A slum landlord family who crammed up to 40 people inside their semi-detached house face losing the £360,000 they made in rent.
Harsha Shah, 53, her daughter Chandni, 27, and brother-in-law Sanjay, 54, rented their four-bedroom property in Wembley, north London, through an agent, who at one point had 40 Indians and Londoners living there, a court has heard.
For more than five years, the Shah family, together with agent Jaydipkumar Valand, 42, were paid between £40 and £75 per week in cash by the tenants.
The payment covered rent and to have food delivered because the kitchen was unusable.
A slum landlord family who crammed up to 40 people inside their semi-detached house face losing the £360,000 they made in rent. Pictured, Sanjay Shah
Inside the property, fire exits were blocked and some tenants were living in bunk beds in a garden shed surrounded by sacks of rice.
The 1920s property, rented for £6,000 a month, was divided into seven bedrooms on the ground floor and two on the first floor.
Tenants were crammed five to a room in bunk beds and shared just two bathrooms and one kitchen between them.
The landlords made around £360,000 over the years, but the local authority are now fighting to get the money back, as they are not liable a rent recovery or a confiscation order.
Harrow Crown Court heard the Shahs had a licence to rent to one family, but did not have a licence for a house of multiple occupancy.
They also allowed the property to fall into disrepair and refused to manage its upkeep leading to large holes appeared in the ceilings.
The Shah family rented their four-bedroom property in Wembley, north London, through an agent
Inside the property, fire exits were blocked and some tenants lived inside a makeshift shed
The Shah family and Valand were convicted in May, but Sanjay Shah tried unsuccessfully to his conviction overturned at the High Court.
The family and the agent faced a confiscation hearing on Thursday to have their money seized.
Edmund Robb, on behalf of Brent Borough Council, told Recorder Stephen Rubin QC that the council can only claim back any housing benefit paid, but under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the rent paid can also be seized.
He added Brent Council are yet to decide on exact amounts they wish to obtain from the defendants as investigations continue.
‘Receiving rent was in breach of a selective licence,’ Mr Robb said.
‘All were charged with failing to have a licence and failing to comply with regulations and failing to have a house of multiple occupancy licence.
Tenants were living in bunk beds in a garden shed surrounded by sacks of rice (pictured)
Tenants were crammed five to a room in bunk beds and shared just two bathrooms and one kitchen between them
‘It is unlawful to continue to receive the rent when you are not complying with the conditions of a selective licence which says you can only rent it to one family of seven people.
‘If they had complied with the regulations the money would not have come into their hands.’
He added that UK Border Force, who raided the property, described it as the worst example of overcrowding it had ever seen.
‘There was a minimum of 25 people living in the house and there could at any one time be up to 40 people living in the house,’ he said.
‘The wider Shah family owned at least 12 properties.
‘The local authority has neither POCA or a rent recovery order available.’
The property was divided into seven bedrooms on the ground floor and two on the first floor
Referring to the POCA, he added: ‘It is quite a forensic process, it could go on for months and months and there is a great deal of money at stake.’
Following a trial at Willesden Magistrates Court, the Shah family were found guilty of failing to have a HMO licence while Sanjay Shah was also found guilty of aiding and abetting.
Cameron Scott, acting for Harsha and her daughter Chandni Shah, argued taking that the rent from the migrants was not an offence, and therefore a confiscation order was not enforceable.
He said: ‘We say that receiving the rent is not a criminal offence and neither is continuing the tenancy.
‘They are clearly in breach of the law, but the receiving of rent was not illegal.
The family allowed the property to fall into disrepair and refused to manage its upkeep leading to large holes appeared in the ceilings
‘For the offence of not having a licence and the equivalent offence for not having a selective licence if that is all you have your rent cannot be subject to confiscation.
‘If however you do have a licence and you breach a condition the game changes because what has been suggested the receipt of rent becomes illegal and it becomes criminal conduct and therefore confiscation applies, in my submission that is an absurd result.
‘The conduct of business, carrying on the rental and continuing to receive rent while conditions of a licence are in breach is not in itself a criminal offence.’
The confiscation hearing is due to continue at a later date and Recorder Rubin will reserved his judgement on whether a proceeds of crime order can be enforced.
The Shah family and Valand are to be sentenced at a later date.