Please Note: This Article is 2 years old. This increases the likelihood that some or all of it's content is now outdated.

London Borough of Brent is latest council to get tough with landlords who don’t register their properties within Selective Licensing scheme areas.

A landlord in London is the latest to be fined for renting out unlicenced properties within a Selective Licensing scheme and is to pay a total of £90,763 despite the properties (one of which is pictured) not giving council inspectors any serious concerns.

Stephen Ige, aged 49, has pleaded guilty to renting out three unlicenced properties within the London Borough of Brent after being told by council representatives several times that he needed to comply.

The huge fine includes £25,000 for each property plus £5,000 for failing to supply documents to Brent and £10,763 in costs to the council.

The size of the fines also reflects the fact that Ige is a repeat offender, having previously been found to have illegally let two other properties in the area. He was later fined £5,000 for each property but subsequently applied for licences for the two properties.

Brent’s Selective Licensing schemes operate in the wards of Dudden Hill, Kensal Green, Kilburn, Mapesbury and Queen’s Park, although a further 13 wards may soon be included if the borough’s recent application to the Secretary of State is given the green light.

“Renting out a property is a serious business and in Brent we have introduced selective licensing to ensure that tenants are living in safe, well managed homes,” says Brent Council’s cabinet member for housing and welfare reform Cllr Eleanor Southwood.

“If you are a landlord in selective licensing area, failing to licence your property puts you at risk of being prosecuted and fined. “While the council did not identify any serious concerns with the current state of Ige’s properties, our licensing scheme is designed to give tenants confidence that they are living in homes that are safe.”

Please Note: This Article is 2 years old. This increases the likelihood that some or all of it's content is now outdated.


  1. Good? Okay so there are probably worse offending landlords out there. But it makes you wonder what else this guy was remiss with. If he chose to avoid paying the selective licensing and clearly knew it was wrong as he had been done for it previously. What else was he saving money by not doing?

    Those of us who make every effort to be totally compliant landlords should be playing on a level playing field.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here