Renting somewhere cramped is normal these days, particularly if you're living somewhere like London or New York City. But if you think the house you're renting is small, at least you're probably not sharing it with 40 other people.
WATCH THE BBC NEWS REPORT ON THE SHAHS' HOUSE BELOW:
A shocking court case in London has revealed the extent to which rogue landlords will go to try to cram as many people into their houses as possible.
Advert
Via an agent, the Shah family rented out a four-bedroom property in Wembley, north London that was used to house up to 40 Indian migrants and poor Londoners. UK Border Force, who raided the house, said it was the worst example of overcrowding they had ever seen.
The house was rented out for £6,000 a month and contained seven bedrooms on the ground floor and two on the first floor. Using bunk beds, five people could be crammed into each room, with all the house's residents sharing just two bathrooms between them. How horrific is that?
Conditions in the house were so bad that all the fire exits were blocked, the garden shed was surrounded by sacks of rice and one kitchen was so unusable housemates had to rely on food deliveries.
Fifty-three-year-old Harsha Shah, 53, daughter Chandni, 27, and brother-in-law Sanjay, 54, now face paying back £360,000 after they and their agent, Jaydipkumar Valand, received between £40 and £75 per week from the tenants for rent and food deliveries. That amounts to over £80,000 a year.
Advert
The Shahs, whose wider family owned 12 properties, were all convicted at Willesden Magistrates Court last May for failing to have a house of multiple occupancy licence, as the house was only licenced to house one family.
The family were also convicted for failing to comply with regulations in maintaining the house. Sanjay Shah was also found guilty of aiding and abetting.
The local authority, Brent Borough Council, is now fighting to get some of the money back, arguing that it should not only be entitled to any housing benefit the landlords received but also any rent paid under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Advert
The council is yet to decide how much it wishes to obtain from the family as it continues its investigation.
"'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," said Edmund Robb, on behalf of Brent Borough Council, to Recorder Stephen Rubin QC.
"If they had complied with the regulations the money would not have come into their hands.
"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."
Advert
Robb added that recovering money from the Shahs will be a 'forensic process' which could take months due to the 'great deal of money' at stake.
Cameron Scott, acting for Harsha and her daughter, Chandni, has argued that taking the rent from the tenants was not illegal, and therefore the family's money should not be confiscated.
"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," Scott said.
Advert
"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 Shah family and Valand will be sentenced for their crimes at a later date. They will also later find out whether the council is entitled to confiscate rent under a Proceeds of Crime Order.
Featured Image Credit: SWNSTopics: UK News, News, crime, London