A north London landlord has been fined over £5,000 after tenants in her HMO property were left without heating or hot water for an entire year. Rosa Giddy, owner of a rental property on Mayfield Crescent in Edmonton, was prosecuted by Enfield Council and found guilty of failing to comply with an abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court heard that Giddy ignored multiple warnings from the local authority and failed to repair a broken gas boiler, leaving tenants to endure freezing winter temperatures without basic heating. The court also learned she had not supplied mandatory gas or electrical safety certificates, raising serious concerns about the safety and legality of the property.
While the local authority has rightly intervened in this case, landlord advocates warn that such incidents—though serious—represent a small minority, and enforcement should not tarnish the reputation of the broader landlord community, which overwhelmingly complies with regulation.
Rogue operator penalised as council declares ‘catastrophic’ risk
“This case is a reminder to all landlords of their legal obligations to address deficiencies in their rented properties,” said Councillor Susan Erbil, Enfield Council’s Cabinet Member for Licensing, Planning and Regulatory Services. She added: “Her actions and inactivity showed a lack of concern for the welfare of her tenants which could have had catastrophic consequences.”
According to the council, Giddy repeatedly ignored warnings and failed to take necessary action. As a result, the property is no longer being operated as an HMO, and the council has confirmed she will not be deemed a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence in future.
“This level of negligence is not only unacceptable—it damages trust in the sector,” Erbil continued. “The council will continue to monitor and enforce housing standards to protect the safety of tenants in the borough.”
While enforcement is clearly necessary in cases like this, many landlord organisations argue that stronger distinction must be made between negligent landlords and the vast majority of responsible property owners who invest heavily to keep their homes safe, warm and legally compliant.
Call to separate rogue cases from wider private rented sector narrative
Landlord campaigners and letting experts say isolated failures like Giddy’s should not be used to justify overly punitive licensing regimes or blanket assumptions about the conduct of landlords.
“This kind of conduct is shocking—but it’s the exception, not the rule,” said Shaz Memon, a landlord with multiple HMO properties across London and Kent. “Most of us go above and beyond legal requirements because we care about our tenants and our investments. But these one-off horror stories feed a false narrative that the sector is full of rogue operators, and that simply isn’t true.”
Ben Beadle, Chief Executive of the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA), has previously warned councils against using “bad apple” cases as a political battering ram against the wider private rented sector. “The answer is proportionate enforcement and support for good landlords, not policies that make life harder for everyone,” he said.
Landlords are also calling for greater support from councils in understanding complex and shifting regulatory frameworks, rather than relying solely on penalties. As Memon added: “We’d welcome more collaboration from councils. Send inspectors, offer guidance—but don’t assume guilt just because we own property.”
A sector in the spotlight: what’s the way forward for fair enforcement?
As pressure mounts on councils to raise standards in the private rented sector, enforcement stories like this one are likely to make headlines. But it’s crucial that local authorities, policymakers, and media outlets differentiate between genuine neglect and the day-to-day efforts of responsible landlords trying to keep up with increasing regulatory demands.
Cases like Giddy’s warrant prosecution—but the real challenge is ensuring enforcement doesn’t become a blunt instrument. With licensing schemes expanding and compliance costs rising, the risk is that the responsible majority suffer collateral damage from the failures of a few.
