Landlord Fined £28,500: Lessons Kingston Landlords Must Learn in October 2026

A landlord who admitted he had never once visited his rented property after buying it has just been ordered to pay £28,500, and the case carries a direct warning for every private landlord operating south of the river in Kingston upon Thames. The story, reported by Property Industry Eye on 12 October 2026, describes a Durham County Council prosecution that exposes exactly how quickly small compliance failures snowball into five-figure penalties. For landlords weighing up the real meaning of "landlord fined £28,500 lessons Kingston landlords October 2026," the facts of this case matter far more than the postcode where it happened.

Durham is a long way from Surrey and south-west London. But the legal powers that councils used to bring this prosecution, improvement notices under the Housing Act 2004, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), and licensing enforcement, apply identically in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. This article breaks down what happened, why the fine reached £28,500, and what Kingston and south-west London landlords should check before a routine complaint becomes a court appearance.

Key Takeaways

• A Durham landlord, Kristoffer Jon Dalziel, was fined a total of £28,500 after failing to obtain selective licences for three rental properties and breaching a Housing Act 2004 improvement notice.
• The property had a broken boiler, damp and mould, electrical faults and carbon monoxide hazards, with a household including a newborn baby and a disabled child who was later hospitalised.
• The landlord admitted he had never visited the property since purchase, a pattern of absentee management that courts and councils now treat as an aggravating factor.
• The same Housing Act 2004 improvement notice powers and HHSRS hazard assessments apply in every English council area, including the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames.
• Kingston landlords should independently verify the borough's current licensing requirements and consider an independent condition survey before problems reach enforcement stage.

The £28,500 Case That Should Worry Every Kingston Landlord

According to Property Industry Eye's report on the Durham County Council prosecution, Kristoffer Jon Dalziel, 34, sole director of Dalziel Ventures Ltd, was prosecuted at Peterlee Magistrates' Court over a property in Annfield Plain and two further rental homes in Stanley. All three fell under Durham's selective licensing scheme, which began in April 2022, yet none had been licensed.

The timeline laid out in the reporting is stark. The council first contacted the landlord in December 2025 after complaints about the property's condition. An inspection found numerous defects and gave him one month to fix them. In January 2026 he promised work would begin. A formal inspection in February 2026 found the hazards still present. The council then issued improvement notices under sections 11 and 12 of the Housing Act 2004, requiring heating to be restored by late March 2026 and remaining repairs completed by April. A further inspection in March 2026 found no evidence that any work had been done.

The hazards were serious: a broken boiler leaving the household without heating or hot water, damp and mould, electrical faults, and carbon monoxide risks. The household included a mother, a newborn baby and a disabled child who was later admitted to hospital. In interview, the landlord admitted he had never visited the property since becoming its landlord, except to view it before buying.

Ted Murphy, building safety and standards manager at Durham County Council, said the landlord's "lack of action in this case is shocking," and added that selective licensing "can be an effective tool to improve standards." The court's penalties broke down as:

Penalty	Amount
Unlicensed property fines (3 x £7,000)	£21,000
Breach of improvement notice	£5,000
Court costs	£500
Victim surcharge	£2,000
Total	£28,500

How Improvement Notices Actually Work

The central legal mechanism in this case, the improvement notice, is not a Durham-only tool. Sections 11 and 12 of the Housing Act 2004 give every English local authority, including Kingston, the power to issue a notice once a hazard assessed under HHSRS reaches a category that requires action.

In practice this means:

• An officer inspects the property and scores hazards (damp, mould, excess cold, electrical safety, fire, carbon monoxide, and more) against HHSRS criteria.
• If a serious ("Category 1") hazard is found, the council must take action, often starting with an improvement notice setting a clear deadline for repairs.
• Failing to comply with that notice is a criminal offence, independent of any licensing breach.
• Each unresolved hazard, and each missed deadline, can generate separate enforcement action.

This is exactly what multiplied the Durham penalty: three unlicensed properties attracted three separate fines, and the improvement notice breach added a further £5,000 on top. A landlord who had resolved the heating fault promptly, even without a licence, would likely have faced a smaller bill.

Why Ignoring Council Deadlines Compounds Penalties

The most expensive mistake in this case was not the original defects, it was the pattern of promises without action. The council gave the landlord a month to fix problems in December 2025, received an assurance in January 2026, found nothing resolved in February, issued formal legal deadlines, and still found no progress in March. Four separate opportunities to comply were missed before prosecution followed.

