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


Shocking lack of toilet facilities for rogue landlord's tenants

A landlord who allowed his tenants to live in squalid conditions, has been ordered by the court to pay £5,000 for breaching an Emergency Prohibition Order  .

Dharminder Singh Dale of Stourbridge was issued with an Improvement Notice by Walsall council in autumn 2018 to repair the property he was renting to a young family. 

Instead, he ignored this and his tenants were eventually left with no hot water, fixed heating or a working toilet. 


The council moved the family into emergency accommodation and serving an Emergency Prohibition Order on the property. This stopped use of the property for residential occupation until the landlord had carried out repairs to the satisfaction of the council.

Despite this order, in July 2019 council officers discovered that Dale had chosen to let the property to another family who had allegedly ‘agreed’ to carry out the repairs themselves for him. 

At a hearing held at Dudley Magistrates’ Court Dale pleaded guilty to knowingly breaching the Order and was fined £5,000. 

He was also ordered to pay the council’s full costs of £2,300 and a victim surcharge of £181.


The prosecuting Judge, Mr Wilkinson said that Dale had left his tenants in squalor and that he was in no doubt that Dale had let greed get in the way.  

He added that: “The order was made because the property had no heating, no hot water, and no functioning toilet. The condition of the property was disgraceful and a clear message had to be sent out that landlords could not allow tenants to live in these conditions.”

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

    Shocking conditions, maybe the fine should have been more, maybe he should be banned from renting property, but are we hearing the full story ? why didn't the family move? or maybe the family are the type of tenants that no decent landlord would touch with a barge pole, and maybe the conditions were caused by the tenants, as is often the case.

  • icon

    If it’s the family from hell £7500 is a cheap price. Wonder where the money goes. This is a question we should be asking of council fines

  • icon

    No Heating or Hot water this may simply mean the Boiled is broken down if he had one. No working Toilet does this mean they Blocked the Toilet. There was 2 separate Family’s involved on 2 different occasions both would appear to be re-housed by Council. This trick is working well the Families & the Council both Benefit from it. The Tenants get re-housed & Council gets the easy money. It cost LL £7.5k excl’ any of his costs, not condoning the LL actions or condition of his property because I don’t know. LL pleaded guilty this is the Noam if he didn’t want the fine doubled normal. What happens to the money ?, other cases Council gets 37.5%, Court gets 12.5%, Gov’ gets 50%, any more questions. are the Convictions safe, is there a vested interest here in these types of cases ?.


    Some yrs ago a young guy that lived next door to a terraced cottage that I own moved away to work and rented his house to a young family, soon he had the council after him, damp, there was no damp on my side, it later turned out that they had been throwing water at the walls, they got housed by the council and to this day that property has never suffered damp again, just an example of what some tenants will do in order to get housed by the council


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up