Brent Council’s hypocrisy: Are door-to-door council inspections a step too far?

News that Brent Council’s enforcement teams have carried out door-to-door inspections to find ‘criminal landlords’, should send shockwaves through the private rented sector.

According to the Property118 story, these teams are targeting unlicensed properties, offering waste management guidance, and addressing anti-social behaviour while ensuring homes are free from health or safety risks.

But in today’s ‘you couldn’t make it up’ news, and just days after the council was crowing about its private landlord inspections, Brent has been hauled over the coals by the Regulator of Social Housing for shortcomings in meeting its landlord responsibilities under the Safety and Quality Standard, stating that ‘significant improvement is needed’.

In response, Brent has pledged swift and ongoing improvements to its housing services after issues with building safety risk assessments. No mention of a massive fine, naturally.

First of many?

On the surface, it sounds like Brent is undertaking a noble pursuit – protecting tenants from ‘rogue’ landlords. But dig deeper, and this initiative raises questions that should worry every landlord in the country.

First, let’s address the elephant in the room: why is Brent Council the only one taking such an aggressive stance? No other London borough, let alone councils elsewhere, has adopted this door-to-door approach.

It’s a worrying undertaking, not least because it evokes chilling comparisons to authoritarian regimes.

Picture it: council officers knocking on doors, demanding entry and scrutinising properties for any infraction.

It’s not hard to draw parallels with the heavy-handed tactics of Nazi Germany, where state agents invaded homes under the guise of ‘public good’. Hyperbole? Perhaps.

But when councils wield such power, unchecked and without transparency, landlords are right to feel uneasy.

Councils aren’t good landlords

What’s more perplexing is the council’s apparent blind spot when it comes to their own properties. If Brent is so keen to protect tenants, why aren’t they inspecting their own social housing stock with the same zeal?

Councils across England, including Lambeth and Hammersmith, have paid out millions in compensation for issues like mould and damp in their own properties.

Yet, while private landlords face fines of up to £30,000 for minor breaches, council-run homes seem to escape scrutiny.

Where are the door-to-door inspections for council properties? Are they checking for illegal subletting in their own flats and houses, a known issue that costs taxpayers millions? The hypocrisy is glaring.

The financial stakes are equally troubling. A single fine could push a small landlord into bankruptcy, especially if it’s for a minor issue.

The question is: how much are councils earning by penalising landlords into oblivion? With selective licensing fees ranging from £800 to £1,200, and fines that can spiral into six figures, it’s hard to believe these schemes are purely about tenant safety.

Licensing bureaucratic nightmare

This brings us to the heart of the issue: licensing schemes themselves. Designed to ensure housing standards, they’re often a bureaucratic nightmare, deliberately crafted to trip landlords up.

From vague hazard definitions to complex HMO regulations, the rules seem engineered to make compliance difficult.

A landlord might face a £30,000 fine for a technicality, even if they’ve acted in good faith.

As one Property118 commenter noted: “The purpose of licensing and these council-driven dragnets is not to protect tenants or find rogue landlords – it’s to generate money for a bloated and badly run council.”

It’s hard to disagree with that sentiment when legally, licensing schemes are supposed to be non-profit, covering only administrative costs.

Yet, with Brent’s aggressive inspections and plans by other councils like Barking and Dagenham to expand licensing under new Labour rules, it’s hard to see these as anything but revenue-generating exercises.

The lack of transparency – councils don’t publish the proportion of properties inspected or fines issued – only fuels suspicion that this is less about safety and more about cash.

Thin end of the wedge?

Is Brent’s approach the thin end of the wedge? Absolutely. If unchecked, other councils will follow suit, emboldened by Labour’s relaxation of licensing scheme approvals.

Landlords across the UK should brace for more inspections, more fines and more pressure to sell up or spend more time and money to comply with increasingly onerous rules.

The Renters’ Rights Bill and proposed EPC C requirements will only tighten the noose, potentially driving good landlords out and leaving tenants at the mercy of the true rogues who operate under the radar.

Brent’s door-to-door inspections may be the first, but they won’t be the last. The question is: will landlords stand up to this overreach, or will they be fined into submission?

Until next time,

The Landlord Crusader

Share This Article