Why Telford’s licensing pause deserves landlords’ attention

In its statement published on 15 September, Telford & Wrekin Council says it will revisit the position in 2027, allowing time to assess the effect of other changes before deciding on further measures. It also acknowledges the concerns landlords raised about the proposals.

The announcement does not establish that a court has ruled against the scheme or that licensing has been abandoned permanently. It confirms a pause, while the council says its separate Article 4 planning controls will proceed in February 2027.

Even with those qualifications, this deserves attention. My view is that landlords should approach consultations knowing that the evidence, scope and timing of a proposal are all matters worth examining closely. A council should be willing to explain its reasoning, respond to documented objections and reconsider its approach where necessary.

Improving standards needs a convincing plan. Tenants should have safe, properly managed homes, and responsible landlords have every reason to support effective action against those who provide anything less. The question is how a particular licensing scheme will deliver that improvement and whether the case for it stands up to scrutiny.

The Government’s guidance on HMO licensing recognises the importance of proportionate, targeted regulation. It also explains that additional licensing must be introduced in accordance with the statutory requirements. A worthwhile objective therefore needs to be supported by a properly justified scheme.

For me, the starting point would be the evidence about the properties the council wants to license. How many have identifiable management problems, how were those problems established, and how does that number compare with the total number of properties being brought into the scheme?

A complaint, an inspection, a confirmed hazard and an unresolved management failure tell us different things. I would want the figures separated clearly, with an explanation of whether repeated contacts concern the same property and whether problems have already been resolved. Otherwise, readers can struggle to understand the scale of the problem the proposed scheme is intended to address.

The comparison with existing enforcement matters. I would also want to see what the council has already tried and the results it achieved. If targeted inspections and enforcement have worked in some cases, what is preventing that approach from working more widely?

There may be a persuasive answer. Additional licensing might help identify properties, impose appropriate conditions or support more systematic oversight. The council should explain the expected contribution of its proposed scheme alongside the alternatives, including better use of existing information, landlord education and action against persistent offenders.

I would ask for measurable outcomes as well. How many properties are expected to improve, over what period, and how will the council distinguish improvements resulting from the scheme from those that would have happened anyway? Counting applications and collecting fees tells us about administration; tenants need to know what will change in their homes.

The cost deserves the same scrutiny as the promised benefit. Landlords will want to understand the proposed fees, application work and ongoing obligations. They should also be able to see how the council intends to resource inspections, process applications and deal with the properties causing the greatest concern.

Those are practical business questions. Any assessment of possible effects on rents, investment or the availability of homes should be supported by evidence rather than an assumption that every landlord will respond in the same way. A useful consultation response explains the likely effect on a real property business and sets out how that conclusion was reached.

This is closely related to why I am supporting the Eastern Landlords Association’s scrutiny of Norwich’s licensing proposals. I have prepared a report to help ELA examine the supporting evidence and put specific questions to the council.

The schemes must still be considered separately. Additional HMO licensing and selective licensing operate under different parts of the Housing Act 2004, and Telford’s decision tells us nothing conclusive about the lawfulness of Norwich’s proposals. What can be shared is the discipline of checking the figures, identifying gaps and asking questions that bear directly on the decision.

Landlords can make a useful contribution through inspection histories, maintenance records, documented experience of enforcement and properly explained cost estimates. Local associations can bring that material together and identify issues that deserve a collective response, while keeping tenants’ personal information private.

I would welcome hearing from readers who have taken part in a licensing consultation or challenge. What evidence made a difference, which questions produced a useful answer, and did the council change its proposals? Sharing that experience could help landlords elsewhere make better informed representations and give councils better evidence on which to base their decisions.