Tech

Genius Landlord Tells Court He Is ‘Lost at Sea,’ Is Fined $56,790

Landlord Giuseppe Sutera showed up to court and claimed to be just “a man,” and said that the real Sutera was “lost at sea.”
Genius Landlord Tells Court He Is 'Lost at Sea,' Is Fined $56,790
Image: 
PeskyMonkey via Getty Images

A landlord in the U.K. has been ordered to pay a record fine after apparently showing up to housing court but refusing to identify himself. Giuseppe “Joe” Sutera showed up to Bristol Magistrates’ Court on June 26 but, for reasons that were not immediately clear, told the court that he was not Joe Sutera—just “a man”— and that the real Sutera was “lost at sea,” according to Bristol Live

Advertisement

'The court took Sutera at his word and declared him not present and guilty by default, ordering him to pay  44,270 pounds, the equivalent of $56,790, the most ever charged by South Gloucestershire Council. 

Sutera was in court because he had continued to rent out one of the apartments he owns despite receiving emergency notice of a fire hazard. The emergency notice was sent after a tenant complained to officials, resulting in an emergency inspection. Inspectors found the apartment had no safe escape route in the event of a fire, the bedrooms had no fire doors and there were no working smoke alarms. Sutera was ordered to stop renting out the apartment until he fixed the safety issues. Not only did Sutera not do that, he rented to even more tenants on the same property, according to Bristol Live.

“The level of the fine in this case serves as a serious warning to all landlords that they have a legal responsibility to protect their tenants and provide a safe and decent property for them to live in, and if they fail to do this, the council will take action,” a member of the South Gloucestershire Council told Bristol Live.

Assuming the man who appeared in court was Sutera and the real Sutera is not washed up on a desert island, he still owns eight other properties in South Gloucestershire and four more properties in Bristol.

South Gloucestershire Council did not return a request for comment in time for publication.