Landlords win as selective licensing rules are amended

Fantastic.
Councils & Govt are going too far in making Landlord responsible for more and more of tenants behaviour.
Govt say tenant is responsible to pay em £ thousands in UC rent. Yet when it suits Govt & Councils, tenant isn’t responsible enough to sort their own waste out.
Nor find a letter off the internet-Best thing to do is fine the Landlady £7000 for not proving gave the tenant the letter 10 years ago.

April 2026 Govt now fining us £7000 each tenant for every RRA act letter we cannot prove we’ve gave to the tenant-In ten years time. We get fined £7000 for an admin error for a letter the tenant can get off the internet just like we have to. This time Govt gone too far. We Housing Providers. Many of us don’t want the houses & only keeping for the tenant. And you want to fine us £7000 for an error where no one has got hurt?

£7000 for a paperwork error each tenant & even if you have gave em the sheets, if you lose your proof, you’ve had it. I can stab someone & get less. Parking ticket £60. No car insurance £200. Letter that tenants not bothered about £7000?

Charnwood used a consultancy firm to produce the licencing terms – They were doing HMO and the Selective licencing at the same time… This is why the Selective licencing and HMO licencing have almost the same terms.

They DID have a consultation AND amended licencing terms in regards to specific feedback. I suspect the HMO licencing terms are still valid (waste and fire safety are key HMO Mgmt items) – Whether they should be referenced in the HMO licence itself is a debatable item, as the law makes it a mandatory requirement anyway…

Reply to the comment left by Si BB at 20/05/2026 – 10:22
We had exactly the same in Nottingham. Man in charge of HMO’s came to be in charge of Licensing, bringing all sorts in. I got the top Council man head of Env Health for 30 years to look into it. He said to him You going way over the top, you don’t have HMO stuff in normal family houses.

I get a few bits dropped, big one was thumbturns saving Nottingham Landlords £millions. Although some had already started doing ’em.

A lot of selective licensing conditions are open to challenge. For example, Brighton Council, in common with many others have conditions about obtaining references. Their condition is:

“The Licence Holder must obtain references for prospective tenants. The council may request copies of those references.

It’s understood that in certain situations it may not be possible to obtain a reference. For example, where it’s a first tenancy or newcomer to the United Kingdom.

In these situations, you may be asked to provide evidence provide evidence that you have explained, and that the tenant understands the implications of them not adhering to tenancy conditions. ”

There is no requirement to obtain references, only to demand them. It is up to the landlord to decide if he wants to proceed without a satisfactory reference.

Durham Council has a condition:

“If the licence holder identifies any housing support needs for the tenant, they must ensure that a housing support plan, and the provision of support under the plan, are put in place for the tenant prior to the commencement of the tenancy. If any other support needs are identified, the licence holder will ensure that any necessary referrals are put in place prior to the commencement of the tenancy.”

Since when are landlords their tenants’ unpaid social workers?

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 12:21
Charnwood have demand vs require in the HMO and Selective licence conditions for references – They originally had required, but then feedback was given that pointed out the 2004 Housing Act clause and then this was changed to demand (as per the act)…

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/05/2026 – 12:21
Yes Nottingham had same, I think we got that changed to
Must try to obtain references
As I said you’ve just made half of Nottingham Benefit tenants homeless.

You are joking on that support plan Ian. Crikey I can’t get help for my disabled tenants that don’t answer the phone, Council say they must ring us.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 20/05/2026 – 10:29
Hi Mick. I’m sure I read somewhere that a Leicester tenant had a disabled escape artist child. He/She would let themselves out into the street with a thumb lock. They challenged the thumb lock on the basis that it was not safe nor secure for their child. I didn’t find this out until the council inspected my second flat saying thumb locks were no longer compulsory. (Already fitted by then)

Reply to the comment left by Paul at 20/05/2026 – 14:50

Here is my notes on Thumbturns:

I think thumbturns good idea for the individual person, I have em on my house for speed. However I got ’em dropped in Nottingham Selective Licensing.
As in my area’s, if burglar breaks into a house, he’s gonna’ love it as he can walk straight out the door with the nice shiny big new tv.

My tenants don’t want ’em cause their kids can let theirselves straight out front door onto road & get knocked over.

And new one on me, one of me tenants said
I don’t want ’em on my house as me kid sleepwalks & will let herself out house at 2am.

I sent the above arguments into Nottingham Council Selective Licensing & they got 20 staff round the computer screens to read my email as they like to laugh & cringe at my torrent of abuse, & one of their OWN staff, a female said
I wun’t want ’em on my house either with my kids.
So we’re all different, stop forcing stuff on people they may not want.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 20/05/2026 – 13:56
Mick, I kid you not: para 9 of https://www.durham.gov.uk/media/37779/Selective-licensing-conditions/pdf/SelectiveLicensingConditions.pdf?m=1665061939880

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 20/05/2026 – 16:10

Crikey before the commencement of tenancy.
It takes months & years to get a tenant help.
They are proper thick these council’s aren’t they.