6 months ago | 7 comments
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has referred herself to the government’s ethics watchdog after admitting she broke housing law by renting out her family home without a selective licence.
She admitted to the breach after questions were raised over her Dulwich property, which was listed for rent at £3,200 a month when she moved into Number 11 Downing Street with her family last year.
That’s despite Ms Reeves campaigning last year for selective licensing to be imposed on her Leeds constituency.
Southwark Council operates a selective licensing scheme that requires landlords in some areas, including Ms Reeves’s neighbourhood, to obtain a licence before letting their homes.
The council confirmed that her property fell within the designated zone.
Its website states: “You can be prosecuted or fined if you’re a landlord or managing agent for a property that needs a licence and do not get one.”
After inquiries by the Daily Mail, the Chancellor acknowledged she had not been aware of the rule and took immediate steps to apply for the licence.
Her spokesman said: “Since becoming Chancellor, Rachel Reeves has rented out her family home through a lettings agency.
“She had not been made aware of the licensing requirement, but as soon as it was brought to her attention, she took immediate action and has applied for the licence.”
He added that she had informed the Prime Minister, the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards ‘in the spirit of transparency’.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the revelations as ‘very serious’ and called for the Chancellor to be sacked.
She said: “If the Chancellor, who has spent months floating punishing tax hikes on family homes, has at the same time seemingly been profiting from illegally renting out her house, that would make her position extremely tenuous.
“The Prime Minister must launch a full investigation.”
Ms Badenoch added: “He once said, ‘lawmakers can’t be lawbreakers’.
“If, as it appears, the Chancellor has broken the law, then he will have to show he has the backbone to act.”
A Conservative party spokesperson today said: “Rachel Reeves has broken the law and broken the ministerial code, but Keir Starmer is too weak to sack her.
“While the Chancellor is planning tax hikes for millions of families across the country at the Budget, it’s one rule for the Chancellor and another for everyone else.”
The Chancellor apparently told the Prime Minister in a letter and also apologised to him.
However, Keir Starmer said an investigation was ‘not necessary’ after consulting with Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent ethics adviser.
The Prime Minister added: “I am satisfied that this matter can be drawn to a close following your apology.”
Editor’s Note from Phil Turtle at Landlord Licensing & Defence: Rachel Reeves has committed a strict liability crime under section 95 of the Housing Act 2004 (failure to licence a property) with unlimited fines if prosecuted in court. Alternatively, councils can issue a civil financial penalty up to £30,000 (and keep the money).
Councils treat this as one of the most heinous crimes possible and we see dozens of small landlords every week fined often between £12,000 to £20,000 for this exact same criminal offence.
Just like speeding, it is a strict liability crime and there is no defence of “I didn’t know” or my letting agent didn’t tell me. Councils are absolutely merciless in prosecuting small landlords because for them, fining landlords has become a major revenue stream.
Will Reeve’s apology get her off the hook? It certainly wouldn’t get any one else who rented out their former family home and didn’t licence it. Council’s see these landlords as low hanging fruit for their revenue.
And let’s be clear we see hundreds of examples each month where councils leave tenants in danger whilst they concentrate on getting their pound of flesh from the landlord. Note councils concentrate on small landlords not the real rogues because hey never actually get cash from the rogues!
The whole licensing and enforcement environment in private sector housing is toxic and corrupt. (“Dear Council: keep as much fine money as you can raise” was never going to lead to a fair system and has in fact become an effective land grab as councils take ever bigger slices of the equity of small landlords.)
Also councils go out of their way to persuade tenants to make a rent Repayment Order for 12-months rent back (shortly to be 24-months under the new Renters Reform Act.
Will the full merciless weight of the law with civil penalty fines and rent repayment orders bear down on our chancellor as it does on every other landlord who didn’t realise they needed a licence?
We wait with bated breath – and of course Landlord Licensing & Defence would be happy to defend Ms Reeves to the full extent the law allows!
As we do for every landlord what falls foul of the horrendous housing enforcement fiasco https://landlordsdefence.co.uk/pr10
For most landlords, this story underlines how easy it is to fall foul of licensing rules without even realising. Every council has its own schemes, boundaries, and exemptions. Some require licensing for all rented properties, others only within selective zones, and each carries severe penalties for non-compliance.
The real lesson here is that ignorance is never accepted as an excuse. Whether you use a letting agent or manage properties yourself, the legal duty sits squarely with the landlord. Councils now rely on licensing income to fund enforcement teams, so the chances of being caught are higher than ever.