For Kingston landlords, the lesson from the "landlord fined £28,500 lessons Kingston landlords October 2026" story is procedural as much as financial: councils document every inspection, every promise and every missed deadline, and that record becomes evidence in court. A single missed repair deadline rarely leads straight to prosecution, but a repeated failure to respond, especially where vulnerable tenants are involved, is treated far more seriously by magistrates.

The Real Cost of Damp, Mould, Electrical and Carbon Monoxide Hazards

Each hazard named in the Durham case has its own enforcement and liability profile, and all four are common findings in older housing stock across Kingston upon Thames, Surbiton, New Malden and the wider south-west London rental market.

• Damp and mould: now a priority issue following the Awaab Ishak case and the government's ongoing consultation on extending Awaab's Law to the private rented sector, which closes on 18 December 2026. Landlords should not wait for that legislation to land before acting, HHSRS already treats excess damp and mould as a Category 1 hazard risk.
• Electrical faults: a direct safety hazard and a common trigger for improvement notices, particularly in converted flats and older terraced housing.
• Carbon monoxide risks: linked directly to faulty heating appliances, as in the Durham case, and carry immediate life-safety implications.
• Broken heating systems: beyond comfort, a cold, damp home accelerates mould growth and structural deterioration, turning a repair bill into a much larger one.

Left unaddressed, each of these hazards can independently justify council enforcement, and combined, as in this case, they point to a landlord who has lost oversight of the property entirely.

Does Kingston Have Licensing Requirements? What Landlords Must Check

Durham's selective licensing scheme, introduced in April 2022, directly caused two-thirds of this landlord's fines. Licensing rules are set borough by borough and change over time, so it would be wrong to assume Kingston's requirements mirror Durham's. Rather than guessing, Kingston upon Thames and south-west London landlords should:

• Check the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames's current website guidance on selective and additional licensing before letting or renewing a tenancy.
• Confirm whether any specific ward or property type within the borough falls under a licensing designation.
• Re-check requirements periodically, since licensing schemes are introduced, renewed or expanded without always attracting national coverage.
• Keep dated evidence of licence applications and renewals in the same way the council keeps dated inspection records.

Operating without a required licence is a strict liability offence in many cases, meaning ignorance of the scheme is rarely an effective defence once enforcement begins.

Landlord Fined £28,500: Lessons Kingston Landlords Should Apply Now

Bringing the Durham facts together with Kingston's regulatory environment, four practical lessons stand out from this "landlord fined £28,500 lessons Kingston landlords October 2026" case:

1. Never rely on tenant self-reporting alone. The council only became involved after complaints; the landlord had no independent way of knowing the boiler had failed or mould had taken hold.
2. Respond to the first council contact, not the last. The landlord's January 2026 promise bought no real protection once the February and March inspections found nothing had changed.
3. Treat licensing checks as routine, not optional. Three separate £7,000 fines resulted from a licensing failure that a five-minute council website check could have prevented.
4. Document the property's condition independently. A paper trail of professional inspections is strong evidence of reasonable landlord conduct, and its absence is equally telling in court.

How an Independent RICS Survey Protects Absentee Landlords

The single most striking fact in the Durham case is that the landlord had not set foot in the property since purchase. For landlords who manage properties remotely, through agents, or as part of a wider portfolio, that is a genuine operational risk, not just a reputational one.

An independent RICS chartered surveyor's condition inspection gives a landlord three things a tenant complaint or a verbal assurance from a contractor cannot:

• A dated, professional record of the property's condition at a point in time, useful evidence if a licensing or improvement notice dispute ever arises.
• Early identification of damp, mould, electrical and structural issues before they reach HHSRS Category 1 severity.
• A clear, prioritised repair plan that can be acted on and then verified as complete.

For landlords with concerns about rising damp, condensation or mould patterns, a dedicated damp survey or a combined damp and timber report identifies the cause rather than just the symptom. Where a single defect, a boiler fault, cracked render, or a suspected electrical issue, needs expert assessment, a specific defect survey provides a focused, evidence-based report. Landlords managing multiple units or preparing for tenancy changeovers may also benefit from a schedule of condition report or a schedule of dilapidations to establish a clear, dated baseline. For a general sense of what commonly goes wrong in rental stock, see the 10 most common property defects found in building surveys across London properties.

