APA Property

APA Property Services Ltd.

"Harry Potter" Rogue Landlord receives a 12 months suspended sentance

Mr Riaz Uddin obtained a sub-lease on a combined residential/commercial premises in the London Borough of Newham. The lease set out clearly that the residential premises which was accessible only through the commercial premises and for occupation by the leaseholder. There were no provisions for subletting the property.

In 2010 the superior “freehold” landlord was concerned that Mr Uddin was acting not in compliance with his lease obligations and had fallen into arrears with his rent. Mr Philip Antino of APA Property Service Ltd (www.apaproperty.com) was instructed by the landlords to carry out an inspection of the property and to report thereon.

It became immediately obvious that Mr Uddin was not in occupation and had carried out unlawful structural alterations to separate the commercial and residential premises, and was now subletting the residential accommodation on a multiple occupancy (unlicensed HMO).

The large rooms had been divided in some instances up to three times to create smaller bedsit rooms. Surprisingly Mr Uddin had also formed stud partitions around stairwell enclosures, which were large enough to accommodate one single mattress and was also letting these to tenants, just like Harry Potter Mr Uddin had tenants living under the stairs.

In all there were approximately 25 people living in the premises paying on average £125 per week per room. The premises had one bathroom and a ground floor cloakroom. There was no communal rooms, the kitchen was reduced by 50% in size to accommodate the alterations to external access with one fridge and one oven/hob.

There was unauthorised interference with electrical wiring, there was no independent protective means of escape over the four floors. No smoke, fire alarms installed and none of the works had been carried out with either planning or building regulation approval or indeed the superior landlords permission.

Mr Antino reported these breaches of building regulations and planning to the London Borough of Newham. Legal proceedings were initiated for forfeiture of the lease for these blatant breaches.

The London Borough of Newham issued repeated warnings to Mr Uddin to make an application for planning and building regulations and then to carry out any appropriate works that were deemed necessary to ensure compliance and to vacate the premises immediately of all tenants or face prosecution.

Mr Uddin cleared the property of tenants for several months and then moved them back in following further unauthorised structural alterations to the property.

The London Fire Brigade were notified of these ongoing breaches and concerns regarding the safety of the occupants, and they issued a prohibition notice preventing the use of the property for residential use.

Mr Uddin was repeatedly warned that residential occupation was prohibited but ignored these warnings and repeatedly let and relet the premises to tenants. He repeatedly misled the LFB and the council and the landlords surveyor Mr Philip Antino about the use of the premises.

The UK border agency were notified of the occupancy and on the LFB the Council and the UK border agency raided the property. It was abundantly clear to all concerned an supported the non-complaint building work evidence collated by Mr Antino that the building was in use as multiple persons albeit now reduced to 13 occupants at the date of inspection July 2016.

It was abundantly clear that Mr Uddin was putting his own financial interests ahead of the safety of the tenants and/or his legal obligations as set out in the lease.

In April 2018 Mr Uddin appeared at Court and pleaded guilty to six offences as follows:

2 for non-compliance with a prohibition notice for extended periods between 2012 & 2017.

4 charges for substantive regulatory breaches of failure to provide fire alarms/detection, lack of compartmentation between shared kitchen and means of escape, dangerous condition of means of escape stairs and extremely excessive travel distances for means of escape.

Mr Uddin was sentenced (as a totality rather than against individual offences) to 12 months in prison, suspended for 2 years and to 100 hours of unpaid work.

A criminal investigation was commenced under the proceeds of the Crime Act 2002 where an application for a confiscation order for all of the illegal rent that Mr Uddin had received was made following the unlawful lettings. This is a lengthy process which would require co-operation of Mr Uddin and full disclosure of his financial history by a credited financial investigators under supervision of the Court.

This case was notable because it was the first time that the authority’s had attempted to do this in the absence of the defendant volunteering the information. The issues are outstanding and will take approximately another 12 – 18 months to complete and therefore costs for the prosecution will be dealt within those confiscation proceedings.

However, in her sentencing the Judge stated unequivocally that Mr Uddin should consider himself fortunate to have been spared immediate custody given the egregious case history.

Furthermore, it was held that the case appeared suitable for Mr Uddin to be entered on to the GLA rogue landlord checker following new procedures introduced pending the City of States Judicial Review.

