The council inspected the property "following concerns around the state and condition of the rear yard" where waste had built up, a drain gully was blocked, there was "incomplete" provision for proper drainage and a risk of vermin infestation.

The case may appear as small beer in the overall national housing standards enforcement picture but it highlights a common conundrum for councils - a relatively simple issue for the owner/landlord to resolve but where the lack of action forced the council, and the courts, to expend precious resources (in Time as much as in money) in the public interest.

Officers did a council tax search which showed that a company called Front Worth Ltd, based in Birmingham, owned the property and the council officers confirmed this further via checking the Land Registry entry for the property. With this information the council served a notice on the company under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act. The notice required the company to carry out works to ensure the land and property would be free from infestation by vermin but the company did not respond.

However, the council says that it subsequently received a "separate response" from a person who claimed that the company did not own the house and that the property had been sold some time ago - thus contradicting both the council tax record and the Land Registry entry. Given this, the council then served a further notice that required the company to declare, in writing and within 14 days, "the nature of its interest" in the property. Still no reply was received and the matter was escalated by the council to legal action.

No representative of the company attended the Magistrates Court hearing where a fine of £1,100 was imposed along with costs of £300 and a surcharge of £440. The council's Public Protection Manager, Owen Cleugh, said landlords have a "duty to follow the necessary guidance and ensure appropriate work is carried out to their properties to help protect the health and safety of tenants and communities".

As the council says, all the evidence pointed to this company being the registered owner and even the individual who came forward to say the property had been sold "some time ago" appears not to have provided any evidence to contradict - or amend - the official records checked by Durham CC's officers.

Looking for up to the minute updates on all selective licensing and PRS news? Follows us on Facebook Twitter LinkedIn