Landlords based in or near Kingston upon Thames who want local, RICS-qualified support can speak to chartered surveyors in Kingston about arranging a property condition inspection before a council complaint, not after one.

What This Means for Kingston Landlords in October 2026

With the Renters' Rights Act being phased in and the Awaab's Law consultation for the private rented sector open until 18 December 2026, enforcement expectations on landlords are tightening nationally, not just in County Durham. Kingston landlords should treat this case as a prompt to audit their portfolio now: confirm licensing status with the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, review heating and electrical maintenance records, and commission an independent inspection where any doubt exists about a property's current condition.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Durham prosecution mean Kingston has the same licensing scheme?
No. Licensing schemes are set by individual councils and can differ significantly. Kingston landlords should check the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames's own current guidance rather than assume Durham's rules apply.

What is an improvement notice under the Housing Act 2004?
It is a formal legal notice, issued under sections 11 or 12, requiring a landlord to fix a hazard identified through an HHSRS inspection within a set deadline. Failing to comply is a separate criminal offence from any licensing breach.

Why was the fine £28,500 rather than a single penalty?
The total combined three £7,000 fines for unlicensed properties, a £5,000 fine for breaching the improvement notice, £500 costs and a £2,000 victim surcharge, reflecting multiple separate offences.

Can a landlord be prosecuted even if they use a managing agent?
Yes. Legal responsibility for licensing and hazard compliance generally sits with the landlord or property owner, regardless of day-to-day management arrangements.

How can an independent survey help avoid this kind of outcome?
A professional condition inspection or damp survey creates a dated record of the property's state and a prioritised repair plan, giving landlords early warning of hazards and evidence of reasonable conduct if a council ever queries standards.

Conclusion

The Durham case is a county away from Kingston upon Thames, but the enforcement powers behind the £28,500 fine are national. Every English council, including the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, can issue Housing Act 2004 improvement notices, apply HHSRS hazard assessments and prosecute for licensing failures. The landlord at the centre of this story lost control of his property simply by staying away from it. Kingston and south-west London landlords should use this case as a trigger to check current local licensing requirements, respond promptly to any council contact, and commission an independent RICS inspection to catch hazards before they become court evidence. Kingston Surveyors can support landlords with property condition inspections, damp surveys and defect reports designed to give absentee and portfolio landlords clear, actionable repair plans before problems escalate.

body{font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0;padding:10px;background:#f4f6f8;}
.cg-wrap{max-width:560px;margin:0 auto;background:#fff;border-radius:8px;
padding:18px;box-shadow:0 1px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.12);}
.cg-wrap h2{font-size:17px;margin:0 0 8px;color:#15344a;}
.cg-wrap p.cg-note{font-size:12px;color:#555;margin-top:2px;}
.cg-row{margin:12px 0;}
.cg-row label{display:block;font-size:14px;font-weight:bold;color:#15344a;margin-bottom:4px;}
.cg-row select{width:100%;padding:8px;font-size:14px;border:1px solid #ccc;
border-radius:5px;}
.cg-check{display:flex;align-items:center;gap:8px;font-size:14px;}
.cg-result{margin-top:14px;padding:12px;background:#eaf3ea;border-left:4px solid
#2e7d32;border-radius:4px;font-size:14px;color:#1b3a1b;}
.cg-result strong{font-size:18px;display:block;margin-bottom:4px;}
.cg-btn{margin-top:12px;background:#15344a;color:#fff;border:none;padding:9px 16px;
border-radius:5px;font-size:14px;cursor:pointer;}
.cg-btn:hover{background:#1f4a68;}

function cgCalc(){
var props = parseInt(document.getElementById(‘cg-props’).value,10);
var breach = document.getElementById(‘cg-breach’).checked;
var fineEach = 7000;
var breachFine = 5000;
var costs = 500;
var surcharge = 2000;
var total = (props*fineEach) + (breach?breachFine:0);
var grand = total>0? total + costs + surcharge: 0;
var out = document.getElementById(‘cg-out’);
if(grand===0){
out.innerHTML = “No fine triggers selected in this illustrative model.”;
return;
}
out.innerHTML = “Illustrative total: £” + grand.toLocaleString() +
“Based on £7,000 per unlicensed property, £5,000 for a breached ” +
“improvement notice, plus £500 costs and £2,000 surcharge — the same ” +
“pattern used in the Durham prosecution.”;
}