Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Hewitt Road Illegal Conversion - The latest
In a nutshell: About last February I identified 98 as an illegal conversion having noticed that there was significant work going on. The final give away being the addition of 5 gas meters on the exterior of the building. It took be about 6-8 weeks to get the enforcement team in. There then followed a period of about 6 months with me calling the enforcement team every week or so to keep things moving.
Originally I kept my head down about it on this site because Patrick Sullivan said that the landlord was potentially dangerous. I've since poked my head above the parapet!
An enforcement notice was served against the property on the 22nd of October alleging that the property had been converted into 5 self-contained units. The notice came into effect on the 5th of December last year (meaning the owners had until this date to lodge an appeal). The owners lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate on the 2nd of December. Representations were be made by the Council and the Appellant to the Planning Inspectorate by the 3rd of February 2009 and the Inspector made a decision on 8th May against the appellant, upholding the Council's decision..
I learned of the result in late June by calling up and asking for an update.
I've just spoken to the department head at enforcement, Miles Joyce, and got the low-down on next stages.
And what are the sanctions? According to Miles, it seems like at worst it could be £5 - 10,000 + Haringey's costs, which he estimated at between £500 and £1,000. So £11,000 maximum. But here's the sting in the tail. According to Miles if either stages 3 or 5 the landlord agrees to comply, the decision is likely to be taken to waive the fine in favour of compliance and just seek recovery of costs.
I wonder what the maths of this are:
1. What would the conversion costs be? £30,000?
2. Rental income for 22 months.
3. 5 rooms at 300 per month? = £1,500 pcm rental income.
4. £1,500 x 22 = £33,000
My figures are huge estimates. I'd be grateful for better info so we can get the facts right. If they are about right, it seems like on this occasion the maths don't stack up for the landlord. BUT, this conversion was picked up from the earliest possible point (before anyone moved in). If it dragged on another year, does this mean that it would have begun to make commercial sense for the landlord? Do the conversion, risk a small fine but stand a good chance of getting away with it.
Assuming the illegal conversion is successfully challenged I wonder how much the enforcement of stiff fines would have a deterrent effect? Or, would it make no difference?
My point in picking this one up and following it through hasn't been about this house; it's been to send a message that any conversion in this road will be challenged and fought. So, don't bother. It's taken up time, but it looks hopeful that we may win through. Have I been "lucky"?
Originally I kept my head down about it on this site because Patrick Sullivan said that the landlord was potentially dangerous. I've since poked my head above the parapet!
An enforcement notice was served against the property on the 22nd of October alleging that the property had been converted into 5 self-contained units. The notice came into effect on the 5th of December last year (meaning the owners had until this date to lodge an appeal). The owners lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate on the 2nd of December. Representations were be made by the Council and the Appellant to the Planning Inspectorate by the 3rd of February 2009 and the Inspector made a decision on 8th May against the appellant, upholding the Council's decision..
I learned of the result in late June by calling up and asking for an update.
I've just spoken to the department head at enforcement, Miles Joyce, and got the low-down on next stages.
1. The landlord has 3 months from the Planning Inspector's decision to comply. That's up to 8th August.
2. Within 10 days of that date the enforcement team will visit to ascertain whether the breach is still occurring. (We know that it very likely will be).
3. Enforcement will then send a letter giving notice of intention to prosecute with 14 days to contact them to resolve the issue.
4. If there's no contact, the enforcement team then work alongside the legal team to prepare prosecution.
5. If there is a prosecution, we might expect that in Sept/Oct. At the prosecution the landlord could put his hands up and plead guilty and agree to comply. Or, he could plead not guilty and things could drag on.
6. The landlord will then have 3 months to get the tenant out - so let's say end of Jan - plus a further two months to do the remedial work - in other words convert back to a house.
