A landlord couple who ignored requests from the local authority and Planning Inspectorate to stop using their property as an HMO have been fined £18,000.

Colin and Susan Woodward bought the house in Dagenham Road, Dagenham (main image), in June 2016 and applied for an HMO licence, which was granted in September 2019.

However, Barking & Dagenham Council’s planning enforcement team told the Woodwards that they needed planning permission to operate the property as an HMO.

Their retrospective planning application was refused in January 2020 and the council served a Planning Enforcement Notice, ordering the pair to stop using the property as an HMO, and to remove related fixtures.

In its letter refusing the application, the council's officers said the conversion of the property into an HMO "would result in the loss of a family dwelling house to the detriment of the stock of family housing in the borough and [also] a loss of amenity and character to the area through increased levels of traffic, noise, generation of refuse and general disturbance to the area".

The Woodwards’ appeals to the Planning Inspectorate were dismissed in November 2020, and they were expected to comply with the notice by May 2021. However, during a visit that November, officers discovered that the property was still being used as an HMO.

Summoned

The pair were summoned to Barkingside Magistrates Court in September 2022 where they pleaded not guilty. At a subsequent appearance at Snaresbrook Crown Court, they changed their pleas to guilty and were each fined £6,000 and £3,000 in costs, totalling £18,000.

Councillor Syed Ghani (pictured) cabinet member for enforcement and community safety, says the actions taken against the Woodwards demonstrate the council’s commitment to ensuring that all properties within Barking and Dagenham comply with planning regulations.

He adds: “Despite multiple warnings and opportunities to rectify the situation, they continued to ignore our enforcement team which left them with no choice but to pursue legal action. We hope this case serves as a reminder that planning regulations are in place for a reason and must be adhered to.”

‍