A landlord letting cold and damp properties has been hit with a bill of £12,000 for allowing tenants to live in poor conditions.
Robert Emery, of Higham, Kent, failed to make improvements to two properties in Chatham and another in Gillingham, ignoring legal notices.
He continued to let the Gillingham property despite Medway Council having served a prohibition order preventing anyone living there due to its poor state.
Two months later, council officers discovered new tenants in the property, which had damp in every room.
The tenants were said to have been placed there by agents Hilton Taylor.
Another property, in Chatham, had a damp problem as well as no heating and the toilet was broken.
Despite a formal improvement notice, Emery failed to carry out the necessary work.
A third property, also in Chatham, had a dangerous electrical system, rising damp and condensation, and some windows were lacking restrictors.
Despite the poor conditions, Emery allowed a tenant with two children under the age of five to live there and ignored an improvement notice.
Emery pleaded guilty to three offences.
He did not appear at Medway Magistrates’ Court when the case was heard last Thursday, but representatives from Hilton Taylor were in court.
Magistrates fined Emery £8,300 plus costs of £3,430 and a £350 victim surcharge.
The Kent Messenger reported the case here
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/rogue-landlord-fined-8k-27889/
If I was the agent I would refuse to take on such a property, they are never worth the hassle you get. I do wonder if the property was so bad why the tenant agreed to move in, could it be it what the tenants best choice (maybe due to location or cheap rent price?) forcing the tenant to move out might be forcing the tenant to their second best choice. Given the state of the flat I can only assume that's a smaller property in a worse area with higher rent… Or their car? Are we really protecting the tenant here, or just making ourselves feel good as we smite the evil landlords who take advantage of such vulnerable (or presumably stupid) tenants. Could we not encourage a system of informed consent.. Forcing landlords to have a damp survey and making it available to the tenant, who if then accepts to live there, is doing so at their own risk? Who's choice should it be what's best for the children? Do we really know more about the options available to the tenant better than they do so we are better placed to say what's best? I doubt it, but it's just my personal opinion. I would not wish anyone to live with damp, but I wouldn't want anyone to be evicted because of it either.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
It wouldn't be the first time a tenant takes on a damp property to get themselves up the ladder on the local Housing Association's List.
Looking at it from the other side many tenants have no choice and should not be forced into these conditions but the problem is the time it takes for Local Authorities to do something about it and therefore prolonging the suffering of the tenants.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
That's true, many do play the system. I just feel it seems wrong to remove an option from a tenant who proberbly already has very limited options. Forcing the tenant to his next best choice (on mates sofa or back in with abusive partner etc) is renting a damp property a cry for help? I doubt it. My ex wife made us move because the stairs was squeaky… Heaven help us if she was an MP. I wonder who will pay the £12,000 as I doubt it will be the landlord, but more likely the landlords insurance, who will raise premiums for all of us. When the judge choose to 'send a message' I wonder if he considered that he was hurting the good guys in the long run. I was jolly ticked off by the whole affair, and how it's reported.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Which bit of "Robert Emery, of Higham, Kent, failed to make improvements to two properties in Chatham and another in Gillingham, ignoring legal notices.
He continued to let the Gillingham property despite Medway Council having served a prohibition order preventing anyone living there due to its poor state." did you not understand?
I appreciate that some tenants have no alternative and others play the system, but these notices are rarely issued for fun. Ignore the Council and expect to get burned!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register