Sub-letting to seven people lands Oxford tenant a big court fine

Oxford City Council

Oxford City Council

First published in News

A MAN who sublet a property he was renting from a relative to seven people has been fined nearly £3,500.

Mohammed Usman, 61, was prosecuted after Oxford City Council found that he had sublet the house he rented from his nephew in St Martin’s Road to seven other people.

By so doing, he had turned the property into an house in multiple occupation (HMO) without having applied for an HMO licence. The house was also in a poor state of disrepair.

The council’s HMO enforcement team visited the property in October 2013, following information that the house was overcrowded. The team also found that eight people lived there and Mr Usman had been collecting rent for his own benefit without the owner’s knowledge.

He was convicted of failing to licence an HMO and failing to comply with the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006.

Five breaches of those regulations were found, including a missing front panel on the bath and the underside of the stairs not providing adequate fire separation.

Oxford City Council said Usman pleaded guilty to the charges when he appeared at Oxford Magistrates’ Court on August 18.

The court imposed a fine of £2,000 and ordered him to pay £1,478 costs.

 

 

  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone’s contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.

Send your Letter to the Editor

11:20am Monday 28th July 2014

What do you think? We welcome letters from our readers on a wide variety of subjects and you can send us a letter through the blue headline above.

Our top stories

'Major hope' that Caterham factory in Leafield could re-open despite F1 team also going into administration

Oxford Mail:

1:34pm Friday 24th October 2014

ADMINISTRATORS have been handed full management responsibility for the Caterham Formula One team in a bid to find a new buyer.

UPDATE: Hundreds line Woodstock's streets for 11th Duke of Marlborough's funeral

Oxford Mail:

11:40am Friday 24th October 2014

HUNDREDS of people have gathered outside St Mary Magdalene's church in Woodstock to pay their respects to the 11th Duke of Marlborough.

Elderly woman taken to hospital after A4074 crash

Oxford Mail: a4074 alert

1:01pm Friday 24th October 2014

AN ELDERLY woman was taken to hospital after two cars crashed on the A4074. 

FOOTBALL Rising star Roberts eager for Oxford United first-team action as Morris returns to Norwich

Oxford Mail:

9:30am Friday 24th October 2014

James Roberts is in no mood to rest on his laurels as the young Oxford United striker looks to feature in a fourth successive game when they visit Carlisle United tomorrow.

Blueprint for a £110m cancer research centre

Oxford Mail: Oxford Univesity logo white lettering blue background new logo

7:00am Friday 24th October 2014

A £110m cancer research centre is planned for Headington to study pioneering treatment with hundreds of county patients.

City roadworks hassle is worthwhile, says minister

Oxford Mail: OCC Cabinet member for transport, David Nimmo-Smith.

6:30am Friday 24th October 2014

MULTIPLE roadworks that cause city traffic gridlock are “worth it”, a minister has said.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:05am Thu 28 Aug 14

tinsel84 says...

He wasn't fined "nearly £3500", he was fined £2000.
He wasn't fined "nearly £3500", he was fined £2000. tinsel84
  • Score: -1

7:07am Thu 28 Aug 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

A fine of £3478 isn't exactly frightening for someone analysing the potential risk and reward.

With 7 residents, the monthly income wouldn't be much short of that.
A fine of £3478 isn't exactly frightening for someone analysing the potential risk and reward. With 7 residents, the monthly income wouldn't be much short of that. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 10

7:23am Thu 28 Aug 14

tinsel84 says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
A fine of £3478 isn't exactly frightening for someone analysing the potential risk and reward.

With 7 residents, the monthly income wouldn't be much short of that.
He wasn't fined £3478!
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: A fine of £3478 isn't exactly frightening for someone analysing the potential risk and reward. With 7 residents, the monthly income wouldn't be much short of that.[/p][/quote]He wasn't fined £3478! tinsel84
  • Score: 0

7:42am Thu 28 Aug 14

the wizard says...

