Romford Landlord Fined £5k Unsafe Home (Havering 2026)

Key Points

• Treldon Connell, a landlord from Romford, was fined £5,335.05 at Barkingside Magistrates’ Court for failing to address serious hazards in his Kingsbridge Road property.
• The property housed a mother and her two children in unsafe conditions, including Category 1 high-risk issues such as mould, damp, dangerous electrics, and structural problems.
• Havering Council issued a formal improvement notice, which Connell ignored, leading to prosecution.
• The fine breaks down to £2,500 penalty, £1,835.05 in legal costs, and £1,000 victim surcharge.
• Helen Oakerbee, Havering’s director of planning and public protection, highlighted the case as part of efforts against irresponsible landlords.

Romford (East London Times) April 21, 2026 –A landlord in Romford has been fined more than £5,000 for failing to remedy severe safety issues in a property occupied by a mother and her two children. Treldon Connell, owner of the Kingsbridge Road rental, was ordered to pay £5,335.05 after ignoring a formal improvement notice from Havering Council.

What Led to the Prosecution of Treldon Connell?

Havering Council took Connell to Barkingside Magistrates’ Court following repeated failures to fix hazards identified in his property.

As detailed in the Evening Standard article by Samuel Lovett, the issues included mould and damp, dangerous electrical installations, and both internal and external structural defects. Some of these were classified as Category 1 hazards – the highest risk level under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), requiring immediate mandatory action.

The council served an improvement notice demanding urgent repairs. Connell did not comply, prompting legal action. The court imposed the total penalty of £5,335.05, comprising a £2,500 fine, £1,835.05 in council legal costs, and a £1,000 surcharge to fund victim support services.

Why Was the Property Deemed ‘Unsafe’ for a Mother and Children?

Inspectors identified multiple Category 1 hazards, which pose serious risks to health and safety. Mould and damp can exacerbate respiratory issues, particularly for children.

Dangerous electrics risked fire or electrocution. Structural problems, both inside and out, threatened collapse or further deterioration.

As reported by Samuel Lovett in the Evening Standard, these conditions left the mother and her two children living in an environment that Havering Council described as unacceptable. The improvement notice specified urgent remediation, but Connell’s inaction prolonged the exposure.

How Did Havering Council Respond to Landlord Non-Compliance?

Havering Council enforces housing standards through its planning and public protection team. In this case, they escalated from inspection to notice, then prosecution when ignored. The successful court outcome underscores their commitment to tenant safety.

Helen Oakerbee, Havering’s director of planning and public protection, stated in the Evening Standard coverage:

“This successful prosecution is an example of us cracking down on irresponsible landlords taking advantage of families and individuals by providing poorly maintained properties.”

What Is the Breakdown of Treldon Connell’s Fine?

The court detailed the penalty as follows:

• Fine: £2,500
• Legal costs to Havering Council: £1,835.05
• Victim surcharge: £1,000

This structure aligns with standard magistrates’ court practices for housing offences, where costs and surcharges accompany the base fine. The total of £5,335.05 reflects the severity of the Category 1 hazards and the deliberate disregard of the notice.

Where Did the Case Take Place and What Court Ruled?

Barkingside Magistrates’ Court in Ilford handled the proceedings. Located in Redbridge, it serves multiple east London boroughs, including Havering.

The court issued the order following evidence from council inspectors and Connell’s lack of response.

Who Is Treldon Connell and What Property Is Involved?

Treldon Connell operates as a private landlord in Romford, part of the Havering borough. The property at Kingsbridge Road was the specific site of the violations.

Romford, known for its residential areas, falls under Havering Council’s jurisdiction for housing enforcement.

Background of the Development

Havering Council has intensified housing enforcement in recent years amid rising complaints about private rentals. Category 1 hazards under the HHSRS, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, compel local authorities to act on risks like damp, electrics, and structures that could cause serious harm.

This case follows similar prosecutions in east London, where councils target non-compliant landlords. Connell’s property inspection likely stemmed from tenant reports, a common trigger for such actions. The fine serves as a financial deterrent, recoverable through council bailiffs if unpaid.

Prediction: Impact on Tenants and Families in Havering

This development reinforces council oversight, potentially deterring other landlords from neglecting repairs and improving living conditions for tenants, especially vulnerable families with children. Renters in Havering may see faster responses to complaints, reducing exposure to Category 1 hazards.

However, persistent non-compliance could strain council resources, leading to longer wait times for inspections. Families like the mother and children involved gain precedent for legal recourse, but ongoing monitoring of fined landlords remains essential to prevent reoffending.