Shropshire Star

Landlord ordered to pay £4,700 following complaints about Shrewsbury property

A landlord of a property that prompted complaints about anti-social behaviour and potential poor housing conditions must pay close to £5,000 for not cooperating with Shropshire Council.

Published
Last updated
Telford Magistrates Court

Property owners, landlords and tenants are being reminded to respond to requests for information about properties after the man was ordered to pay £4,760.85 in fines and costs for not supplying information requested by the authority.

In a case brought by Shropshire Council and heard at Telford Magistrates Court on Monday, Simon Williams, of Bowler Street, Manchester, was fined £1,000, and ordered to pay a victims surcharge of £400 and costs of £3,360.85.

The 44-year-old, who has interests in a property in Shrewsbury, was charged under Section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for failing to respond regarding a property which had been complained about in respect of anti-social behaviour, possible poor housing conditions, and possibly operating as a House of Multiple Occupation.

Chris Schofield, Shropshire Council’s Cabinet member for planning and regulatory services, said: “The council wants to work constructively with any person who has an interest in a property that we are dealing with under our housing functions. This will include landlords, property owners, agents, tenants and others.

“When officers make requests for information, I urge individuals to respond as fully as possible, as it is in their interests to do so. We don’t want to prosecute individuals for this sort of failure, but as this prosecution demonstrates, we will do so if we fail to get the necessary engagement and cooperation.

“This prosecution serves as a reminder to all of the importance of responding to formal requests from the council in relation to a property in which they have an interest. It is a legal requirement, and failure to respond can lead to a costly day in court, as this case clearly shows.”