A Southend landlord has been ordered to pay £25,224.39 after a magistrates’ court found he let an unsafe property in breach of a prohibition order and without the required selective licence.
Southend-on-Sea City Council said Samuel Nyantakyi was convicted at Southend Magistrates’ Court on 14 May after officers discovered a property in Kilworth Avenue was still occupied despite an order that legally barred anyone from living there. The council said its follow-up investigation also found the home was being let without a selective licence.
For landlords, the case is another sign that local authorities are not just issuing warnings ahead of tougher sector oversight. Councils are increasingly building cases around licensing, occupation and housing hazards at the same time, which can sharply increase the final bill when a prosecution reaches court.
Southend court case adds licence and safety penalties together
The council said officers found significant Category 1 and Category 2 hazards at the property, with serious risks to the health and safety of occupiers. It said tenants, including a family, were living there despite the prohibition order being in force.
The court ordered Nyantakyi to pay £14,000 for breaching the prohibition order, £1,760 for failing to obtain a selective licence, £3,160.39 in prosecution costs and a £6,304 victim surcharge.
Irene Ferguson, cabinet member for housing and preventing homelessness at Southend-on-Sea City Council, said the prosecution showed the authority’s commitment to “protecting residents and holding criminal landlords to account”.
This follows Residential Landlord’s recent coverage of Calderdale’s move toward civil penalties for safety breaches, and its report on a five-year banning order in Brent after a Wembley safety case. The latest Southend prosecution shows councils are still willing to push serious cases through the courts when they believe a landlord has ignored formal restrictions.
Landlords can read the council’s account of the case in Southend-on-Sea City Council’s prosecution update.
Unsafe occupation cases remain a live enforcement risk
The immediate point for investors is that prohibition orders are not procedural paperwork. Once an order is in place, continuing to collect rent from an occupied property can expose a landlord to a much larger penalty than a routine compliance slip.
The Southend case also highlights a second risk. Where a council can combine licensing failures with hazard findings, the enforcement picture becomes much harder to contain. That matters even more now that councils are under pressure to show they can use their powers effectively after the Renters’ Rights Act came into force.
For portfolio landlords, the practical lesson is plain enough: where a property has been flagged for serious hazards, occupation status, licence status and remedial works all need checking together. Treating those issues separately is how a manageable breach can turn into a prosecution story.
Opinion
This is the sort of case that should worry complacent landlords more than headline-grabbing policy rows. A council with evidence of unsafe occupation, a live prohibition order and a missing licence will usually feel confident going hard. Landlords who are still treating enforcement notices as negotiable are taking a bad gamble.
