REGULATION: Landlord to pay £24,000 after losing fine appeal
Lakhbir Singh Rakhra is to pay the fine after he ignored Slough Town Council's improvement order for his property after the tenant lived without heating for over six years.
The extreme financial dangers for landlords who ignore council improvement notices have been highlighted by an eye-watering £24,000 fine in Slough.
Landlord Lakhbir Singh Rakhra was reported to the town council’s housing regulation team by his tenant in 2021.
The single mother with four children who made the complaint had been living at his Rochford Gardens property (pictured) without heating since 2016.
The unnamed woman had made numerous complaints to Rakhra, but he had failed to address the hazards in her home.
Following an inspection of the property, the council wrote to Rakhra asking him to complete repair works within the property, but he failed to undertake them.
In May 2022 he was then issued with an Improvement Notice requiring him to complete repairs and install appropriate heating by July 2022 or face a fine. He did the repairs but not until October.
This he failed to do and was issued with a £25,000 fine by the council in February 2023, as the failure was an offence under the Housing Act 2004.
Obstructed
Rakhra appealed the financial penalty taking his case to a First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), claiming the tenant had obstructed him from carrying out the works.
Following a hearing in March this year, where the tenant gave evidence in support of the council’s case, the Tribunal has now rejected his appeal. The fine has been reduced by £1,000 to reflect ‘wear and tear’ at the property.
He is clearly an experienced landlord who should know better.”
The Tribunal decisions says: “It is a substantial penalty, but the offence was serious. In effect [Rakhra] was failing to comply with essential repairs which he ought to have carried out anyway before he was served with the notice. He then failed to comply with the notice itself.
“If he was really being obstructed by his tenant, he could have sought injunctive relief in the County Court. He didn’t do this which supports the fact that there was not really a problem. He is clearly an experienced landlord who should know better.”
Niki Bhogal, Housing Regulation Officer, who gave evidence at the tribunal, says: “This case should never have come to tribunal. The landlord should have been fulfilling his duties, acting on the concerns of his tenant and putting right the issues identified.
The landlord has until 19th July to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.
