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


Five figure fine for landlord ignoring council warning on overcrowding

A private landlord operating an unlicensed and overcrowded property in London has been hit with a fine of more than £21,000. 

The property was the subject of numerous complaints from neighbours concerning anti-social behaviour at the unlicensed HMO in Brent.

The local council's Private Housing Services Team sent several letters to landlord Muhammad Ilyas asking him to take the appropriate action concerning the property and his tenants.


Following a visit to the property in June 2019, officers advised Ilyas to apply for an appropriate property licence. He failed to do so. 

At the same time, council officers provided advice to the tenants on what options were available to them, should the landlord decide to evict them,

Willesden Magistrates' Court heard the case, where Ilyas pleaded guilty to five separate offences. The court fined him a total of £21,115.50, including a prosecutions cost of £3,925.00 and a victim surcharge of £190. 

The magistrate stated the duration of the different offences, the vulnerable people in the property, and the amount of money Ilyas had made, were all aggravating factors. 


A council spokeswoman says: "This should serve as a reminder to private landlords who think they can operate unlicensed and overcrowded properties without any consequences. Sadly, it has proved an expensive lesson for the landlord concerned in this particular case. He did, however, continually ignore all the advice, help and warnings given to him.

"I'm pleased the Magistrates' Court recognised the seriousness of the offences and that Mr Ilyas' neighbours will no longer have to put up with the constant anti-social behaviour and noise from this 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.

  • PossessionFriendUK PossessionFriend

    Council should have issued a Prohibition Order closing the property for a period of time.
    Condemning the landlord and asking him to evict some of the tenants, whilst giving 'Anti-eviction' advice to the tenants is a pointless and contradictory exercise that has benefitted no-one.
    A prohibition notice would have dealt with the Over-crowding instantly, but evidently, the council were content to allow the tenants to remain, as long as the landlord, stumped up cash for a HMO license.
    We had a similar case recently,, which we dealt with 'positively for the landlord and overturned the Council's Civil Penalty notice to the landlord.

  • icon

    He should have got the License. Same usual question because we are not told, how many on the Tenancy Agreement & who put extra persons in the property Tenant or LL. They tell us Tenants are allowed to have guests to frustrate the problem. The Council advised the Tenants how to avoid eviction so LL is powerless further they didn’t want the Tenants evicted so what I instrument of control is available to the LL.

  • icon

    The Council acknowledged the Tenants were unruly the subject of several complaints of anti-social behaviour, so the Tenants were the problem, the council didn’t prosecute them which is what should have happened. Instead they decided to suppose the culprits and advise how to remain in the property while fining LL that didn’t commit ASB but obviously had to plead guilty or fine doubles which is well documented in other cases. I am not supporting this LL in any way because I am not privileged to all the facts, but certainly seems one sided.

  • icon

    brent--known as bent for decades


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up