A common historic complaint from private sector landlords about the use by Local Authorities of Selective Licensing in regulating the PRS was that the councils took the licensing fees from landlords, good and bad, and then fined any landlords who’d not applied for a licence but did little else to improve matters. Effectively, a licensing scheme was just a way to impose a ‘tax’ on landlords.

The underlying argument being that any actual ‘rogue’ or criminal landlords would either decamp to a neighbouring ward or borough with no licensing or would simply fly under the radar of the officer running the licensing scheme. The latter, under the radar type, treating the percentage risk of being caught out as simply a worthwhile cost of doing business whilst the good landlords paid the actual price.

High-Profile Cases Show a Shift in Enforcement

Recent high-profile (if one lives in London) cases bely that view. These cases (taken by Camden Council and Kensington & Chelsea Council) have approached £500,000 in fines and in April this year, industry publication The Negotiator reported that fines imposed by London boroughs had ‘surged’ past £10 million evidencing, according to one commentator quoted, “the growing seriousness with which regulatory compliance is being treated [by councils].”

The largest fines, whether in London or not, are down to the fact that a Local Authority has successfully prosecuted a landlord in court and fines imposed by a judge can be unlimited (with prison sentences sometimes imposed also). On a ‘day to day’ basis though, civil penalties/fines imposed by a Local Authority as an alternative to prosecution can be up to a maximum of £30,000 per offence (there is no minimum) depending on the seriousness of the case.

Landlords’ Right to Appeal and the Administrative Burden on Local Authorities

Landlords do have the right of appeal to the First Tier property tribunal and this is where the issue of administrative burden raises its head yet again. Whether a Local Authority is small, medium-sized or large this is an inescapable part of the enforcement calculation in the current climate given that some authorities, according to government data, have fewer than two full-time equivalent housing enforcement officers (and thus simply don’t have the capacity or the confidence to proactively enforce regulatory compliance). Any local authority has to take into account the question of whether there is a reasonable chance of conviction if the case went to court instead of a civil penalty being imposed (the standard of proof being the same in either case).

The Need for Efficient Systems and Support

This means that any Local Authority really needs to have its ducks in a row even where it has decided to issue a penalty rather than prosecute. These days that means access to a good IT platform is essential. All the records including licence applications, housing/licensing team casework decisions, photographic evidence and property inspection reports, witness statements, records of interviews (of a landlord, a tenant, an emergency services worker, welfare officer or a property inspector) are quickly and easily accessible and collatable.

Solutions for Resourcing Issues

One solution for authorities with resource capacity issues is to seek a support partner. This can be by pooling up-to-date physical resources such as IT or available human resources with neighbouring authorities or utilising the potential of a trusted outside provider, such as Home Safe. Either way, standing still is no longer an option. Even landlords themselves now expect to see action being taken by Local Authorities against the bad or ‘rogue’ landlords in their area - the expectation being that there will, for them, then be at least some visible value for the money they paid in licensing fees.