small, one-bedroom property.

“Lack of space and overcrowded conditions have been linked to a number of health problems, including psychological distress and mental disorders, especially those associated with a lack of privacy and childhood development.

“Crowded conditions are also linked with the spread of contagious illnesses and an increased risk of accidents.

“Mr Mariano paid scant regard to any of this, and clearly placed personal profit ahead of the safety and well-being of his tenants.

“The vast majority of landlords in Nottingham are law-abiding and respectful. However, people should be in no doubt that we will seek out those who put tenants at risk, and bring them before the courts.

“This is not Mr Mariano’s first offence. In 2014, the same property was inspected by the Safer Housing Team and an Emergency Prohibition Order was served because of a number of serious hazards and defects. This prohibited the property being used for living and sleeping accommodation.

“Mr Mariano failed to comply with this after allowing a tenant to rent the home. He subsequently plead guilty to breaching the order at court.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    So Licensing scheme played no part in this proper execution of Local Authority enforcement.

    Perhaps if Nottingham weren't so bogged down in a bureaucratic Licensing scheme, - they'd have more time to enforce standards and breaches like this one. !

    Mick Roberts

    I can't defend the Landlord in this one, but yes this could & may have been found without Licensing.

  • icon

    who was on rental agreement?

  • icon

    Clearly a case of NOT A FIT AND PROPER PERSON to have / manage a rental property. the landlord has got off very light for a second similar offence

  • icon

    So another LL fined £5k for over crowding when do we get the rest of the story. I can't have a view on this without knowing the facts. It has been raised before how many was on the Tenancy Agreement, who put the additional persons in there, did the LL get more rent for the extra people, when the Council served the prohibition on the LL did they give him an instrument to enforce it, what could he have done ask the occupants will you leave please that's not going to work is it, is this a classic case of the occupants presumable connected getting housed by the Council, no need for waiting lists priority straight away it would be worth their while them giving the LL £5k, they didn't tell us any of this, maybe that's why the fine is not higher although £5k is a lot of money especially if you were not on the wrong, maybe LL's should get the £170 victim surcharge who is the victim here.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up