Skip to content
  1. Do it online
  2. Login
  3. Have your say
  4. My Durham

First selective licensing prosecution sees landlord fined £15,000

Published October 13, 2023 11.21am


A landlord who failed to act on orders to improve two County Durham properties has been left more than £15,000 worse off.

Selective licensing prosecution

Inside the property on Seventh Street

Sukhraj Singh Barham also failed to apply for a selective licence from us in respect of each of the two properties at Horden, despite being required to do so by law, and now finds himself with four criminal convictions as a result.

The case represents our first prosecution under selective licensing, which was brought in to improve conditions in the private rented sector.

Lynn Hall, our strategic housing manager, said: "We are really pleased at the high financial penalty imposed in this case which represents our first selective licensing prosecution.

"We know the vast majority of landlords in County Durham look after their properties and their tenants but selective licensing is there for the minority that don't.

"That clearly includes Mr Barham whose properties were in really poor condition, one to the point where we took emergency action ourselves out of concern for the health of the tenant.

"He failed to respond to legal orders to carry out work or to get a licence in respect of either property and we hope the sentence imposed will act as a reminder to both him and other landlords of the consequences of not doing so."

We prosecuted Barham, 35, whose company Front Worth Limited is based at Pinfold Street, Birmingham, bringing four charges under the Housing Act.

We outlined to Peterlee magistrates how we were made aware of concerns for the welfare of the tenant of a property on Seventh Street in Horden, in November 2022.

No contact

The tenant told us his rented property had been sold two weeks prior and he had no contact details for and had heard nothing from his new landlord. 

Amid concern over the condition of the property, an inspection was carried out by our officers.

The property was found to be in a state of disrepair, with no heating or hot water due to the boiler becoming unserviceable, and there were also issues relating to damp and mould and a partial ceiling collapse in a bedroom.  

Furthermore, the staircase banister was too low, the toilet cistern was cracked and broken, and there was a lack of carbon monoxide and smoke alarms within the property. 

We carried out enquiries to trace the new landlord which ultimately led us to Front Worth Limited and its sole director Barham.

Amid concerns over the impact on the tenants' health we carried out emergency repairs to get the boiler working, on 17 November.

Hazards

A further inspection of the property showed none of the issues detected on 15 November had been addressed, with hazards found relating to fire and uncombusted fuel gas. As a result an improvement notice was served on Barham setting out works he must do and a timeframe for doing them.

The court heard no response was received to the notice.

Magistrates were told how similarly, we were contacted by the tenant of a property in Tenth Street in Horden in April of this year. Again the property had been sold while he was living there and he had no information about his new landlord.

The property was in a state of disrepair, with the tenant having issues relating to a large damp area on the kitchen wall underneath the bathroom.

We again made enquiries which led us to Barham and again an improvement notice was served on the defendant but not acted upon.

Damp and mould

The damp and mould remains and we are in the process of obtaining quotes for the work.

Magistrates were also told that both properties are in an area of Horden covered by our selective licensing policy. This was brought in by us to regulate private landlords with the desired outcome that properties will be maintained providing tenants with a better standard of living conditions.

As such licences should have been in place for both and the court was told Barham was written to about each property and reminded of this. However applications for licences were not received for either property.

Barham was not in court and was found guilty of all four charges in absence.

He was fined a total of £12,600, ordered to pay costs of £1,343.69 and a victim surcharge of £2,000 - a total of £15,743.69.



Share this page

Share this page on Facebook Share this page on Facebook Share this page on Twitter Share this page on Twitter