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 james walsh on
-
The harder you work the luckier you get.
Seriously, Hugh great work and well done for sticking with it. These scum landlords know exactly what they are doing. As usual they depend on a person losing interest or simply getting fatigued and giving up when more important and usually domestic issues take over ones life. Usually neighbours are completely ignorant to whats going on and, therefore do not object to illegal conversions going on across the street. Most people do nothing. Again, well done mate.
-
Permalink Reply by VIX on
-
Hugh don't mean to correct you, as bedsit rents might be cheaper in your neigborhood, but I think you'll find the rentals per bedsit unit are higher than that;
A box3mx3m with a shower/wc in a cuboard under the stairs [like the bedsit conversion next to us] rents out at £600pcm. Alarming but true, we have seen it first hand.
Of course they get away with this because in most cases the DSS pay the rents.
So in your case were talking £3000 per month at least, that's the incentive to these people, they triple their rental income when they convert a family home and there is no real penalty when they go to court.
We know they get £2,700 [That's £32k a year] for 4x bedsit units next door to us.
Any fines they incure just come off their profits, and at £64,000 for two years 'work' illegally renting to the DSS the ones next door can easily pay the fines and still make a profit.
It's a win win for them, that's why they stall the court dates. Getting away with it because the council can't get their act together and the law is far too soft on slum landlords/developers.
The families who have to live next door simply have to put up with it, yet get zero compensation. We suffer greatly from the antisocial behavior of the tenants, have our lives impacted upon with trying to constantly move things along at the council, meetings with council, meetings with ASBO, meeting with the police and so on.
Its disgusting that these criminals are allowed to walk away. Things really have to change.
-
Permalink Reply by BBL on
-
What would happen if landlords of illegal conversions were informed by the Council that their prospective tenants would not be eligible for housing benefit? Would this be a deterrent?
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
I think we have enough ammo with ongoing cases here to get someone higher up involved. David Lammy;s office seems to be very active within this area. Can we get a few cases together and get a meeting? The way residents are being treated really is bordering on the utterly ridiculous, and I think now is the time for us to get together about a few well chosen cases and demand action. This should be one of them. What do you reckon?
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Hatch on
-
I can see this ending up on a 'London Tonight' type programme.
What a way to send the message out!
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Steve, how do those figures look. You'll be in a much better place than I to estimate.
-
-
I agree Ben! We don't rent rooms, but we are advertising one as a favour to a past client... lots of interest at £100 per week (contributing towards bills).
-
-
Hugh - will have a detailed look when I get home, on a quick glance I would expect the conversion costs to be much higher, (especially if building control have been involved) sound proofing - fire proofing etc.
-
-
Great, thanks for the input guys. So, it may be that the situation is as I thought it was going to turn out when I started the maths - mebbe crime does pay which is why rogue landlords will keep doing it.
-
-
Re: expect the conversion costs to be much higher, (especially if building control have been involved) sound proofing - fire proofing etc.
Steve
They don't sound proof or take any notice of fire regs, it's all illegal, so there is never an inspection.
The build next door to us cannot have cost more than 10k to convert, Ive been in all but one of the bedsits. it's shoddy work to say the least. Minimum outlay for maximum profits.
They get £600 to £680 per unit, the utility bills are included because the meters are rigged.
I agree with Anette. I think its time residents affected by illegal HMO's looked into bringing civil cases against the developers, I just don't believe we have no rights to compensation.
I'm sure the council can be held accountable when they fail to take swift action or choose to ignore reports of an illegal conversion-I'm not a lawyer so have have no idea how you find this out.
I say let radio4 do their thing and see where that goes then roll the stories out to TV and the press, it will build it's own momentum.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