Observations

In light of the recent Grenfell tragedy it behoves any landlord to act in such a way that is detrimental to the safety and well-being of the tenants. If any person deserved a custodial sentence it was Mr Uddin, LFB were extremely disappointed that his sentence was suspended.

Indeed, there have been occasions where the LFB have bought charges against other rogue landlords for less serious charges and they have received longer and immediate custodial sentences.

There are now civil proceedings by the superior landlord to ensure forfeiture of the lease is achieved as quickly as possible.

Philip Antino’s reports on illegal structural alterations, breaches of planning and building regulations were fundamental in the council taking up the individual prosecutions for the breaches of the planning and building regulations and the council then working closely with the LFB to secure this prosecution.

In Philip’s opinion this “Harry Potter” rogue landlord should count himself very lucky that he escaped custody.

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

  • The party wall world is relatively small, the stage of this world contains a number of well-known players, Mr Antino is one of these well-known players and so are his owners instructing solicitor Mr Ashley Bean of Thirsk Winton

    HHJ Bailey - [2016]
  • The Claimants have a very experienced legal team comprising Mr David Mayall of lambchambers & Mr Ashley Bean of thirsK winton and their surveyro Dr. Philip Antino. The evidence in particular of the Defendant’s plans for both the Accessway and the plans and how it impacted upon the Claimants business was important information that The Defendants ahd not provided when requested.

    HHJ Freedland QC - [2021]
  • "Mr Antino is a palpable witness, Mr Antino's explanation of the unique attributes of the "Thompson Plan" greatly assisted the Court to understand the location and extent of the claimants’ boundaries” (Best & Best v Perkins & Dennis in the County Court at Luton).

    HHJ Hildyard - [2015]
  • The appeal was a preliminary hearing of two points in respect of an Award served by Mr Antino and a surveyor appointed by Mr Antino under s.10(4) on behalf of the Building Owners the Appellants. HHJ Luba QC sitting in the Central London County Court held "In my judgment the Award is valid, the use of s.10(4) was the appropriate procedure given the Building Owners refusal to appoint a surveyor. A dispute had arisen that satisfied s.10 procedures, The Award is an impressive piece of work". Schmid v Hulls and Athananasou).

    HHJ Luba QC - [2016]
  • “Mr Antino is an acknowledged expert in the field of party wall issues.”

    HHJ Murfitt QC 2013 - [2015]
  • “I have known Philip for many years as a surveyor, he is a very good surveyor, as this book shows he is a very good author and this book can only advance his reputation”

    HHJ Philip Bartle QC - [2012]
  • “In the appeal of an ex-parte Award served by Mr Antino on behalf of the respondents, in my judgment the respondent is correct. Mr Antino’s contention that it is not a matter for negotiation directly between one surveyor and the other surveyor’s client. Since I have determined that the ex-parte Award was valid the court is still able to determine the Award and under the statutory powers to modify the Award if appropriate. I am grateful to Mr Antino suggesting that I now determine the Award issue “I accept that Mr Antino’s hourly rate is not in my judgment unreasonable. It follows that the fee set out in the ex-parte Award had been properly justified and I therefore award Mr Antino’s fees”. (Bansal v Myers Romford County Court).

    HHJ Platt - [2007]

Latest Posts

Alex Frame’s Third Surveyor Award of compensation reduced by 50% in May & Crown Ltd v Shipton & Shipton [H20CL085]

Alex Frame (President of the Faculty of Party Wall Surveyors) www.fpws.org.uk was selected as a Third Surveyor, awards excessive damages.H ...

Continue Reading

Injunctions for breach of party wall act 1996: the only legal option

Conaghan & Conaghan v Abdul (2022) Edmonton County Court “return date hearing”This follows the ex-parte injunction of the 11.02.22 Mr Abdul (the Defendant) instructed Mr St ...

Continue Reading

Shah v Ken Power & Lee Kyson [2022] EWHC 209 (QB) Mr Justice Eyre

Appeal in the High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division in relation to an ex temporejudgment of HHJ Parfitt in a party wall matter.  The Appellants were represented by Mr Nick Isaac QC and Mr. Carl Fain on a direct access basis both of Tanfi ...

Continue Reading

Need our Services?

Click the button below to be brought to our inquiry form and we will contact you as soon as possible to discuss. Alternatively, call us on 01245 492495.

GET IN TOUCH