Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#1
For those that recall the scandal of out houses and sheds being rented out as homes to immigrants and low paid workers this latest news from the Planning Portal offers hope that there will soon be some redemption.
Illegal flat conversions landlord fined £310,000
Joint action by enforcement officers from the London boroughs of Brent and Harrow has resulted in a landlord being fined more than £310,000 for creating 28 flats in four houses in breach of planning regulations.
A judge at Harrow Crown Court ruled that Vispasp Sarkari must pay £303,000 under proceeds of crime legislation and £7,515 for the planning breaches. The defendant was also ordered to pay more than £18,000 in legal costs
Sarkari, aged 50, of Ivanhoe Drive, in Harrow, must pay the penalty within six months or face three-and-a-half years in prison.
Harrow and Brent launched an investigation after Sarkari was convicted of putting four flats into a terraced house in Wembley. The case involved properties in a range of different locations.
Half of the money will go to HM Treasury, with the rest split between the two councils, Harrow and Brent Trading Standards, and the court collection agency.
Councillor Keith Ferry, Harrow Council's Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise, said: "I am delighted that we have been able to send out a clear message that we will not allow people to profit from illegal conversions.
"This landlord ignored planning rules designed to ensure that the quality of accommodation in the boroughs is maintained and that the environment for surrounding residents is protected. He ignored the council's notices. As a result, he profited hugely from this sub-standard accommodation."
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#2
He probably earned much more through illegal accommodation than what he has to pay on fines. London needs to crack down hard on this kind of criminal activity!
It's probably costing the taxpayer a lot of money too, as many of the tenants in crammed houses are on housing benefits.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#3
A rogue landlord indeed.
Dover's tiny units in the family homes along Folkestone Road are also too tiny, but they do full-fill the requirements of the Planning Guidelines for Flat Conversions - to my mind, it's the guidelines that are wrong.
I was told market-forces will sort it all out; market-forces are what caused the problems, we need new policies to upgrade the homes and those living in them.
Roger
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#4
ROGER;
Whilst on this subject of housing i wondered if you could update us on the present position of the amsterdam house on the folkestone road.
some time ago the owner was fned heavily and admits he made millions from the asylum issue housing geezers in dover and scotland and elsewhere.
over crowding was one of many issues found, and obstructing people seeing the poor conditions.
im unaware of any major works going on in the place, and pass it every day, and its back to housing loads.
has anyone been back since it re opened to check the conditions etc?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#5
I contacted Private Sector Housing some time ago about Amsterdam House, asking if they could make an impromtu visit there to determine the state of it inside; I haven't heard back from them, so I'll ask again - thanks for reminding me.
roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#6
im certain roger after the heavy fine, no works took place so how could they have rectified any problems?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#7
The hefty fine was for refusing to have Amsterdam House registered as an HMO - now it is registered as one, but I understand the living conditions are not good in there.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#8
Roger
when they got the fine this was after being refused access once in they found squalid conditions which part of becoming a H.M.O., was to correct this.
im unaware of any works taking place
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#9
I think since then it has also been a Cannabis factory - still the same owner of course, but he pleaded ignorance.
Roger
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
#10
Amsterdam House is a taxi office, or part of it is, do you remember Roger applied for planning, any news on the other enforcement, had some official looking bods up there
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
well roger, if your aware of all that why is it still operating
did you inform customs?
police?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
#12
Funny you should mention Amsterdam house Keith. I was passing it only the other day and wondered the same thing. We used to have our business office right next to it in Wren house which is now converted to flats. Every so often lots of coaches would arrive to take the occupants somewhere. maybe they were relocating them. It looks very dilapidated
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
collette
during the asylum issue at its height, the owner was shipping people across the country, and making millions.
like shiela says its a taxi office(is that legal?)
it hasnt had much work done(should it be open?)
just a few of many questions
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#14
The Police raided when they found out it was a cannabis factory and fines ensued.
It will be a proper licensed taxi company as they would have to apply to DDC for it.
I would guess that it is only a room for an office, that's taken up for the taxi company; I also understand that they can only have two (taxi) cars on the front.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#15
so they have permission to run the taxi office from there then roger?
rest of earlier questions i will watch this space
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
#16
Full planning permission was granted to convert ground floor into taxi office, subject to conditions, The use hereby approved shall relate solely to the use of the office as a control
centre and car park for three taxis associated with the taxi office use and at no time
shall the office be used as a walk-in or drop-in taxi office with fares/customers being
taken from or delivered to this site.
Reason: As the site lies in close proximity to residential properties and an increase in
traffic movements to and from the site above the use of this site as a control centre
would adversely affect the residential amenities that the occupiers of these properties
could reasonably expect to enjoy and in interests of highway safety.
4 The three parking spaces shown on plan no. EZ/2011/56/01 rev. 01 received 8
November 2011 and the vehicular access to it thereafter shall not be used for any
purpose other than the parking of vehicles associated with the use hereby permitted.
Vehicles used in connection with the approved use shall only park in the approved
location.
Reason: In order to ensure that adequate parking is provided and maintained and in
the interests of road safety and visual amenity.
5 No more than three taxis shall be used in connection with the use hereby granted.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and highways safety.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#17
Thanks Sheila
What other question Keith ?
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#18
the other questions roger;
1; since the place was fined have any works taken place to take it to a reasonable
standard?
2; If the answer to question 1 is yes, has an officer visited the site, and what
did he/she find?
3; are the council happy that amsterdam hotel is able to be registered as a
hotel, with its backgrond?
4; is the owner registered as a good landlord with the council or did the
owner not take part in that scheme of registering good landlords?
that would do for a start roger
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
bill hankin is an excellent landlord keith, he says so himself.
born and bred on the folkestone road so no problem with his pedigree.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#20
he was born like many others other than the folkestone road lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS