A lettings firm run by a jet-setting couple has been fined £20,000 after issuing ‘sham’ documents that gave tenants no protection from landlords or eviction.
London-based Green Live Ltd wrongly gave licenses intended to nannies or lodgers instead of secure assured tenancy agreements to two renters in London.
Inspectors were drafted in after a former tenant struggled to get his deposit back from the company.
While the investigation was underway, director Adis Karahodza, 38, and his wife Mirela, 35, the firm’s secretary shared photographs online of them drinking champagne and discussing upgrading to a bigger yacht.
Pictured: Adis Karahodza, 38, and his wife Mirela, 35, have been fined for issuing fake licences
The duo – who live in a £1million detached home in Newbury, Berkshire – were fined £11,000 for issuing the licences.
The Evening Standard reports the firm was also fined £5,000 for using the logo of the UK Landlord Accreditation Partnership, to which it did not belong.
And was ordered to pay £3,000 in compensation to one tenant who could not recover his deposit and £1,500 in costs to the council.
Social media profiles of the couple reveal their love for the expensive things in life, sharing images of their foreign holidays, designer shopping and fine dining.
Mr Karahodza, who hails from Bosnia and Herzegovina originally, posted a picture on himself on the deck of a luxurious yacht in 2013.
Alongside the image, he wrote: ‘We need to upgrade Mirela … please do not spent too much in New York so we can upgrade to a Princess V65 yacht.’
And while the investigation was being carried out last year, his wife described how she enjoyed drinking champagne at some of London’s finest bars while meeting Princess Anne on tour of her private helicopter.
In a statement Green Live issued to The Evening Standard it said it had ‘pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to three offences at Highbury Corner magistrates’ court on August 10, 2017′.
It added: ‘The offences related to issuing licences to two tenants in circumstances where the company should have issued assured shorthold tenancy agreements instead.
‘The licences were issued by employees who worked for the company at the time. These employees no longer work for the company.
‘The third offence related to use and display of an organisation’s logo on company paperwork in circumstances where accreditation with that organisation had lapsed.
‘This was an oversight on the part of the company and the company accepted responsibility for this at court accordingly.’