The landlord of a property dubbed a “house of horrors” by Barking and Dagenham council enforcement officers has been ordered to pay more than £8,000 by the courts.
Water leaks, broken windows and doors, a lack of fire protection, exposed electrical wiring, and rat and cockroach infestation were just some of the problems uncovered during an inspection by council officers at the semi-detached house in the London borough.
The owner of the property, Kalpesh Kapasiwala of Barking, had divided the family home into seven individual rooms forming an HMO.
When council officers visited the property in June last year, they were amazed at the failings they found throughout the entire house, which included several serious fire safety issues such as no fire doors, no working smoke alarms, and no carbon monoxide alarm.
Missing tiles and a roof in disrepair had allowed water to seep into the home, the boiler was plugged into an extension cable, and kitchen cupboards and units were missing handles and doors.
There was also a lack of adequate facilities for the seven people registered to live there, such as only one sink, one hob, one cooker, and one fridge.
The council wrote to Kapasiwala numerous times to give him the opportunity to correct the issues that had been identified, but he failed to adhere to any of the requests – even as far as ignoring letters he had been sent urging him to act or face prosecution.
Councillor Syed Ghani, Cabinet Member for Enforcement and Community Safety, says: “This is a perfect example of a landlord thinking he is above the law, but learning the expensive lesson that he isn’t. We will not tolerate landlords who think they can put profits before people.
“This really was a house of horrors for the people who were paying to live there, with countless safety issues being highlighted by our officers. We will continue to do everything we can to make sure the small minority of dodgy landlords don’t risk our residents’ lives.”
In a hearing held at Barkingside Magistrates Court - which Kapasiwala failed to attend - he was fined £6,000 with £335 costs and a £2,000 victim surcharge.
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Let's hope he got the letters.
Edwin. I think very unlikely he got letters any letters of this nature won’t be passed on by Tenants. When I had people playing up, overcrowding, parties, barbecue’s day & night, Police & Council visited and wrote to them a number of times but only once to me near the end I got one, when I acted immediately. When I served S.21 Council wanted me to keep them but I didn’t the damage was extensive. The rent was paid into Bank and when I visited I was kept at the door
I am not backing this landlord but he didn’t break cupboard doors, knobs or window, no mention of any warning letters to the occupants or prosecutions for them so they are encouraged.
Suppose if someone vandalised your car they don’t prosecute the owner.
Drivers, not garages, are prosecuted for driving unsafe vehicles.
A tenant took on this property without fire doors etc. If tenants were prosecuted for living in unsafe properties, putting all their neighbours at risk, these properties wouldn't be let out and market forces would act to improve the overall stock of rental properties.
A variation could be that tenants can move in, immediately formally request the necessary safety measures and report the landlord if work not started and completed within clearly defined timescales.
This measure would mean no need for Councils to employ their own inspectors as the tenants would do their job for them at no cost to the taxpayer.
Another funny name rogue landlord.
Wonder if he's also 79 and so far too old to be a landlord - according to some views on here - or actually much younger and just not fit to be a landlord?
So is the fine cheaper then the repairs? What happened after the fine, was the repairs carried out or did nothing else happen.
Exactly, the council could have under taken the repairs and then invoiced the landlord, or taken over the running of the property with all rent paid direct to them, take a charge out against the property, so many better ways than issuing fines that likely will never be paid and the repairs will still never be carried out
I think the Council wanted to fine transgressors because "rules" were broken much more than because unsafe properties were let to people desperate to live in them.
Rules rule with our public sector bureaucrats, no matter whether sensible or stupid.
There have been cases where council taxation have taken a landlords property's off him, be cause the tenants did not pay the council tax and he knew nothing about it. The courts are actually run by the council and everything they say is taken as gospel! I know I've been there !
Please login to comment