Propertymark challenges council’s proposed housing enforcement penalties

An industry body has warned that a council’s approach to housing enforcement must be proportionate and evidence-based.

Propertymark has responded to Bath and North East Somerset Council’s consultation on a tougher housing services enforcement and financial penalty policy.

Under the proposed policy, housing fines could increase by up to 50% where the council identifies aggravating factors, such as previous non-compliance, a breach lasting more than six months or deliberate offending.

Proposed starting penalties include £20,000 for failing to carry out required electrical remedial work and £20,000 for serious breaches of HMO fire safety or amenity standards.

Disproportionately high penalties

In its consultation response, Propertymark said: “We do not agree with Bath and North East Somerset’s approach to enforcement of Housing legislation.

“We support the council having a robust and effective approach to enforcing housing legislation, particularly where there is serious, deliberate or persistent non-compliance.

“However, we have concerns about the proposed approach to financial penalties and think that each element of the framework needs to be proportionate, evidence-based and capable of distinguishing between deliberate wrongdoing and administrative or inadvertent failures.”

Propertymark has also raised concerns about a proposed 10% increase for aggravating factors, with the total uplift capped at 50% of the applicable starting penalty.

The industry body argues that minor or inadvertent breaches should not result in disproportionately high penalties.

Propertymark said in the consultation: “Aggravating factors should be clearly defined and applied consistently, rather than allowing relatively minor matters to result in a significant increase to an already substantial penalty.

“In particular, a failure to respond to a council letter should not automatically be treated as evidence of deliberate non-compliance. Landlords and letting agents may have legitimate reasons for not responding immediately, including administrative errors, correspondence being sent to an incorrect address, reliance on a managing agent, or simply failing to understand the significance of a particular request.

“There should be a clear distinction between genuine non-cooperation and an isolated failure to respond.”

Financial penalties should only be used where justified

As previously reported by Property118, the council claims the proposed policy is “fair and transparent”.

However, Propertymark argues that the council should review its proposed percentage uplifts and that financial penalties should only be used where justified.

The industry body said: “We support the council’s objective of improving compliance and protecting tenants, but we do not support an enforcement model which becomes disproportionately punitive.

“Financial penalties should be reserved for circumstances where they are justified by the seriousness of the breach and the conduct of the offender. Deliberate and persistent offenders should face meaningful consequences, while responsible landlords and agents who make genuine mistakes, cooperate with the council and take prompt action to remedy problems should be treated proportionately.

“We would therefore encourage the council to review the proposed percentage uplifts and reductions, provide much clearer definitions of aggravating and mitigating factors, and introduce stronger safeguards around the treatment of non-response to council correspondence.

“Enforcement will be most effective where landlords and agents understand what is expected of them and have confidence that the system is fair, consistent and proportionate.”