Hair splitting, he paid the court £3,478 which was made up of fine and costs. Read and calculate it which ever way you want, but the fact remains another dodgy landlord has been rooted out. Its a shame more aren't exposed but the fines do little to put off others from following suit. The part which amuses me is the fact the owner didn't know what was going on with the property, oh dear, please, do you really expect us in all honesty to believe that . The court has done little to send out the correct message here and many other properties are probably as bad if not worse and yet little seems to be done about weeding out these rogue landlords, but as this sh1tty city continues to put pride over prejudice then the equality between the haves and have not's will only ever increase. Far too many double standards and fines which do not fit the foe.
Hair splitting, he paid the court £3,478 which was made up of fine and costs. Read and calculate it which ever way you want, but the fact remains another dodgy landlord has been rooted out. Its a shame more aren't exposed but the fines do little to put off others from following suit. The part which amuses me is the fact the owner didn't know what was going on with the property, oh dear, please, do you really expect us in all honesty to believe that . The court has done little to send out the correct message here and many other properties are probably as bad if not worse and yet little seems to be done about weeding out these rogue landlords, but as this sh1tty city continues to put pride over prejudice then the equality between the haves and have not's will only ever increase. Far too many double standards and fines which do not fit the foe. the wizard
  • Score: 14

7:47am Thu 28 Aug 14

tinsel84 says...

Not hair splitting, just getting facts right! Of course, facts don't matter to most plebs, whatever high number sounds most dramatic will do.

Wasn't he fined £35,000 ? Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?!
Not hair splitting, just getting facts right! Of course, facts don't matter to most plebs, whatever high number sounds most dramatic will do. Wasn't he fined £35,000 ? Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?! tinsel84
  • Score: -7

11:58am Thu 28 Aug 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

tinsel84 wrote:
Not hair splitting, just getting facts right! Of course, facts don't matter to most plebs, whatever high number sounds most dramatic will do.

Wasn't he fined £35,000 ? Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?!
That's the problem.

Whether he paid £3478 as one sum or paid the two components of £2000 + £1478 separately - neither is a significant figure when renting a room in the city costs around £500 per month.

With 7 residents, he has probably lost around one months rental income. Four parts to fine and three parts to costs.

Perhaps what should happen is a fine + costs plus the property being banned from being let for a period of 18 months (even with a change of owner)?

This would send shockwaves through the property rental market in Oxford.
[quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: Not hair splitting, just getting facts right! Of course, facts don't matter to most plebs, whatever high number sounds most dramatic will do. Wasn't he fined £35,000 ? Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?![/p][/quote]That's the problem. Whether he paid £3478 as one sum or paid the two components of £2000 + £1478 separately - neither is a significant figure when renting a room in the city costs around £500 per month. With 7 residents, he has probably lost around one months rental income. Four parts to fine and three parts to costs. Perhaps what should happen is a fine + costs plus the property being banned from being let for a period of 18 months (even with a change of owner)? This would send shockwaves through the property rental market in Oxford. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 6

1:13pm Thu 28 Aug 14

EMBOX2 says...

Should have been £3.5m.
Hang 'em and flog 'em.
Send 'em all back where they came from.
It were all fields round 'ere once you know...

etc.
Should have been £3.5m. Hang 'em and flog 'em. Send 'em all back where they came from. It were all fields round 'ere once you know... etc. EMBOX2
  • Score: -3

1:49pm Thu 28 Aug 14

mytaxes says...

It would be good to know what the other breaches were other than the front panel missing from the bath and the problem with the stairs. Without knowing all the facts I don't know how anyone can know if the fine was adequate or not.
It would be good to know what the other breaches were other than the front panel missing from the bath and the problem with the stairs. Without knowing all the facts I don't know how anyone can know if the fine was adequate or not. mytaxes
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Thu 28 Aug 14

carli says...

