Please Note: This Article is 6 years old. This increases the likelihood that some or all of it's content is now outdated.

A landlord was fined for a second time for allowing tenants to live in a dirty and squalid shared house in multiple occupation (HMO) despite a ban on letting the shared home from the local council.

Shahinur Choudhury was ordered to pay £525 fines and costs by Darlington Magistrates after admitting breaching HMO regulations.

Darlington Council banned Choudhury from letting the home after he was fined £3,300 and lost his HMO licence for breaking 11 housing rules in March 2013.

The ban was imposed as the County Durham council felt the property was too dirty and dangerous to live in.

- Advertisement -

This time, the council was alerted that tenants were still living in the house after police were called to an incident.

Four tenants were living with no running water in filthy rooms strewn with rubbish.

Choudhury told the court the tenants refused to leave and threatened him.

David Burrell, the council’s private sector housing manager, said: “The landlord continued to rent out the property despite knowing that it was not safe for tenants to live in. He endangered not only his tenants but also those of neighbouring properties.”

Meanwhile, another landlord in Widnes, Cheshire, was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 costs for breaking fire safety laws after converting an industrial unit into flats without notifying the local council.

Colin Duncan, 57, admitted eight fire safety charges before Warrington Magistrates.

The property was an industrial unit converted into a shared house in multiple occupation (HMO) without informing the council or taking out a licence.

Keith Brooks, Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service’s Head of Community Fire Protection, said: “When we visited a number of issues were highlighted that included a lack of adequate fire separation between rooms, inadequate standard of fire alarm, inadequate means of escape from the premises, combustibles being stored and blocking the means of escape. It was clear to us that the lack of fire safety was certainly risking the lives of those living and sleeping at the premises.”

Please Note: This Article is 6 years old. This increases the likelihood that some or all of it's content is now outdated.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here