A landlord couple rented out an “extremely overcrowded” flat in east London, where a fire caused by an e-bike battery led to a tenant’s death, a court has heard.

Bangladeshi-origin Mizanur Rahman, a 41-year-old father of two, died from smoke inhalation following the fire in the early hours of March 5, 2023, at Maddocks House in Shadwell.

Sofina Begum, 52, and Aminur Rahman, 55, both parents of six, had previously admitted to nine housing offences.

Judge Emma Smith, presiding at Snaresbrook Crown Court, clarified that the couple, who reside in Wapping, east London, were being sentenced solely for the housing violations they pleaded guilty to in November 2023, rather than for the fire or the fatality. This could result in a financial penalty.

Representing Tower Hamlets Council, which brought the case, Gemma Gillett stated: “The property was clearly, and had been for a significant period, severely overcrowded.

“Available evidence suggests around 23 people were living in the flat. One of the occupants was taken to hospital and later died.”

The court heard that tenants were instructed not to use the address for mail to avoid exposing the couple’s illegal rental arrangement.

Former residents reported paying approximately £90 per week, with some sharing beds or sleeping on the floor of the two-bedroom ex-council flat. The property contained 18 beds, including bunk beds.

According to the London Fire Brigade, the fire was caused by a malfunctioning lithium-ion e-bike battery that was charging at the time.

Investigations are ongoing, and a civil case has already been filed.

Begum, whose name was listed on the property licence, admitted to six offences, including knowingly allowing unlicensed occupation, four counts of failing to comply with licence conditions, and failing to meet the requirements of a licence notice.

Rahman, who managed the property and collected rent, pleaded guilty to one count of each of these three offences.

The couple failed to permit regular inspections, did not have a valid gas certificate, and did not provide the necessary documentation required as the property's controller or manager.

Following the fire, Rahman told a liaison officer that he had rented the flat to just two tenants and was unaware of any additional occupants. However, one of the residents informed officials that he had been paying rent directly to Rahman.

Ms. Gillett stated: “At this point, Mr. Rahman claimed he did not speak English, and the conversation was cut short.”

She described the property as housing a mix of long-term tenants and transient individuals.

The bank has since repossessed the flat.

The judge noted that a month after the fire, Begum submitted an application for an extension to the lost space without mentioning the fire or that the property was uninhabitable. She claimed in the application that she was living at the flat and that it was overcrowded. The judge also pointed out that this occurred after the charges currently under review.

The defendants argued that a “rogue manager” named Mr. Raja had assisted them with the property, but prosecutors contended that this individual was actually Rahman.

Harun Matin, defending, stated that the couple, married for 30 years, are now residing with relatives and receiving both financial and emotional support from their adult children.

He explained: “They relied on a third-party manager. This occurred during the Covid pandemic, and they found it easier to let someone else handle the property.”

Matin added: “The defendants acknowledge that more people were living in the flat than permitted, but they were unaware of the exact number.

“They have since learned that some residents were subletting their spaces.

“There were activities and occupants in the property they were not aware of.”

Following her conviction, Begum lost her job working with children with special needs, while Rahman, a former butcher, is now unemployed.

Matin described Begum as British-born with limited education and said Rahman has lived in the UK since his teenage years.

He emphasized that the couple accepted their failures in managing the property but suggested their actions were not driven by intentional deception.

The judge has requested further details on how a confiscation order might impact any civil claims.

The couple has been released on unconditional bail and is scheduled to return to the same court for sentencing on March 6.