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 January 2016 - Comments: 67
1:26 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
For me, this is an open and shut case. She broke the rule and she has admitted to it. Ignorance is no defence in law. And it was her responsibility to investigate what the law requires of her before letting a property out. The fact that she campaigned for the council to introduce selective licensing in her constituency in Leeds proves that she was conversant with the rules. Furthermore, councils (and letting agents) always notify landlords when houses owned by them need licensing. It is clear that she not only broke the rule; she has also lied in pleading ignorance. She HAS TO GO! So also has Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent ethics adviser who allegedly advised PM Starmerer that an investigation was ‘not necessary’, if he actually did advise that. We can’t have one rule for other landlords, and a separate rule for Chancellor, I worked for Bank of England for 10 years when she didn’t.
Member Since November 2024 - Comments: 81
1:26 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Martin Hicks at 30/10/2025 – 10:18
Ignorance is not a defence (as much as RR and AR would like to think) and they are ultimately responsible, like anyone else in the same situation, for ensuring that they comply with the law. That is how it is.
Member Since November 2024 - Comments: 81
1:28 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by SirAA at 30/10/2025 – 13:26
Agree and Kier Starmer should also go. He worked in law yet condoning those that break the law – disgraceful.
Member Since August 2021 - Comments: 307 - Articles: 1
1:40 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Richard AA at 30/10/2025 – 12:50
How would council know there are no serious breaches?
In Westminster’s licensing consultations, they acknowledged that they use a desk top evaluation to determine the sample of properties they actually inspect.
In addition, unless properties are inspected close to the commencement of the licence being granted, how does a landlord prove that dilapidations and faulty safety equipment is post commencement?
Member Since May 2021 - Comments: 392
1:40 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by LaLo at 30/10/2025 – 12:34
Reeves place was 70-80k a year last I read about it.
Member Since September 2022 - Comments: 55
1:52 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Is villain Reeves going to pay the fine and will it be live streamed on Sky News with her smiley face?
Perhaps Beth Rigby could give her a soft interview after payment.
Member Since June 2020 - Comments: 4
1:52 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil Patterson at 30/10/2025 – 09:40
Apparently her husband’s house is already being rented out according to the internet. Do they not talk to one another?
Member Since May 2021 - Comments: 392
1:52 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
To quote Starmer, ” law makers should not be law breakers” ….maybe he’d like to add “unless I condone it” . We are Labour and we’ll do what we want .
There is not a cat in hells chance that Reeves knew nothing about licensing her property. She’s lying through her back teeth and Starmer is trying his usual cover-up trick. Hopefully the tenants will go the full distance with this and teach her a lesson .
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2025
2:26 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Richard AA at 30/10/2025 – 12:50
Just as you can’t offset your finance costs against your rents if you are a landlord, you can’t offset a fine against your rents either. So if, like Rachel Reeves, you are a higher rate taxpayer you have to earn a lot of money as gross salary to pay that fine.
If Rachel Reeves finds that a bit eye-watering…an enormous negative impact…. then that’s no bad thing. A lot of us who run small businesses found that Rachel’s last budget had an enormous negative impact as well.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 620
2:59 PM, 30th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Rachel from accounts will not have to worry about eye-watering fines.
For Labour MP’s these are just minor mistakes.