March 7

Landlords Fined £600,000 for Ignoring Planning Notice


The rising popularity of serviced apartments attracts guests seeking hotel-like comforts while maintaining their privacy. To stand out among the competition and increase profitability, it’s crucial to enhance your marketing strategies for your multiple properties in town.

In a recent development, two landlords in London, Joel Salem of Finchley and Judith Robinson-Dadoun of Hendon, faced legal consequences for their failure to comply with a planning enforcement notice issued in 2010. The notice originally targeted substandard flats, and their non-compliance led to legal actions by Camden council.

The court’s ruling, delivered in 2020, found both landlords guilty under section 179(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for their failure to adhere to the enforcement notice related to one of their properties. Following this verdict, the court has now imposed a substantial fine of £350,000 and additional costs totaling £247,011.64. This legal action underscores the significance of compliance with planning regulations and serves as a deterrent against landlords neglecting such notices, emphasizing the enforcement measures taken by local authorities.

The legal proceedings revolved around the landlords’ non-compliance with an enforcement notice, specifically addressing seven unauthorized and substandard flats, despite the council’s approval for only four flats. Judge David Aaronberg KC, in his sentencing remarks, emphasized the high culpability of both landlords, Joel Salem and Judith Robinson-Dadoun, for their failure to adhere to the enforcement notice related to the property at 52 Fortune Green Road.

Judge Aaronberg noted that both defendants played active roles in managing and operating the property, breaching the notice. Their direct involvement in letting the property post-notice, evident from various agreements, indicated a clear understanding of the enforcement notice’s requirements and the consequences of prolonged non-compliance. This underscores the gravity of the situation, as both landlords were implicated in the ongoing violations, leading to the subsequent legal actions and substantial penalties imposed by the court.

Judge David Aaronberg KC, in his thorough assessment, expressed unequivocal satisfaction with the evidence demonstrating that the property, located at 52 Fortune Green Road, persisted in accommodating a substantial number of individuals in substandard conditions. This continued well beyond the stipulated compliance period, constituting a direct and flagrant violation of the requirements outlined in the enforcement notice. The notice aimed to uphold the comprehensive policies laid out in the Council’s Development Plan, specifically designed to protect the living conditions of vulnerable individuals and their neighboring communities.

The judge underscored the severity of this prolonged non-compliance, emphasizing its adverse impact on the well-being of residents who were subject to unsatisfactory accommodation. The enforcement notice, meant to promote the Council’s development objectives, was systematically ignored, leading to the continued compromise of living conditions for those residing within the property. The situation becomes even more concerning considering the vulnerability of tenants in such accommodations, who often find themselves unable to report their living conditions due to various reasons, including limited means and the fear of repercussions.

The persistence of these unfavorable circumstances highlights not only the legal ramifications of non-compliance but also the ethical concerns surrounding the well-being of those residing in such properties. The judge’s remarks serve as a stark reminder of the imperative to uphold and enforce regulations that safeguard the living conditions of vulnerable populations, ensuring that they are not left voiceless or subject to inadequate housing conditions.

Judge David Aaronberg KC, in a meticulous evaluation, expressed a firm conviction regarding Mr. Salem’s financial status. He concluded that Mr. Salem, characterized as a wealthy individual, had strategically established an intricate and impenetrable network of shareholdings, directorships, and property assets. This elaborate structure, crafted over an extended period, served the dual purpose of minimizing tax liabilities and, in the current context, concealing his actual wealth from the court.

Similarly, the judge found reason to believe that Judith Dadoun, the co-defendant, had also obscured her true financial standing from the court. The assessment suggested that she possesses undisclosed assets, enabling her to generate sufficient funds to fulfill a substantial fine and cover extensive costs. This deliberate concealment of financial information raised concerns about transparency and compliance with legal obligations.

Camden council initiated an investigation that led to the issuance of an Enforcement Notice in October 2010, with a compliance deadline set for May 2011. Despite repeated written warnings outlining potential consequences, the defendants failed to adhere to the notice. Subsequently, summonses were served in October 2018, accusing the defendants of unlawful actions spanning from May 2011 to June 2018. The defendants continued to receive rents until the property’s sale in April 2021, further highlighting their persistent non-compliance with regulatory directives.


000 for Ignoring Planning Notice, Improvement Notice, Landlords Fined £600, Planning Consent

You may also like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Get in touch

0 of 350