That fine probably won't even make a dent in his pocket with all the money he's raking in. No wonder rent is so expensive when landlords get such small fines.
That fine probably won't even make a dent in his pocket with all the money he's raking in. No wonder rent is so expensive when landlords get such small fines. carli
  • Score: 4

11:30am Fri 29 Aug 14

carfax says...

The big issue here was his failure to obtain an HMO licence, with disrepair issues secondary, and over-crowding on top.

And it is not "another bad landlord rooted out" .. the decision only applies to this property.. Who would bet that the city council will intelligently search for all housing benefit claims quoting him as landlord, and the owner as landlord, and take a close look at all those properties as well? Very often landlords/rental property owners have a portfolio of properties..
The big issue here was his failure to obtain an HMO licence, with disrepair issues secondary, and over-crowding on top. And it is not "another bad landlord rooted out" .. the decision only applies to this property.. Who would bet that the city council will intelligently search for all housing benefit claims quoting him as landlord, and the owner as landlord, and take a close look at all those properties as well? Very often landlords/rental property owners have a portfolio of properties.. carfax
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Fri 29 Aug 14

the wizard says...

carfax wrote:
The big issue here was his failure to obtain an HMO licence, with disrepair issues secondary, and over-crowding on top.

And it is not "another bad landlord rooted out" .. the decision only applies to this property.. Who would bet that the city council will intelligently search for all housing benefit claims quoting him as landlord, and the owner as landlord, and take a close look at all those properties as well? Very often landlords/rental property owners have a portfolio of properties..
Yes, another bad land lord was rooted out. The failed the system, he failed his family and more importantly he failed the tenants, big time. The house was in a poor state of repair, that was the issue, because had it been submitted for inspection it would have failed, miserably on many items.

A flighty chancer and had no remorse and would have denied all sorts of the issues raised had the place caught fire and residents harmed/injured/etc, which is why the standards and inspections are in place, to prevent cowboys like this one from operating. The penalty should be custodial. I hope the taxman now drops down on him and his family heavily and goes through their books thoroughly. OK, Satisfied, because that is how it is, this sort of person needs reigning in and banned from operating as a landlord in any capacity, because of their dis regard fro the legislation and poor regard for the safety of others.
[quote][p][bold]carfax[/bold] wrote: The big issue here was his failure to obtain an HMO licence, with disrepair issues secondary, and over-crowding on top. And it is not "another bad landlord rooted out" .. the decision only applies to this property.. Who would bet that the city council will intelligently search for all housing benefit claims quoting him as landlord, and the owner as landlord, and take a close look at all those properties as well? Very often landlords/rental property owners have a portfolio of properties..[/p][/quote]Yes, another bad land lord was rooted out. The failed the system, he failed his family and more importantly he failed the tenants, big time. The house was in a poor state of repair, that was the issue, because had it been submitted for inspection it would have failed, miserably on many items. A flighty chancer and had no remorse and would have denied all sorts of the issues raised had the place caught fire and residents harmed/injured/etc, which is why the standards and inspections are in place, to prevent cowboys like this one from operating. The penalty should be custodial. I hope the taxman now drops down on him and his family heavily and goes through their books thoroughly. OK, Satisfied, because that is how it is, this sort of person needs reigning in and banned from operating as a landlord in any capacity, because of their dis regard fro the legislation and poor regard for the safety of others. the wizard
  • Score: 1

1:22pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Myron Blatz says...

Wonder if Oxford City Council had also been renting off this bloke, before it found the place was Council owned? City Council has posters all over the place asking for people to take-in Council Tenants - saw one in Blackbird Leys, and another poster along the Abingdon Road near Folly Bridge. Still, with all these 'day trippers' coming over from Calais, dare say they need somewhere to rent .....
Wonder if Oxford City Council had also been renting off this bloke, before it found the place was Council owned? City Council has posters all over the place asking for people to take-in Council Tenants - saw one in Blackbird Leys, and another poster along the Abingdon Road near Folly Bridge. Still, with all these 'day trippers' coming over from Calais, dare say they need somewhere to rent ..... Myron Blatz
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree