A LANDLORD who failed to repair one of his properties that had a leaking roof has been fined £2,500 by Magistrates.

A court heard that Mohammed Majeen Khan had failed to comply with a notice ordering him to improve a property he owned.

Yesterday at Bradford and Keighley Magistrates Court found Mr Khan guilty in his absence. Along with costs - Khan will have to pay a total of £3,490.

The prosecution was brought by Bradford Council. Tenants of the Great Horton property, a family of six, had complained to the Council after Khan had failed to replace damage to the building’s roof, leading to water leaking in and damp spreading.

Officers visited on June 26 2018 and found a number of issues with the property in addition to the leaking roof. These included the absence of a working fire alarm system, the absence of any linked smoke detectors, and an inadequate number of working electrical sockets. There were also other issues, including cupboards missing doors and a general poor state of the property.

Khan, of Aireville Road, was not at court - Magistrates were told that he had phoned the court earlier in the morning to say that although he wanted his day in court, he woke up that morning to find he was not able to move his foot.

Magistrates then had to decide whether to go ahead with the case in his absence.

Council prosecutor Harjit Ryatt pointed out that Khan had made similar last minute calls before important meetings in the past. He said: “Historically when asked to attend police interviews things have followed the same pattern - half an hour before the interview he’ll phone up to say he’s at a hospital appointment or has fallen ill.

“That is his modus operandi.”

Hearing this, magistrates agreed to go ahead with the case in his absence.

Mr Ryatt said that after visiting the property, the Council contacted Khan. He added: “We informed him of our concerns and what he needed to do to resolve it. His response was that he was not going to do any work as it was down to the tenants.

“Given water was coming through the roof - these repairs were not something that should fall on the tenants.”

He was given a notice to repair the property within four weeks. When he didn’t comply he was given an improvement notice. Next time the Council inspected the property - none of the works had been done.

Interviews with Khan were arranged, but cancelled due to him claiming he had hurt his leg, and another meeting because he had a doctor’s appointment.

He failed to respond to a number of other requests through to late October. He was given a two week extension, to November 13, to carry out the work, but when the Council inspected in late November the works had still not been done. Another inspection in March found no work had been completed.

However, the property had been emptied. It has since been repossessed by the bank.

Magistrates pointed out that with Khan not attending court, they had no way of knowing what the tenancy agreement had said.

But Mr Ryatt said even if tenants were responsible for things like cupboards, the roof and fire safety aspects were Khan’s responsibility.