London |

Illegal HMO conversion-criminal conviction and £18,000 for East London landlords

November 01, 2024
Illegal HMO conversion leads to criminal conviction and £18,000 bill for East London landlords
Two landlords were found guilty in court for continuing to operate their property as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) after losing a planning appeal. In June 2016, Colin and Susan Woodward bought the house on Dagenham Road in Dagenham. Colin Woodward submitted an application for an HMO license in August 2019, and it was approved in September of the same year. But the Woodwards were told by Barking & Dagenham's Planning Enforcement Team that in order to run the property as an HMO, planning permission was also necessary. In January 2020, a retroactive planning application was filed but denied. Two landlords were found guilty in court for continuing to operate their property as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) after losing a planning appeal. A Planning Enforcement Notice was served, requiring the cessation of HMO use and removal of related fixtures. Despite appealing to the Planning Inspectorate, both appeals were dismissed in November 2020.

The Woodwards were required to comply with the planning enforcement notice by May 2021. During a visit in November 2021, council officers discovered the property was still being used as an HMO.As a result, Mr and Mrs Woodward were summoned to Barkingside Magistrates Court in September 2022 where they pleaded not guilty. On 27 August 2024, they appeared at Snaresbrook Crown Court where they changed their pleas to guilty.

They were each fined £6,000 with £3,000 costs payable to Barking and Dagenham Council, totalling £18,000.Councillor Syed Ghani, Barking & Dagenham’s Cabinet Member for Enforcement and Community Safety said: 

“We are committed to ensuring that all properties within Barking and Dagenham comply with planning regulations. The actions taken against Mr. and Mrs. Woodward demonstrate our dedication to upholding these standards.“Despite multiple warnings and opportunities to rectify the situation, they continued to ignore our Enforcement Team which left them with no choice but to pursue legal action. We hope this case serves as a reminder that planning regulations are in place for a reason and must be adhered to.”