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

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Bumper £68,000 fines for HMO landlord and his company

Mulberry Real Estate Ltd, and its director, David Bryant, who are landlords of properties in Cardiff, have been fined for a string of health and safety offences. 

These include failing to carry out necessary repairs to fire doors, escape windows and kitchens and for failure to re-licence two properties.

Mulberry Real Estate Ltd. was fined £31,995 and Bryant was fined £36,300.

Advertisement

In July and October 2021, two HMO licences held by Bryant's company expired for properties in the Welsh capital. Both properties were licensed by the council in October 2016. The licences included conditions requiring the landlord to carry out work to the fire doors, escape windows, and to the kitchens in both properties within three months of the licence being issued.

In 2021, when the licences expired, despite contact on several occasions from the council, no application was received to renew either licence for these properties.

Inspections then took place in October 2022 which confirmed that both properties required a new HMO licence and that the works which should have been carried out under the terms of the 2016 licence had not been done.

Solicitors, acting for both Mulberry Real Estate Ltd. and David Bryant, attended the Cardiff Magistrates Court and offered guilty pleas to 11 offences, including failing to licence two properties as Houses of Multiple Occupation.

A spokesperson for the council says: "The majority of landlords in Cardiff provide a good service to their residents and ensure that their rented properties are in a good state of repair and compliant with all relevant legislation.

"Unfortunately, there are some that do not, and, in these instances, action is taken against them. The Magistrates stated in court that they were really shocked by what was presented by the council. Students were put at risk. The required works hadn't been completed for seven years.

"I hope this sentence sends a firm message to rogue landlords, that the court does take these matters very seriously, as is reflected by the level of the fines issued."

Mulberry Real Estate Ltd was fined £31,995, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £2,000 and costs of £251.86. Bryant was fined £36,300, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £2,000 and costs of £251.86.

The court instructed that all fines and costs must paid by the end of October this year.

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.

  • icon

    What are pointless exercise. For a fraction of the fines, the council could’ve repaired the properties so giving the protection the council say tenants needed and charged the landlord for the works. Bringing a prosecution takes enormous amount of time on benefits, who?
    Reading between the lines, it has taken the council six years to carry out an inspection which should’ve been done within months of the license been granted. Yet the council complain about landlords being incompetent
    Jim HaliburtonTheHMODaddy

  • icon

    So the council licensed the property without appropriate works completed, then failed to check for the duration of the license and only went to take the landlord to court after the landlord failed to re license. So where is the care for the tenants by the council during the period when the property was licensed. The court should fine the council for not doing their job properly while the license was in force and ensuring the safety of the tenant. The tenants should take the council to court based on the outcome of this case for compensation as the council has provided licences to properties that should not have had them.
    The only reason council is taking this action is to gain money and only if the tenants take the council to court for negligence on their part, the councils will start to work with landlords instead of trying to fine them as a source of income.

  • Yvette Graham

    100% agree with the above statements

  • icon

    Why are the court cost part of the fine so low? What cost are they supposed to cover?

  • Peter Why Do I Bother

    I would challenge this as the council have not followed up on recommendations, why have they not checked for six years?

    I know why they haven't, it is because they all had been given three day working week and practicing for the Peloton World Sprint Record which they want to take to Wales and get on a nice photo op with Comrade Drakeford...!

  • icon

    Well I am shocked! Someone with a British name in trouble, now that’s a dubious 🤨 record.

icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up