A landlord must pay nearly £33,000 in fines and costs for running a shabby house in multiple occupation (HMO) with poor fire safety putting the lives of tenants at risk.
Sarah Goldsmith, 42, was found guilty of several HMO management rules at Watford Magistrates Court.
The magistrates heard the property, in Hatfield, Hertfordshire, was in a poor state of repair.
Most of the windows and roof needed maintenance and some walls had bad mould and condensation due to a blocked shower.
None of the rooms in the nine-bedroom house had fire doors and fire extinguishers were out of date.
Gas and electric meters were in a locked cupboard and the heating only worked between 6pm and 6 am despite tenants paying for utilities as part of their rent.
Mice infested home
HMO landlord Abdul Rashid Warishaully, 44, of Ilford, Essex, was found guilty of 15 HMO management charges in his absence by Redbridge Magistrates Court.
The court heard he let a three-floor HMO to nine tenants – including children and an 18-month old baby.
A council inspection team visited the home after complaints from tenants and discovered the rooms were infested with mice.
The house had no protected fire escape routes, no fire alarm and electrics that needed repair.
The council banned the landlord from letting the property, but he reconnected the electricity supply and continued to rent to tenants.
He was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,914.
Councillor Muhammed Javed, Cabinet Member for Housing said: “The conditions found at this property were truly appalling and placed the tenants’ safety at considerable risk.”
GBH appeal granted
Two men jailed for assaulting two tenants have won the right to challenge their conviction at the Court of Appeal.
Mohammed Nazir, 47, of Bolton, Lancashire, the HMO landlord, was jailed for five years with his nephew Sultan Mahmood, 37, for inflicting grievous bodily harm after the tenants suffered head injuries in the attack.
The Court of Appeal agreed both men may have grounds to have their convictions overturned on the grounds the jury in the original trial was not directed to consider whether serious harm