Council warns it must rely on fines due to lack of enforcement funding
1 month ago | 4 comments
Landlord penalty quashed after council fails to meet six-month rule
10:09 AM, 25th June 2026, 3 weeks ago
14
Categories:
A firm has warned that minor licensing mistakes can cost landlords thousands of pounds after successfully overturning a £19,500 financial penalty.
London Property Licensing reveals it advised on a case in which a housing officer from Waltham Forest Council inspected a flat and found it was being rented to three friends without the correct licence, in breach of the council’s additional HMO licensing scheme.
The firm is now warning landlords and letting agents that, under the Renters’ Rights Act, financial penalties could be even higher.
Council took 17 months to process the application
London Property Licensing explains that the case was not as straightforward as first imagined.
London Property Licensing said the flat on Lea Bridge Road in east London had previously been occupied by a single household before being re-let to three sharers in July 2023.
The firm said the landlord had submitted an additional HMO licence application in 2021 and appointed a managing agent to oversee compliance.
However, the council took 17 months to process the application and, during that time, the property changed from being occupied by three sharers to a single family. As a result, the application was refused because it was no longer the correct type of licence.
After the family moved out and the property underwent refurbishment, it was re-let to three sharers. At that point, a new licence application was required, but this was missed due to an administrative oversight by the managing agent.
A council inspection two months later identified the licensing breach, but neither the landlord nor the managing agent was informed at the time.
Six months later, Waltham Forest Council issued a notice of intent to impose a £19,500 penalty. According to the firm, the notice was not received by the landlord, and a final penalty of £15,600 was issued six months later.
Issued notice outside six-month limit
London Property Licensing points out that, while the appeal raised concerns about both the decision to impose a penalty and the level of the fine, it also questioned whether the notice of intent had been issued within the required timeframe.
The legislation says: “The notice of intent must be given before the end of the period of six months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence of the conduct to which the financial penalty relates.”
On appeal, the First-tier Tribunal found that Waltham Forest Council had issued the notice outside this statutory six-month limit and therefore cancelled the penalty.
The council attempted to challenge the decision, but its appeal was unsuccessful. The Upper Tribunal upheld the ruling, confirming that the statutory time limit had been misapplied.
High penalties are often imposed for minor indiscretions
Richard Tacagni, managing director at, London Property Licensing, warns small administrative oversights can cost landlords and letting agents thousands of pounds.
He said: “This case demonstrates how the civil financial penalty regime is becoming ever more complex and litigious. High penalties are often imposed for minor indiscretions without any prior warning.
“With new statutory guidance supporting even higher financial penalties under the Renters Rights Act, I’m concerned the regulatory model is out of balance. We need better and more proportionate regulation of the private rented sector.”
The news comes as landlords and letting agents in London now face a greater financial risk from licensing breaches, with council fines moving close to £25 million.
Tags:
financial penalty, HMO licence application, HMO Licensing, London Property Licensing, Waltham Forest
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 120
11:13 AM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
… when do landlord’s accept they are no longer running their own businesses for their benefit… government policies are now designed to use landlord’s capital and time to improve properties while crushing values when it’ll give the right of first refusal to tenants to buy or buy improved properties themselves at the crushed values to create the council housing estates of the future… it’s a 2029 re-election winner… unless landlord representatives do for landlord’s what unions do for every other sector of society… you can’t get on a Tube without paying the driver £1,368.46 rising to £1,538.46 per 36 HOUR WEEK with 43 days paid holiday annually with no business expenses. How much capital risk and how many houses do you have to act as a housing officer for to achieve that?
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 120
11:22 AM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
… on top of the basic £71,160 per annum (£1,368.46 per week), TFL pay an additional £16,868 to £32,260 annually for National Insurance and pension contributions. That’s more than the net rent off multiple average houses.
Member Since June 2020 - Comments: 45
11:29 AM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 25/06/2026 – 11:13
We need a union
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 120
12:33 PM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
… there are many landlord associations, but on this topic they seem to have been either mute, ineffective, or both. RMT union fees are £25.87 per month and ASLEF fees are £26.00 per month. For that, their members can secure around £100,000 a year in income and benefits, with no business expenses, no capital risk, no occupational risk, and no danger of losing property assets built up over a lifetime…
… most current landlord representative organisations seem to charge whatever fees they can to show landlords how to fill in forms and comply with the latest government diktat. That is not what unions do. Unions drive policy. They withdraw assets and labour to make their point. That is not illegal and, save for loss of income during action, there are no comparable penalties…
… so how did landlord associations allow laws to be passed that effectively confiscate property assets if landlords do not use them, let them, or manage them under the government’s rules? It is economics turned on its head. It is no longer what the market will bear; it is what the market will pay. In a broken economy, with housing treated as an essential public need, the government will do everything it can to control and confiscate the benefit of housing without taking on the risk. That risk is left in the hands of the landlord…
… and if you want to see the direction of travel, listen to Andy Burnham’s policy on utilities. In May 2026, he called for “greater public control” rather than full public ownership. In other words, leave the risk with shareholders and strip out the benefit through regulation. The same pattern that has been applied to private housing. So why have landlord representatives not recognised it, named it, and done something effective about it?
