Landlord fined for letting unsafe Weymouth flat (From Dorset Echo)
When news happens get involved. Send your pictures, views and video to us by text and email
Landlord fined for letting unsafe Weymouth flat
12:00pm Wednesday 13th October 2010 in News By Martin Lea
Alistair Gordon
A LANDLORD who allowed tenants to live in shabby accommodation has been ordered to pay more than £4,000 in fines and costs.
A catalogue of problems was found at the flat in Abbotsbury Road, Wey-mouth, prompting the borough council to declare the property unsafe for occupation.
But landlord Alistair Gordon later moved new tenants into the same property – a poorly-converted conservatory – putting him in breach of a prohibition order.
Gordon pleaded guilty to breaching the order at Weymouth Magistrate’s Court and was fined £2,500 as well as having to pay a £15 victim surcharge. He was also ordered to pay court costs of £1,784.38.
The court was told a borough council environmental health officer declared the ground floor flat at 115 Abbotsbury Road unsafe for occupation in November 2008, and Gordon was issued with the prohibition order.
Problems discovered included: * No provision for heating in the living room and bedroom.
* Hand wash basin in the bathroom not connected to waste pipe.
* Inadequate ventilation in bathroom.
* Bathroom door and frame missing.
* Inadequate provision for storage of food.
* Insufficient space for oven in kitchen (a small cooker was provided on top of a fridge with the potential to fall on occupants and cause serious burns).
* No windows or ventilation to the flat other than the front door.
* Clear corrugated plastic sheeting was the only roof covering for living and bedroom areas.
The court was further told the council was made aware the flat was being occupied in February 2010 after receiving information from Dorset Fire and Rescue Service.
An environmental health officer visited and found Mr Gordon at the premises with his business partner Ralph Ricardo.
The officer saw the conservatory was being occupied, in breach of the order.
Gordon admitted in interview that tenants had moved in during July 2009.
Magistrates heard Gordon had previously been convicted for a similar offence earlier this year in Somerset after he continued to let a property which had been declared unfit for occupation without adequate fire safety measures to 13 people, two of whom were children.
Weymouth and Portland Borough Council spokesman for community safety Ian James said: “The council takes its duty to protect residents very seriously and I am proud of our no-nonsense approach to landlords who are found to be putting public safety at risk.
“I am pleased that justice has been served in a situation where serious negligence has obviously been the order of the day for quite some time.
“I hope this sends out the message that unscrupulous landlords who break the law will not be tolerated.”
A statement released on behalf of Gordon said: ‘The breach arose from misunderstanding guidelines advised by environmental health officers.
‘‘Alistair works hard to provide first step accommodation for people in need, he takes no deposits or rent in advance from tenants and helps in areas other landlords would not.
“Mistakes have been made along the way, for which he is sorry and pays a heavy price.”
Comments(20)
JANEAUSTEN
says...
2:18pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Rackman springs to mind.
RobinofLocksley
says...
4:26pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Mabu
says...
7:18pm Wed 13 Oct 10
knowubiz
says...
7:27pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Rackman more like Ratner
He currently is in the maldives with Chalbury cause the fantastic amount of rent he gets!!!!!!!
Bailey25
says...
7:48pm Wed 13 Oct 10
JANEAUSTEN
says...
8:19pm Wed 13 Oct 10
So at least two councils have taken the trouble to prosecute.
With the looming housing crisis
due to reduction of housing benefits this sort of thing will be on the increase. And a lot of families with children will be on the streets through no fault of their own and forced to accept sub-standard accommodation.
I'm sure there are many decent landlords out there, but at the end of the day they are not doing it to be altruistic.
Profit is the name of the game.
kerbut
says...
8:26pm Wed 13 Oct 10
weydor
says...
9:07pm Wed 13 Oct 10
I would like to add one fact that seems not be written by the echo. The areas were used as living accommodation in 2008, they then were closed where in later 2009 work was done to the area and was added to an existing flat, not a separate dwelling.
The article says many things including lack of adequate heating, food storage etc. When this "area" was used as a kitchen & conservatory these and others had been addressed.
Also the council provided photos as part of a press pack to the echo and others, which included examples of the "area" when the works were being carried out on properties which were empty, and also of parts of the building which did NOT form part of the disputed prohibition order.
intheno
says...
11:22pm Wed 13 Oct 10
ANT-GREEDY
No,No,No,No..
