x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Landlord fined £6,600 for health and safety failings

A West Midlands landlord has been ordered to pay costs and fines of more than £6,600 after a series of poor living conditions for vulnerable tenants were found.

Dudley Council prosecuted Balwinder Singh Dhadwal, from Hagley, for a number of failings at properties in Stourbridge.

They included mould on the walls of the flats, electrical problems and not having smoke detectors fitted.

Advertisement

Council housing officials were concerned about the health and safety of tenants, many of whom were described in court as “vulnerable”. The council tried to get the 60-year-old landlord to resolve a number of issues, but without success.

Dhadwal pleaded guilty to five breaches of the Housing Act and failing to adhere an order preventing a property being re-let. Dudley Magistrates’ Court ordered him to pay £1,065 for each offence and £1,190 costs. He was also ordered to pay £120 victim surcharge.

In mitigation, Dhadwal’s barrister said his client had been working to improve the property, including fitting smoke alarms.

Councillor Gaye Partridge, cabinet member for housing, said: “This sends out a clear message that we will do everything we can to protect tenants living in private accommodation wherever possible.

“Landlords who do not take advice and fail to improve their properties can expect an expensive visit to court.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • Jamie  Humm

    Why, why, why? When will these landlords learn that you can't get away with stuff like this?

    Sadly, it's nigh on impossible to eradicate these rogue landlords completely - there will always be some who will take a risk for financial reward. But fines like this will act as a further deterrent. In my opinion, they should be even higher and the landlord shouldn't be able to continue as a landlord for a certain period of time until they can show they're up to the job.

icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up