Member Since August 2021 - Comments: 314 - Articles: 1
1:33 PM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 25/06/2026 – 12:33
Are you a member of a landlord association?Have you ever offered your campaigning skills to a landlord association?
Many landlords blanch, and take a step back promising to consider joining [most don’t] even when they are offered a discount on membership.
Even the most commercial association charges less than £10.10 pm (annual subscription).
Most landlord associations offer membership for the equivalent of around £7 pm – before any discount.
Landlord associations stand ready to campaign for members (admittedly some more than others) but this involves a well funded team supported by member landlords.
Why not head over to our new website to see what we have been up to for over 50 years.
https://ihowz.uk/
If you (or others here) want to get involved we would love to hear from you, as well as having you as members.
Stll looking for a discount?
Come and find us at the London Landlord Investment Show on Wed, 8 July
https://www.landlordinvestmentshow.co.uk/
Find out what a campaigning landlord association can offer you.
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 499
1:46 PM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 25/06/2026 – 11:13
Good point, if landlord’s were part of a Union the RRA might not even exist or have been watered down.Only 22,000 members in ASLEF compared to } 2.8 million landlords, but how do you blackmail the government.
Member Since June 2020 - Comments: 45
2:04 PM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 25/06/2026 – 12:33
Therefore we can not have a Union, as we cannot take our labour away and strike.
The best we can do is sell which I am seriously considering after having upgraded my properties its painful with the time, effort and investment I have put in.
We can as a Union stop renting as a whole, but then there are the residing tenants. How many would even consider to stop renting as a protest?
Is there a way of striking by changing locks – legally that is not an option unless we have a brilliant lawyer who can guide us to use that as an option.
I am sure the majority of LLs are sick of the situation when orginally we were led to believe this was our pention.
Member Since June 2020 - Comments: 45
2:08 PM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Rod at 25/06/2026 – 13:33
I have not heard of IHowz.uk.
When did you campaign and for what?
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 120
2:11 PM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Rod at 25/06/2026 – 13:33
The last time I engaged with a landlord association, I challenged what appeared to be a lack of understanding of important elements of the law. When I then questioned why the association had been so passive in representing a cohort with billions of pounds of invested assets, it felt as though I was speaking to someone better suited to arranging a knitting evening than defending the legitimate interests of property owners.
From my observations, I do not see much evidence that anything has changed.
In my view, principles rooted in the long-established protections of private property rights — including those historically associated with Magna Carta — could and should have been brought to bear with far greater force. They may not have stopped government policy entirely, but they could at least have put grit in the ball bearings: enough to make ministers, civil servants and legislators think again, or to create pressure for an equitable route of departure from the industry for those landlords who no longer wish to remain in it.
The point that seems continually overlooked is that landlords were encouraged to invest in the private rented sector under one set of rules. Those rules have then been changed, not only for new investors going forward, but retrospectively against those who made capital, labour and long-term financial commitments years ago. Many are now watching the value and benefit of that investment disappear under regulatory, tax and compliance burdens they would never have accepted had they existed at the outset.
That is not a normal market adjustment. It is the retrospective impairment of an asset class into which private individuals were actively encouraged to invest. A serious representative body should have understood that distinction and acted accordingly.
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 499
2:47 PM, 25th June 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 25/06/2026 – 14:11
The Conservative party introduced SATs to improve the balance of power between landlords and tenants while making more properties available to rent to reduce homelessness.Well done, but then landlords have been betrayed by the likes of George Osborne (S24) and now Socialists have seen the ripe pickings.Landlord’s agencies are just another form of parasite feeding off landlords so don’t expect them to actual do more than a bit of paperwork.
All I hear from the Conservatives is how farmers have been attacked by Labour over IHT resulting in suicides, but not a word about the attacks on landlords, which may well result in even worse. Farmers are angels because they provide food and you would think make no profit, yet landlord’s provide housing and are evil mostly make peanuts.