This gentleman has worked hard for years providing accommodation to people the council themselves turn down, in-fact to people who the council have turned down and then sent to him…
Yes there has been mistakes along the way but until you have the full information how can you comment.
The portion of the property in question was purposely vandalised by the tenant in 2008 leading to many but not all of the reasons the prohibition order was imposed. This was then turned into an office/store room fully complying with the prohibition order.
In 2009 the area was encompassed into another flat within the building, refurbished and let to a new tenant. This breached the prohibition order, not realising this to be the fact life continued.
In Feb 2010 a known visit by an Environmental Health Officer took place, this officer was led to this part of the building, informed a tenant was in occupation and give the date the tenancy started. Nothing was ever hid from this officer.
Pleading guilty to this offence was the only option as this breach occurred from improper administration. Even though this part of the building had been refurbished had it been realised that it was unable to be encompassed into another flat it would not have been done and the order would have been fully complied with.
Regarding the conviction in Somerset, when an order was imposed on the property all reasonable steps where taken to keep the tenants out of the building, including offers of alternative accommodation. Unfortunately with tenant law and listed building regulations to comply with this proved impossible. Out of the 13 people “including 2 children” in the property, less than half were tenants and the children where not with any tenants.
If you require any more information please ask…
intheno
says...
11:35pm Wed 13 Oct 10
I believe Mr Gordon on many occasions topped the regional sales tables when working for the AA, not that this has anything to do with current events.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion but i would like to strongly advise you not to accuse Mr Gordon of conning anyone.
Scolopax
says...
6:58am Thu 14 Oct 10
intheno
says...
9:19am Thu 14 Oct 10
Again, any more questions please ask.
homeboy01
says...
9:36am Thu 14 Oct 10
kerbut wrote:Don't forget the hotdogs in Weymouth, he then give that to his convicted drug addict son but that didn't last long for some reason ??
The man is a total prat,has no credibility and was a useless seller of AA in Dorchester and Weymouth cover before he saw an opportunity to con someone else to back him . He is a total idiot ,AVOID
notreally
says...
10:14am Thu 14 Oct 10
weydor wrote:How do you know how the council supplied the photos?
The comments as always make very entertaining reading. I would like to add one fact that seems not be written by the echo. The areas were used as living accommodation in 2008, they then were closed where in later 2009 work was done to the area and was added to an existing flat, not a separate dwelling. The article says many things including lack of adequate heating, food storage etc. When this "area" was used as a kitchen & conservatory these and others had been addressed. Also the council provided photos as part of a press pack to the echo and others, which included examples of the "area" when the works were being carried out on properties which were empty, and also of parts of the building which did NOT form part of the disputed prohibition order.
intheno
says...
10:53am Thu 14 Oct 10
Yes Mr Gordon does have a son who had addiction problems, one of the reasons Mr Gordon started his business was due to the lack of housing support for people with addiction issues.
This was not the son who had the Hot Dog cart stolen from him.
Again any further questions feel free, i give this option to stop more ill informed comments.
fedupwiththeapathyaroundhere
says...
1:28pm Thu 14 Oct 10
I really enjoy the naivety of some posters.
Hey scumbag posters what about the scumbag tenants who take their housing benefit and drink it rather than pay the rent which is what the housing benefit is for ?
How many more scumbag tenant stories do you want ?
Im suprised the landlord could even be bothered to relet his property after what happened before. Tell you what if he sold that property that would be more on the council waiting list of 4000.
I could go on but you wont listen.....
homeboy01
says...
1:42pm Thu 14 Oct 10
intheno wrote:Sorry I stand corrected
homeboy01, please check the information you proffer before posting. Yes Mr Gordon does have a son who had addiction problems, one of the reasons Mr Gordon started his business was due to the lack of housing support for people with addiction issues. This was not the son who had the Hot Dog cart stolen from him. Again any further questions feel free, i give this option to stop more ill informed comments.
Scolopax
says...
5:29pm Thu 14 Oct 10
Perhaps that's why some posters are using offensive descriptions without knowing anything about the Landlord.
intheno
says...
6:01pm Thu 14 Oct 10
Scolopax, i do understand your feelings & quite frankly agree.
I would only like to add that in this world, everyday people make mistakes within the work place, unfortunately in this type of work (and others) there are bigger repercussions.
This does not excuse or absolve but is true.
Thanks once again.
Chalbury says...
1:02pm Wed 13 Oct 10