And what are the sanctions? According to Miles, it seems like at worst it could be £5 - 10,000 + Haringey's costs, which he estimated at between £500 and £1,000. So £11,000 maximum. But here's the sting in the tail. According to Miles if either stages 3 or 5 the landlord agrees to comply, the decision is likely to be taken to waive the fine in favour of compliance and just seek recovery of costs.
I wonder what the maths of this are:
1. What would the conversion costs be? £30,000?
2. Rental income for 22 months.
3. 5 rooms at 300 per month? = £1,500 pcm rental income.
4. £1,500 x 22 = £33,000
My figures are huge estimates. I'd be grateful for better info so we can get the facts right. If they are about right, it seems like on this occasion the maths don't stack up for the landlord. BUT, this conversion was picked up from the earliest possible point (before anyone moved in). If it dragged on another year, does this mean that it would have begun to make commercial sense for the landlord? Do the conversion, risk a small fine but stand a good chance of getting away with it.
Assuming the illegal conversion is successfully challenged I wonder how much the enforcement of stiff fines would have a deterrent effect? Or, would it make no difference?
My point in picking this one up and following it through hasn't been about this house; it's been to send a message that any conversion in this road will be challenged and fought. So, don't bother. It's taken up time, but it looks hopeful that we may win through. Have I been "lucky"?
Tags for Forum Posts: 98 Hewitt, hewitt, hmo profits, hmos, illegal conversion
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Having noticed the other day that nothing's happening at 98, I rang Abiola at Haringey and she had no news. The best I could get was a promise of a callback or an email within 10 days.
She did however tell me that no more prosecutions will be made till the new financial year since they can't afford to pay the lawyers. So that's another month's rent at least for the landlord. If, as seems likely, he'll only face a £1,000 fine, he continues to do rather well.
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
That's disgraceful. It's their own legal team. They could just bill the work next year. So you've got to wait another 2 months for action? I hope you're going to raise a formal complaint (particularly given that they could have brought the prosecution months ago).
-
-
Apologies, here's the correspondence:
On 16/02/2010 12:49, "XXXXX" wrote:
ENQUIRY from Hugh
I was told by a planning officer that Haringey Council is no longer in a position to pursue any prosecutions against over-crowded HMOs on the Harringay Ladder until the next financial year (April 2010) because they can't afford to. Is this the case?
RESPONSE
Where landlords are in breach of enforcement notices, the council will certainly always take legal action and will pursue cases through the courts whenever necessary.
From: Hugh | Harringay Online [mailto:hugh@harringayonline.com]
Sent: 16 February 2010 13:15
To: XXX
Subject: Re: Haringey Council response to enquiry: HMOs enforcement
Thanks for your answer, but it doesn't address the issue of timing and budgets. Are you able to give an answer which is unequivocal about the issue of timing?
On 16/02/2010 13:16, "xxxxxx" wrote:
Hugh,
You asked whether it was the case that we are no longer pursuing prosecutions this financial year. That is not the case.
Thanks
XXX
-
-
Prodded into action by Michelle & Vix posting elsewhere on the site, I've just called Abiola to check on current status................. and have left a voicemail.
-
-
Abiola called me this morning.
She recently visited the house and says that she confirmed that all tenants have been evicted, bar one. Apparently the landlord is seeking an eviction order for the last remaining tenant.
Abby says she also confirmed that all "facilities" had been removed for the rooms. Apparently this means kitchen facilities. The bathrooms can remain. Apparently that and ensuring there is a common kitchen, bathroom and living room is all that's required to comply with the law to return the building to a family home.
All energy meters remain but have apparently been disconnected.
Remaining action is apparently to follow up on the eviction of the last remaining tenant. Then that's it.
Dunno about you, but I'm not convinced. If we have a landlord willing to break the law for two years. do we really believe that he won't just reconvert when all's gone quiet? We've already done the maths. Adding back a few bathrooms and reconnecting the meters won't put him off.
However, as I understand it, that's it. That's all we can do. The only thing that remains is for those that live nearby to keep an eye.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
