A council has prosecuted a landlord after a family of nine were discovered living in an outbuilding.
Tariq Khan of Peterborough was convicted of failing to comply with a prohibition order in relation to outbuildings in the town and was fined a total of £5,800.
The court heard that Peterborough council officers had first attended the address in 2016 and discovered a number of hazards.
The building was found to be in a poor condition with inadequate lighting, ventilation and fire safety measures. The officers found the dwelling was also too small to be reasonably occupied by an individual.
The council served an order prohibiting the use of the outbuilding for residential purposes.
In October 2022, officers attended the property and discovered the small building was being rented to a family of nine, including five children.
On January 31 this year Khan was convicted of failing to comply with a prohibition order under section 32 of the Housing Act 2004.
He was fined £2,000, ordered to pay £2,000 costs to the council and ordered to pay a £800 surcharge. The building is currently empty.
A spokesperson for the council says: "This prosecution should serve as a warning to the small minority of landlords who put their tenants at risk and flout the law. Landlords play an essential role in providing safe, warm and healthy homes to the residents of Peterborough.
"We will take enforcement action under the range of powers available to us if we discover landlords who flagrantly disregard the law."
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Hang on !! 2016 he first attended 🤔🤷♂️ That is 8 years ago, it’s taken this long 😂😂
My first thought Simon, why didn't the judge calculate the rental since 2016 and fine him that amount. To me this sounds like a slap on the wrist and he has still made Brewsters out of it.
But it not a danger to anyone now it’s empty, what took the Council so long to deal with the matter or did they wait until it became vacant to look for their money back. Where are the Family of 9 staying now did Council find them a nice big house. I’ll take odds the parents are not paying to rear and house them.
No family of nine should stay or live in a garage are you having a laugh.
Spot on Michael. You would think this family of nine were ‘forced’ enslaved to live there. They could have rented elsewhere surely. Am I missing something here
Sandra
Not sure if you want garages reserved for smaller families or larger families of more than nine?
Sandra
Like Jahan said they weren't kidnapped or forced to stay there. They were 'forced' because they obviously didn't have the money for better accommodation and the council did not provide accommodation for them or they are illegal immigrants so can't go to the council. So the way I see it the council is also at fault for not looking after this family.
Similar names keep cropping up
Yet another rogue with an exotic name.
Noted 2 things from this story. The necessary legislation to deal with it was already in place. Secondly, the local officialdom took a ridiculously long time to deal with it.
So how is new legislation which batters good and conscientious landlords going to help??
This is every bit as much of an indictment on the council as it is on this useless criminal landlord.
Jail these greedy rouges.
Fine and jail the benefit scroungers milking the system as well Sandra seems fair enough to me
Sandra, I agree with you but also jail the tenant who has stolen a year's rent from me whilst trashing a house refurbished fully by my own hand. Not because he can't afford the under market rent but because the current system (never mind post RRB) allows him to do that.
Criminal landlords and criminal tenants should equally face the law.
SBR write out one hundred times. Landlords are ROGUES, colours are ROUGE.
Or only SOME landlords are rogues just as only some colours are rouge?
ANR has made a couple of decent points, as we all know there are bad people everywhere, some are landlords and some are tenants. The penalties should be harsher.
I’m sure the council prohibited the use in 2016 but didn’t discover it had been relet until 2022 which is when the offence was discovered. That doesn’t mean it had been in use for the whole 6 years in between or they were aware of such use. The council can decide to make spot checks to see if a prohibition order is being complied with or may just assume compliance unless a complaint comes in. It isn’t a criminal offence to receive a prohibition order, the offence is not complying with it. The council can’t post a staff member to sit outside a property to ensure compliance. There’s nothing to suggest they were slow in dealing with the offence when it was discovered
Diane
You may be right- but the adjective Council does tend to be associated with slowness and incompetence, rather than speed, efficiency, effectiveness and competence!
I hope the tenant made a Rent Repayment claim against the landlord, that will probably be a higher amount than the fine and an extra penalty on the landlord
Diane, very good who forced the Tenant to take it.
I love it keep knocking the landlords, they’ll keep exiting and the rows of tent’s keep getting longer. Try claiming back the Rent from the pavements.
Are you living in the real World or have you caught the Mr Gove’s Syndrome.
Anyone not up to speed just Google tents on the Street’s.
Please login to comment