Charles Margulies of BMR Hemini Ltd operates more than 200 properties across London with a business model focussed on buying residential properties and converting them into Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to rent to individual tenants.
In 2022 the company purchased a house in Putney and constructed a substantial extension to increase the number of HMO units they could fit into the property.
Leader of Wandsworth Council, Simon Hogg, said:
“All of the actions from this landlord clearly show that they cared more about rental income than following the rules. The outcome of this case sends a clear message that we will not tolerate breaches of planning control in Wandsworth which ignore the impact such actions have on neighbours.”
A planning application had not been submitted and neighbours lodged complaints with Wandsworth Council.
A retrospective planning application was submitted and refused by the Council, leading to an enforcement notice being issued requiring demolition. Despite this, BMR Hemini lodged an appeal against the refusal of planning permission and proceeded to place tenants in the property.
When their appeal was dismissed by the Government Inspector, the company stated they could not comply with the enforcement notice and demolish the extension as it was now occupied by a tenant.
The Council started prosecution proceedings for their failure to comply with the enforcement notice, which is an offence under the Town and Country Planning Act, and only following a court summons did the company begin to take action to demolish the extension, some nine months after the enforcement notice deadline.
Due to the negative impact the ordeal has had on neighbours, the Council continued to pursue to the prosecution and on the 24th of March, both Charles Margulies and BMR Hemini Ltd were convicted at Wimbledon Magistrates Court for their failure to comply with the enforcement notice. They were fined £16,000, ordered to pay the Council’s legal fees £23,554 as well as paying a victim surcharge of £3,600.
The Judge criticised them for putting a tenant into the building under the knowledge the Council intended to issue an enforcement notice and warned them against doing so.
