A landlord in Bradford has been ordered to pay more than £47,000 in fines and costs after admitting to multiple housing regulation breaches—yet the case has reignited debate over the challenges landlords face when dealing with uncooperative or destructive tenants.
Hasan Kazi, 78, pleaded guilty to nine charges relating to two properties on Easby Road, including failure to comply with house in multiple occupation (HMO) regulations, an emergency prohibition order, and an improvement notice. The total penalty handed down at court came to £47,670, comprising a £43,470 fine, a £2,000 victim surcharge, and £2,200 in costs awarded to Bradford Council.
Council action follows fire service tip-off
On 29 November 2023, West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service contacted Bradford Council following a visit to 8 Easby Road, a terraced property split into six flats. According to prosecutor Imran Hussain, representing the council, officers were alerted to “significant disrepair and serious safety hazards.”
Council inspectors found evidence of rodents, cockroach infestations, damp, broken fire doors, and severe structural issues, including visible daylight through wall cavities. One tenant reportedly went without hot water for over two years. Another was forced to wedge furniture against a door that would not shut.
A further inspection in February 2024 revealed continued health and safety risks. Despite a previously issued emergency prohibition order, tenants remained in the flats.
Landlord claims tenants defied eviction and caused damage
In a personal statement read out by the court’s legal advisor, Kazi argued that the condition of the property had been worsened by tenant behaviour. “My main point I’d like the court to understand is problem tenants,” he stated. “It is hard to understand the depths of their bad behaviour. They destroyed the fabric of the building for no reason.”
He explained that after being ordered to close the property, the tenants refused to leave. “They wanted to stay put, what was I supposed to do? If I had kicked them out they would have been on the streets.”
The court heard that Kazi owns 12 properties across Bradford, which generate £150,000 per year in rent. However, he claimed he made “no profit” due to rising costs, repairs, and property maintenance obligations. The court granted him 12 months to pay the penalty.
A wider question for the sector: how do landlords deal with problem tenants?
The case has reignited discussion in the landlord community around tenant accountability and the lack of legal mechanisms to quickly resolve situations involving non-compliant or destructive occupants.
Many landlords fear that ongoing reforms, such as the Renters’ Rights Bill, could reduce their ability to remove tenants even in serious cases of property damage or refusal to vacate dangerous homes.
One local landlord, speaking anonymously, said: “There’s no doubt properties must be safe, but many councils and campaigners refuse to acknowledge how some tenants behave. We have no rights when it comes to evictions, and we’re painted as villains for simply trying to protect our investments.”
As housing regulations tighten and enforcement steps up, landlords are urging policymakers to strike a fairer balance—one that holds rogue landlords accountable, but also protects the interests of responsible property owners dealing with difficult tenants.
