Punish the landlord victim?
Hi, my flat was ransacked by the tenant or a third party introduced by the tenant, and the electric meter was damaged. It will cost £6,000 -£8,000 to make a full repair.
The council made an Emergency Prohibition Order under S43 Housing Act 2004. Fair enough. They now want me, the landlord, to pay them £523.58 “expenses” because my flat was damaged; not the tenant, not any third party, but me, the victim in all of this, should pay them.
There is only a right of appeal against the Order, but none against the “expenses” order.
Has anyone out there had to deal with such a claim, and is the Local Government Ombudsman a possible recourse, or just another waste of space?
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
David
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Member Since May 2019 - Comments: 2
2:53 PM, 8th January 2026, About 4 months ago
Reply to the comment left by david boughton at 08/01/2026 – 13:31
That sounds all too familiar. There’s no point suing the tenant because i. you can’t trace them, and ii. if you could, they’d be broke anyway.
That’s par for the course, but to have the council hold you financially liable as well is beyond what is acceptable.
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 199
4:50 AM, 9th January 2026, About 4 months ago
A tribunal can quash charges on appeal of the notice. If the flat was let under a tenancy agreement and in the legal possession of the tenant at the time they served the prohibition order then appeal that the notice should have been served on the party in possession with you copied as an interested party, and the party in possession is liable for the charges. If you were in possession and the flat vacant, appeal the need for a prohibition order. They had no reason at all to expect that as you are a responsible landlord with no adverse history that there was any likelihood of prospective occupants being put at risk by the flat being re-let in that state, and the power to impose an EPO is a discretionary one, not mandatory.
Member Since January 2026 - Comments: 1
9:34 AM, 11th January 2026, About 4 months ago
I used to own a property in Oxfordshire and it was let through an agency. The tenant stole a brand new washing machine and left a broken down one in its place. There as strict instructions not to wall paper any walls yet every wall was badly wall papered. The amount of rubbish and damage plus stolen keys cost me over £11000 to put the property right. This at the time was over two years rental income which I had already paid tax on. The agency said that this is nothing to do with them ( it was as they supposed to inspect the property). In the end I bit the bullet and sold up. The inland revenue sorted out the tax loss with me eventually only because the lady I spoke to agreed with me. Bite the bullet and move forward. The tenant must have tried something to make the council fine you as there’s no other reason.
Member Since November 2025 - Comments: 8
7:50 PM, 12th January 2026, About 4 months ago
I can see why that feels completely unfair, and you’re not alone in this. From what I’ve seen, councils often recover their costs from the property owner because it’s the quickest and most straightforward route for them, even if the landlord wasn’t at fault. It doesn’t mean they think you caused it, just that the legislation lets them bill you.
People in similar situations usually look at two routes. One is challenging whether the costs are actually reasonable and properly incurred. The other is trying to recover the money separately from the tenant through deposit deductions, insurance, or a civil claim. The Ombudsman can be worth a try if you think the council acted unreasonably, but it’s slow and more about process than overturning the charge.