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
7 months ago | 6 comments
1 year ago | 14 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1996
3:02 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Stella at 30/10/2025 – 14:59
As long as it’s a ‘minor mistake’ for a landlord as well and you don’t get levied with the eye-watering fine, or didn’t manage to get your property back from a non-paying tenant because you made a mistake and got the date slightly wrong on a form, then that would be fine.
What you don’t want is one rule for those in government and another rule for you: That’s just hypocrisy.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
3:09 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
So we’re being asked to believe that Reeves did not know about the selective license requirement and her letting agent didn’t know about it either. Most unlikely.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
3:22 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
She’s got form though hasn’t she. Fiddled her expenses when working as a team leader in the complaints department at HBOS and was asked to resign over it, which she did.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1996
3:31 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 30/10/2025 – 15:09
Rachel Reeves clearly knew about selective licensing; certainly more than enough to know that she should have checked whether one was required in her area.
What the Guardian says about this is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/29/rachel-reeves-admits-breaking-rules-by-renting-out-her-house-without-a-licence
“Responding on Wednesday night, [Kier} Starmer said he had met with Reeves and further investigation into the matter was “not necessary”. In a letter to the chancellor, he said: “I have this evening consulted with my independent adviser on ministerial standards….He has advised me that in relation to your inadvertent failure to secure the appropriate licence for your rental property – and in light of your prompt action to rectify the position, including your apology – further investigation is not necessary.”
“I am satisfied that this matter can be drawn to a close following your apology.”
So presumably, if any landlord anywhere fails to get a selective licence because they say they didn’t know they needed one, and they then apologise for that and get one, then that matter can be “drawn to a close” without them having to pay a fine to the council.
If not, why not.
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 281
3:34 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 30/10/2025 – 15:09
I find it incredible how quickly Starmer and his ethics adviser have shut this down. There are so many questions – did Reeves just assume that agents would just take care of everything? What does the contract she entered say? Have the agents confirmed they weren’t aware of licensing on their patch and that they failed in their responsibility to advise Reeves? My personal experience of licensing (additional HMO), unless the owner has totally abdicated any involvement in the property, the owner would be the normal person to apply to hold the licence even when the property was managed by agents. In my case I tasked the agents with applying for my licences, but I had to supply a lot of information that they needed. Perhaps Reeves was advised of the licensing requirement but missed the email and didn’t respond?
All ifs and buts and it’s a bit Catch 22, but how can you say there is no need for an enquiry when you need an enquiry to establish what exactly went on relating to a serious criminal offence. If there is nothing to hide and a genuine desire to establish the truth then an enquiry is the only sensible option.
Not doing that is definitely leaving all involved open to two tier accusations due to how serious the omission is as the vast majority of landlords know. To take this casual attitude of playing it down as Starmer has done (Again!) just after the RRA has been passed and Labour have been virtually calling out the whole of the landlord community as rogues for just using the powers of the 1988 Housing Act to big themselves up over what they have supposedly achieved is just utterly shameful.
By not getting ahead of this it’s an open invitation for journalists to, rightly, keep on digging. I only hope if (when?) Starmer is proven to be on the wrong side of this so soon after Rayner and Mandelson that he is shown the door.
Member Since January 2015 - Comments: 1431 - Articles: 1
3:35 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 30/10/2025 – 10:00
Buck stops with the Landlord. End of.
Member Since January 2023 - Comments: 4 - Articles: 1
3:49 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Property118 has received a response from Southwark Council: “The council requires private landlords to acquire a selective license in order to rent out their homes if they live in specific areas. This is in order to protect tenants and ensure landlords are complying with housing requirements, providing safe, well-maintained homes.
“Selective licenses are acquired by sending applications to the council, which we then assess and approve subject to conditions.
“When we become aware of an unlicensed property, we issue a warning letter advising the landlord that they have 21 days to apply for a license – enforcement action such as fines are reserved for those who do not apply within that time or where a property is found to be in an unsafe condition.”
“We cannot comment on individual cases.”
Member Since July 2015 - Comments: 38
4:10 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Gabriella Van Jennians at 30/10/2025 – 15:49
I believe this is the property and agent:
https://www.onthemarket.com/details/15347449/#/map
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1996
4:15 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Gabriella Van Jennians at 30/10/2025 – 15:49
OK then…so they don’t take enforcement action if the landlord applies within 21 days. And if that’s right and Rachel applied for a licence within 21 days of finding out that she needed one then probably there’d be no need for a fine.
So given that she clearly knew about selective licensing it’s not really wrongdoing…more an issue of competence.
Member Since February 2011 - Comments: 3452 - Articles: 286
4:57 PM, 30th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Martin at 30/10/2025 – 16:10
Oh and EPC E !!!