Just a Criminal

Let's not be too quick to judge here, because we know nothing about this case other than what has been reported elsewhere.

A very good landlord based in Colchester had 11 very similar criminal convictions from a local Council, all of which were quashed.

Who put the mattresses in the exit routes?

Who removed the smoke detectors?

Were any of the faults reported to the landlord and what evidence is there of this?

Who removed the shower heads in the other bathrooms?

Was the landlord aware the property was occupied by so many people?

I could go on, but hopefully you will see my point here.

If he is, indeed guilty, then I agree with all the comments in the main article. However, maybe there will now be an appeal?

The pictures look bad and at best you can say the property was not routinely inspected.
>> https://www.birminghamupdates.com/judge-says-scrooge-was-a-philanthropist-compared-to-erdington-rogue-landlord/
>> https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/unscrupulous-landlord-branded-worse-scrooge-17389904

Whilst I do not, in any way, condone such conditions or behaviour by a landlord and I'd rather people like that be out of the industry, but sentences need to be kept in proportion to the 'crime'. No gas safety I would say is very much similar to having no MOT certificate...it *could* pose a massive threat IF there was a fault that developed into a major problem (and if it does, rightly, the sentences increase), but we would not be calling for £20k fines and prison time for no MOT and similar offences.

I commented on a similar article elsewhere yesterday (https://propertyindustryeye.com/estate-agent-owner-of-hmo-has-fine-for-non-compliance-cut-by-over-28000/) where there were four relatively minor offences:

1). Insecure rear door.
2). No fire blanket or kitchen smoke detector (removed, so was originally there).
3). Need for keys to exit individual rooms.
4). No display of the contact details of the property manager.
The original penalty was over £31,000! Straight up speeding puts many innocent people at risk, but we don't have anything like these levels of fines for that.
We need to keep perspective.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 10/12/2019 - 10:53
Well said Luke, very balanced and proportionate view ( which sadly isn't taken in regard to PRS )

Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 10/12/2019 - 10:41From the Birmingham Mail story it appears "the Council said Lindsay had previously been prosecuted in February 2010 for failure to license two of the properties. The authority said since his prosecution in 2010, Birmingham City Council Officers have repeatedly tried to persuade Lindsay to license his property, offering him advice and guidance and said ‘he has wilfully ignored this and has not applied for a licence".
Lindsay deserved to be punished. I do wonder whose rubbish in the disgusting photo was piled up in the back garden. I guess it wasn't Lindsay's or the story would have said so. Might it have belonged to the tenants with children?

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 10/12/2019 - 13:50
Does it warrant jail time, as the article suggested, though?

The press keep conflating by using the word landlord.

Compared to P118 landlords he is no more a landlord than a bank robber could be called a customer. Assuming the judge was correct in his decision

Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 10/12/2019 - 15:43
He IS a landlord. A bad landlord. Possibly a criminal landlord. But that doesn't allow free-reign for wild sentences.

We would all like to eliminate the possibility of death/injury on the roads due to speeding and perhaps jailing or fining offenders tens of thousands might help, but is it proportionate in relation to the offence? No. Absolutely not.

Why are landlords, even terrible ones, viewed so very differently to other types of offenders?

That is the start of a slippery slope.

In the Coventry case I referenced, £2,100 was just for the missing building manager's details in the HMO...hardly a £2k+ offence when failing to file a tax return or not having a TV Licence or driving with no insurance are either worse of similar in their relatively benign nature do not attract equivalent penalties.

I understand what they're trying to achieve...harsh penalties in an attempt at absolute compliance, but then why not take that view with all offences? Why not just have life imprisonment for literally any offence? Because we have a system of proportionality, is why. Except because LLs are not as numerous as, say, motorists, we are a group that can be abused by the system, which, as a decent society with checks and balances, is wrong. Regardless of this terrible LL's 'crimes'.

I couldn't agree more Luke with disproportionate fines for landords for regulatory and paperwork breaches.

Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 10/12/2019 - 16:48
An example in Letting Agent Today, was Coventry Council issuing a £31 k Fixed Penalty for 4 HMO breaches, which the First Tier tribunal castigated them for and reduced it by 90% to £3 k