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


Shocking ‘bed in shed’ landlords must pay thousands in fines

A landlord must pay thousands of pounds after illegally letting an outbuilding for over three years.

Paul Vig admitted failing to comply with a Planning Enforcement Notice which prohibited the outbuilding being used as a self-contained residence for letting out.

The structure in the garden of a house in Langley, Berkshire, had a shower room, a washing machine and white goods which allowed it to be a self-contained property – a ‘bed in a shed’.


A planning enforcement notice was issued for the property in 2015. 

However, when the landlord applied for a compulsory licence for an HMO, it was discovered although some white goods had been removed, it still contained everything needed to be an independent self-contained unit.

Vig and his wife Maria appeared at Reading Crown Court for a Proceeds of Crime Act hearing, as they benefitted from letting out the property at £160 per week. 

Each admitted a single charge of being in contravention of an enforcement notice contrary to section 179 Town and County Planning Act 1990, between September 21 2016 and July 2 2019.

Mr Vig was fined £5,000 for flouting the enforcement notice. The fine was ordered to be paid within six months or he would face a three-month prison sentence. He was also ordered to pay £8,161.67 towards the council’s costs.

Mrs Vig was given a six-month conditional discharge with Judge Emma Nott stating she was just a landlord by name on documentation and all responsibilities were undertaken by her then-husband. She was ordered to pay the remaining council costs of £4,000.

In her judgement, Judge Nott said: “I am satisfied that Mr Vig knew full well that the continued commercial use of the outbuilding was in breach of the enforcement notice.

“Photographs dated 24 July 2019 show a kitchenette – washing machine, microwave, fridge freezer, washing facilities, cupboards with food and glassware. With or without the kitchen equipment, this is a self-contained unit of accommodation and the tenancy agreements show that this is how it was let.

“As a landlord he has a clear duty to understand and comply with all rules, regulations and notices pertaining to the properties he rents out.

“The offending is aggravated by the length of time over which it was committed, the fact that it was committed for financial gain, the poverty of amenity provided by the property to the tenant of the outbuilding and the adverse effect on the tenant of the main property.”

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.

  • icon
    • S S
    • 21 October 2021 08:05 AM

    So between 21/9/16 and 2/7/2019, assuming the shed was rented at £160 per week, they received in rent £31,520. Their fines were in total £17,161.67? Of that £12,161.67 was Councils costs. And that ignore the rent charged between the original enforcement notice served in 2015.
    So the result is Rogue Landlords - carry on doing what you are doing because even if you get caught breaching enforcement notices, you'll still be better off!
    If you want to stop rogue landlords then the fines should be greater than the benefit - In this case it was very clear that they were in breach and continued to operate in breach. They should lose all the income that was made from renting out an unsuitable and illegal property. That is the only way to stop this type of behaviour.

  • icon

    In other parts of the country this shed would be called a chalet and Airbnb would get £300 or more per week for it!

    I suppose the renters willing to pay £160 per week would prefer it to a cardboard box?

    I'm not condoning the landlord - but really, what is so bad about meeting the demand for such accommodation in a such a way? Is it less safe than a wooden holiday chalet?

    Perhaps the Council should reflect on how badly they are meeting the needs of the homeless which, if met properly, would remove the demand for such accommodation?

    PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    I guess the answer is, 2 x Wrongs don't = a 'Right'


    Yep goes to show how scewed the UK property market is when folks pay £160 a week for a shed


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up