Propertymark calls for proportionality in housing offence sentencing plans

An industry body has warned the Sentencing Council that sanctions for housing offences must be proportionate.

Propertymark made the comments in response to the council’s consultation on proposed sentencing guidelines.

Currently, there are no specific sentencing guidelines for housing offences, and courts rely on general principles.

Devasting impact on tenants

Under the proposed consultation, two guidelines would cover nine offences relating to unlawful eviction and harassment, with a further four covering HMOs and other housing standards breaches.

Courts would consider the harm to tenants, including distress, displacement and health risks, alongside offender culpability such as whether conduct was deliberate, reckless or persistent.

Chair of the Sentencing Council, Lady Justice May said: “Housing offences such as unlawful eviction can have a devastating impact. There is currently limited guidance for courts on sentencing for these offences; consequently, a risk of inconsistency in how such offences are sentenced across the country.

“While the number of defendants sentenced for these offences is currently low, it is important that the courts approach sentencing with clarity and consistency.”

Cumulative sanctions do not become disproportionate

Propertymark says it welcomed the proposed approach to assessing culpability and harm.

In response to the consultation, the industry body said: “We welcome the graduated culpability and harm models, which distinguish between serious, deliberate breaches and lower-level or administrative failings.

“For lower culpability cases, particularly where poor practice arises from a lack of knowledge or understanding, we believe there should be an emphasis on education and training alongside fines.

“Serious cases involving deliberate harm, intimidation, or systemic failings should be prioritised with proportionate sanctions. The approach to starting points and category ranges, including turnover-based fines for organisations, is appropriate, clear, and consistent with other regulatory frameworks.”

The industry body also warned that, alongside the Renters’ Rights Act, which introduces fines of up to £30,000, sentencing guidelines must remain proportionate.

Propertymark said: “We note the growing interaction between criminal prosecution, civil penalties of up to £30,000, banning orders, Rent Repayment Orders, and regulatory sanctions.

“The guidelines should ensure clarity around proportionality where multiple enforcement routes are pursued in parallel, so that cumulative sanctions do not become disproportionate relative to the offending and there is a synergistic approach.”

Genuine administrative error

In Propertymark’s evidence to the consultation, it said 64% of its members believed that in between 76% and 100% of cases, landlord offences such as HMO licensing breaches and failures to comply with improvement notices were the result of genuine administrative errors or legal confusion.

It also said that if courts set imprisonment as a starting point for landlords and agents found guilty of a “serious” unlawful eviction, 34% of the agents and firms in its membership would stop representing “high-risk” landlords or HMOs under those conditions.

The industry body added that nearly half of landlords (44%) estimated the cost of completing a full legal eviction at between £3,001 and £7,000.