This is why we advise landlords to treat compliance checks as part of their annual maintenance routine. Verify whether your properties sit inside new or extended licensing areas, confirm that your agent’s details and licences are current, and keep every confirmation on file. One missing certificate can quickly snowball into a fine, rent repayment order, and lasting reputational damage.
Property118’s consultants often help landlords take a broader view of compliance. For some, this means consolidating their portfolio into a company or LLP structure where governance and record-keeping are centralised. For others, it means refining how agents are appointed, instructed, and monitored. In every case, the goal is the same: preparation, control, and peace of mind.
When public opinion turns against landlords, the best defence is professionalism. Staying one step ahead of local authority schemes is not only self-protection, it’s part of proving that responsible landlords form the backbone of the UK housing market.
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
6 months ago | 7 comments
8 months ago | 6 comments
1 year ago | 14 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
11:49 AM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by LaLo at 30/10/2025 – 11:45
Is she did use an agent she could sue the agent for compensation.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2025
11:51 AM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Ian Cognito at 30/10/2025 – 11:30
As long as it’s not one rule for them and one rule for us then I agree with this.
Last year the Daily Mail covered the issue of MPs renting their properties out:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14054193/Keir-Starmer-renting-mortgage-free-family-home-worth-2million-living-Downing-Street.html
Kier Starmer, Rachel Reeves, Tulip Saddeeq (Rachel Reeves’ deputy), Rushanara Ali and others have all rented properties out. If there is a period of time when you are working elsewhere then it’s a reasonable thing to do, especially when there’s a shortage of property. Lots of people are ‘accidental landlords’. By renting their property out for periods when they don’t need it they are doing something socially useful. Of course, if you do this as a landlord you do also need to know that you will be able to get your property back when your circumstances change and you need to get it back.
But if we (other landlords) get fined for ‘mistakes’ then Rachel Reeves should also be fined. If she has done something wrong then she shouldn’t be let off because she’s the chancellor, or because Kier Starmer told everybody it was alright.
Hopefully the facts will emerge and Rachel Reeves will be treated the same as any other landlord.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
11:57 AM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 30/10/2025 – 11:51
It’s going to be impossible in reality to rent your properties out for short periods or indeed any period when the RRB Act is in force. It will be illegal to ask or put pressure on your tenant to leave voluntarily. A Section 8 will need to be issued and you will need to go through the Courts. So what Reeves has done is not going to be practical going forward.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2025
12:01 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 30/10/2025 – 11:57
Even for a family home? Such as Rachel Reeves’ home or Kier Starmers’ home?
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 374
12:01 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Martin Hicks at 30/10/2025 – 10:18
I believe her letting company did raise this with her, but in her position she should have known her house needed to be registered especially as she wanted the council in her own constituency to adopt the same scheme.Come on how could this not ring bells for her. Maybe she should do the honourable thing and resign rather than pull that same sad face at question time . However how many more ministers can Starmer afford to lose.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2025
12:07 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 30/10/2025 – 12:01
True. Rachel Reeves campaigned for selective licensing in Armley (in her constituency):
https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2023/12/shadow-chancellor-reeves-campaigns-for-selective-licensing-regime/?source=newsticker
There was already selective licensing in Beeston and Harehills.
This is something that Rachel Reeves has know about for years.
Member Since August 2021 - Comments: 307 - Articles: 1
12:15 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 30/10/2025 – 11:51
Like other Labour MPs who are renting out their homes, she will soon be “enjoying” the twists and turns of navigating the RRA and will, no doubt, be putting Mathew Pennycook and his team on hot dial.
The moment of schadenfreude landlords will be looking forward to is when Labour MPs need to recover their homes under the new provisions in the RRA, especially if this involves the court and bailiff services.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 197
12:16 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by CPM at 09:48
Reading her previous, much exaggerated, CV I am amazed that she feels that she is qualified for the position she is in.
It would seem that she has blatantly lied on her CV as revealed on her LinkedIn report which she has recently had to amend ! . Google it folks and see how unfit she is for the job. Quite revealing.
A change of government is already overdue.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2025
12:19 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Rod at 30/10/2025 – 12:15
So under the Renters Rights Bill what will Rachel Reeves have to do to get her family home back? Allowing for the fact that she’s broken the rules and done something wrong?
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 281
12:25 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Rod at 30/10/2025 – 12:15
In the meantime Reeves should volunteer to reimburse the tenants for the rent she illegally received and not just the 12 months maximum as it stands today – the RRA will be extending that to 24 months apparently.
Don’t think the penny has dropped with her and Starmer over just how serious the offence is whatever the mitigation. With the maximum fine and RRO you’re looking at a potential cost to landlord of a hundred thousand pounds for a similar property let illegally for the full 24 months.
This ain’t forgetting to renew the TV licence!