Landlord refuses to identify himself - and gets hit with huge fine

A landlord has been ordered to pay over £44,000 after a court found him guilty of a serious housing offence.

Giuseppe Sutera, also known as Joe Sutera, attended Bristol Magistrates’ Court for the prosecution brought by South Gloucestershire council, but refused to identify himself. He stated only that he was “a man” and that Joe Sutera was “lost at sea”. 

As he had not properly identified himself the court decided that Sutera was not in fact present, and he was found guilty in his absence. He was ordered to pay a total of £44,270.26,.

The court heard how Sutera had breached an Emergency Prohibition Order served by South Gloucestershire councilby continuing to let a property where there were serious fire safety issues and where tenants’ lives were being put at risk. 

Sutera had also failed to respond to a notice served by the team requiring him to provide his address and details of the property he rents. Sutera has consistently refused to provide his home address and his uncooperative attitude at court served to highlight the way he has hampered the investigations of the council. 

The council was first alerted to the property in Bristol last August following a complaint from the tenant occupying the HMO. An unannounced inspection was carried out to assess whether any hazards were present that posed a risk to the health and safety of the tenants or visitors to the property.

Following this inspection, a high category 1 hazard for fire was established as there was the potential for serious injury or death to the occupants due to there being no safe escape route in the event of a fire. The shared kitchen was located in the middle of the main escape route of the property. There were no fire doors to any of the bedrooms and there were no working smoke alarms in the property. The secondary escape route was located in a bedroom where there was also a makeshift kitchenette located in the porch, effectively also blocking access to that escape route.

In October two notices were served. 

One required Sutera to ensure that the property was not occupied until the fire risk was removed. This would involve a reconfiguration of the premises, including ensuring the shared kitchen was separated from the stairwell with a suitable fire door. It also required that the kitchenette in the ground floor front bedroom was either re-located to a more suitable location, or removed, and there be adequate fire protection throughout the residence.

The other was served to establish ownership and to identify those people with an interest in the property and their home address(es).

With the full knowledge that the order had been served prohibiting occupation of the premises, Sutera continued to let the property: Sutera had also set up new tenancies and new tenants had moved into the property since the EPO had been served.

A spokesperson for the council says: “South Gloucestershire has approximately 17,000 privately rented properties, and we will not tolerate landlords failing to meet their legal responsibilities in relation to the conditions of the homes they offer for rent.

“Our Private Sector Housing team always try to work with landlords to bring their properties up to standard, but where this informal approach fails, we will look to take enforcement action. The level of the fine in this case serves as a serious warning to all landlords that they have a legal responsibility to protect their tenants and provide a safe and decent property for them to live in, and if they fail to do this, the council will take action.”

The council says it's aware of at least eight other properties which Sutera owns within South Gloucestershire and a statement says the authority “will continue to investigate these properties to ensure the safety of the tenants.”

According to Bristol council, Sutera owns a further four licenced HMOs in the Bristol local authority area.

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.