HMO landlord Cyril Thomas wins appeal over Colchester Council
8 years ago | 21 comments
Does the punishment fit the crime?
8:42 AM, 7th November 2018, 7 years ago
52
Categories:
This morning I read about a landlord who failed to make improvements demanded by the local Council through notice under the Housing Act 2004. Apparently, the property required repairs to rectify a number of health and safety issues, including dangerous electrics and damp. There were no more details available than that in the article I read.
However, the Council issued a fixed penalty notice for £1,000 in regards to the smoke alarm and on top of that the landlord was fined £20,000.
I see that Property118 posted a comment below the article to say “we agree that non-compliance shouldn’t be tolerated, but we also believe in justice and a £20,000 fine just doesn’t make sense for a crime of this nature. Compare that to a fine for speeding for example, both of which have similar risks to human life.”
I also note that several “criminal landlord convictions” have subsequently been overturned on appeal.
Are landlords being singled out and treated unfairly by Council’s and the Judiciary?
Should landlords be compensated for stress and damage to their reputations after having their names dragged through the mud if/when they win their appeals, and should that compensation be commensurate to the fined imposed?
Do you think the punishments being handed out fit the crimes?
What are your thoughts?
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
or
Previous Article
The Alliance is LaunchedRelated Articles
The Alliance is Launched
7 years ago | 42 comments
Kicking Landlords is the National Pastime – Fergus Wilson
7 years ago | 8 comments
Member Since November 2018 - Comments: 27
9:18 AM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 10/11/2018 – 08:39
I am told that it is each side to pay their own costs i have taken out a loan already to pay the barrister its so unfair
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 360
9:24 AM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 10/11/2018 – 08:39
Agree with Mark – councils have a political dimension to them and I have personally seen attitudes change with either a lawyer or MP involved.
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1395
9:24 AM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by MARIE ELLIS at 10/11/2018 – 09:18
Who told you that?
Member Since November 2018 - Comments: 27
10:12 AM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 10/11/2018 – 09:24
My barrister i think, ive spoken to so many people. It will be tribunal and i was told they dont award costs?
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 360
1:34 PM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by MARIE ELLIS at 10/11/2018 – 10:12
Not possibly true – it goes against natural justice. This would give rise to rich people frivolously taking poor people to court, the latter being out of pocket and causing hardship. To take someone to court or tribunal you have to have justifiable cause and the right to have legal representation. Why should it cost you to prove you are right or innocent ?
Member Since August 2013 - Comments: 428
2:30 PM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
I am not sure which tribunal would be dealing with this case but this document sets out the position on costs in the FTT (Property Chamber) (Residential Property) and I suspect that it reflects the position in other tribunals but don’t take my word for it, there is no substitute for specific legal advice. To suggest that costs are always recoverable is simplistic and far from the truth. The first paragraph says: Usually, parties in residential property cases before the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (‘the tribunal’) have to pay their own expenses and legal costs unless there is some specific legal provision otherwise.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/715252/t547-eng.pdf
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 360
5:21 PM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
” Since the abolition of the Defendant’s Cost Order in 2012, there are new sets of rules about how privately paying acquitted defendants (who have been refused legal aid) can get some of their costs and expenses back. The most important thing is that Immediately on being found not guilty your barrister applies to the judge for your expenses and costs to be awarded (so the judge still makes a defendant’s cost order), and should also ask for these to cover your appearances in magistrates’ court. If the latter is not done, you will not get legal costs re this, but you can claim for expenses to the magistrates’ court separately.” – But you are right, there is no substitute for specific legal advice. Deep down I was hoping the legislature has not become as bad as it appears.
It seems if you sit on your backside and do squat all your life you will do okay. Try doing something for yourself – be prepared to be cut down from every angle.
£20k fine – I don’t think a murderer has ever had a fine of this magnitude.
Member Since November 2018 - Comments: 27
5:52 PM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by AA at 10/11/2018 – 17:21
Mine is a Tribunal though as its a civil penalty so do those rules still apply?
Member Since August 2013 - Comments: 428
6:22 PM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by MARIE ELLIS at 10/11/2018 – 17:52
No, I think you will find that the rules outlined by AA only apply in criminal proceedings.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 360
9:09 PM, 10th November 2018, About 7 years ago
Reply to the comment left by MARIE ELLIS at 10/11/2018 – 17:52
Did you have insurance ? Perhaps legal cover within that ?