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

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Council heralds “fantastic result” ending in a fine for landlord

A landlord has been ordered by a court to pay over £6,000 after admitting a string of regulation breaches. 

Juliet Petrovic, of Mansfield, admitted to Nottingham Magistrates' Court three charges of failing to provide gas safety certificates and electrical safety certificates as well as letting an HMO which lacked essential fire safety measures.

She was fined £3,500 with costs of £2,500 and a victim surcharge of £181 giving a total of £6,181 to pay.

Advertisement

Mansfield council first became aware of the HMO in October 2019 after officers identified four residents who formed more than two households living in the three-storey property. 

The property breached the safety standards required of an HMO with a lack of interlinked smoke alarms and fire doors throughout the property.

The council took legal action after attempts to engage with the landlord to make the necessary improvements failed, and then the case was severely delayed because of Covid.

 

 

A spokesperson for the authority says: “This is a fantastic result and shows we will always seek to take legal action against any landlords who put their tenants’ health and safety at risk.

“Although HMOs provide a valuable source of affordable housing, they can also potentially pose significant risks to occupants.

“The council will always seek to work closely with private landlords in the first instance to ensure their properties are of the highest standard and ensure that tenants do not live in poor conditions. However we will also take the appropriate action where landlords refuse to co-operate with our investigations.”

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.

  • George Dawes

    Quite right , NO excuse re the gas certificates !!!

  • icon

    Well we had gas certificates ever before HMO’s so should have had those anyway. I think the other stuff came with the introduction of HMO’s and needed to be complied with if a HMO. However the definition of HMO’s is ridiculous, so 5 people or more and 3 stories as it probably was before Pandemic was a HMO. So there was 4 people not 5 ?. The rules are so corrupt & dishonest, it seems if it was 2 couples it would have been ok but still 4 persons, what’s the difference a person is a person whether in an relationship or not and how’s a LL to know ? one day you can believe they are in a relationship with another and before you know it they have switch partners or fallen out of partnership. There a bit more going on here with Tenant involvement, the Council identified 4 people living there by magic, if there was a whole family there it would have been fine even if they lived for free. I think the field is a bit out of level.

  • icon

    Definition of an HMO was introduced in the Housing Act 2004.

    3 or more people forming 2 or more households sharing amenities etc. So 4 unrelated people is a HMO, as is 2 couples in a house sharing amenities.

    I think you are getting confused with Mandatory Licencing (Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004) which originally required a HMO to be licenced when 5 people were in a 3 storey house. The requirement for 3 storeys was subsequently removed.

    None of these changes were affected by the pandemic.

  • icon

    I don’t agree Allen, it said HMO leading people to think it was Mandatory being referred to.
    They didn’t mention the other Schemes / Selective or Additional that would possibly cover this situation if applied to their Area. We know there are many HMO’s but they are not Licensable HMO’s there a big difference.

icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up