Trio of agents hit with £130,000 fines after property divided into 16 flats

A trio of letting agents together with their directors have been hit with huge costs after a ‘Pandora’s box’ of wrongs was uncovered by a local council investigating an illegal House in Multiple Occupation.

The property had been carved up into 16 tiny flats.

One flat was so small that the toilet cistern was installed in the communal corridor. The flat’s size meant that you could touch both walls when you were in the middle of it, with the cooker inches from the bed.

Multiple prohibition orders were served, as many of the flats were so small they posed a hazard for residents.

Grosvenor Property Investment, Knightsbridge Properties London, Business Home and their directors were fined a total of £130,000.

They were also ordered to pay Camden Council’s legal costs at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court.

In total, £95,000 in fines were given for failure to license the property, £25,000 for the failure to respond to statutory notices requiring information, and £10,000 for the re-letting of a tiny flat in contravention of a prohibition order.

The fines relate to a property in Pandora Road, West Hampstead.

The fact that it had been turned into an HMO came to light in 2017 following complaints about rubbish outside the property.

Tenants had tenancy agreements with the three letting agent companies and had paid rent to them for rooms at the property.

A large amount of housing benefit was paid to the tenants, who then paid this to the landlord. Camden Council has made an application to reclaim this under The Housing and Planning Act 2016.

Cllr Meric Apak, cabinet member for better homes at Camden Council, said: “Once again this proves why regulation of homes in multiple occupation is necessary. We will not hesitate to step in to protect tenants’ rights.”

Of the three companies, Grosvenor Property Investment and Business Home both have overdue accounts, according to Companies House.

Fines breakdown by company and directors (Section 72 is managing an unlicensed HMO; Section 16 is failure to comply with a statutory notice; and Section 32 is breach of a prohibition order):

Grosvenor Property Investment: Section 72, £10,000 and £321 costs

Talal Alenezi: Section 72, £15,000 and £321 costs

Knightsbridge Properties London: Section 72, £10,000, Section 16, £5,000 and £321 costs

Henaa Rashid: Section 72, £15,000, Section 16, £5,000 and £321 costs

Mohamed Rasool: Section 72, £15,000, Section 16 £5,000 and £321 costs

Business Home: Section 72, £15,000, Section 16, £5,000, Section 32, £5,000 and £321 costs

Daya Ahmed Dayaaldeen: Section 72, £15,000, Section 16, £5,000, Section 32, £5,000 and £321 costs

Homesearch EOS

Email the story to a friend


  1. JMK

    Putting everything else to one side, I think putting the toilet cistern in the corridor shows great ingenuity.  Love it.

    1. The_Maluka

      Fully agree, in my block of flats all the sewage pipes are in the communal corridor – suitably housed and disguised.

  2. GeorgeOrwell


    Sorry, why are those responsible for this farcical Rabbit Hutch Letting Scam not awaiting custodial sentences c/o Her Majesty’s Prison Service?


  3. rsvstu97

    And we wonder why the Government have got it in for us.

  4. PossessionFriendUK39

    Outrageous, these Agents & Landlords involved deserved all they got, and more.

    Its certainly not the usual standard in the PRS and is doing reputable Landlords, who are in the vast majority, no favours.

  5. Property Money Tree

    …I suspect they didn’t charge very much, or at the very least let to those who would otherwise be homeless.  I’m not condoning what they’ve done, but this is the sort of enforcement that makes EVERYWHERE unaffordable.  At least they seem to have complied with the fire detection regulations (I can see a call point in the corridor). In other words, once they shrink their 16 “flats” to 8, the rent they charge will near enough double, making the accommodation out of reach for many more. It is this sort of ‘everyone can live like they are higher rate taxpayers – especially when they don’t even earn 1p’ attitude that makes the UK so attractive to immigrants (I have nothing at all against immigrants, but we can’t have our cake and eat it!).
    BTW, I operate in the “luxury” sector of the market, and so am not saying what I’ve said because I operate in a similar manner – I don’t 


You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.