A landlord from Ilford in London with HMO properties in Clacton has been fined £23,000 by Tendring DC (reduced by the first tier tribunal panel from the £90,000 of fines initially sought by the council) and has had her HMO licences revoked due to not being a "fit & proper person" to hold such licences.

Tendring DC's private sector housing team initially attempted, in April 2019, to work informally with the landlord by setting out the work that needed doing to bring her properties up to standard. The team followed this up with further meetings with the landlord in May and August 2019. Their investigation had started as a result of complaints from tenants and neighbours about both poor property standards and anti-social behaviour at the landlord's properties. However, when by August the council realised that the required works had not been carried out, they served an emergency prohibition order (meaning properties could no longer be occupied) and arranged to rehouse the tenants.

A final notice regarding works required to be completed (including, amongst other issues, faulty fire alarms, blocked fire escapes, dangerous electrics, insecure entrance door and non functioning toilets) was served thus marking the start of formal enforcement action by the council.

The landlord appealed against the penalty notices but the tribunal found against her at a hearing held in October 2020 at which the panel made a slight reduction in the level of fines. However, at a subsequent appeal against the fine level, a different tribunal panel reduced the fines to £23,000 because the breaches of HMO management regulations involved a "rapid deterioration over a short period of time" and meaning the landlord was "less culpable" than a £90,000 fine would suggest (further damage to the property, including theft of piping, appeared to have also taken place).

Cllr. Paul Honeywood, cabinet member for housing said that whilst "We are not afraid to take action against rogue landlords ..... We will always work with and support landlords who share [our] view" that there must be "decent quality homes for tenants, and in turn a rental income for them [landlords].".