Rachel ‘Double Standards’ Reeves rented out family home without a selective licence
5 months ago | 124 comments
Rachel Reeves was warned twice about needing a selective licence
10:32 AM, 3rd November 2025, 5 months ago
33
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was warned by not one but two letting agents that she required a licence to rent out her Dulwich home, the Mail on Sunday reports.
Yet she went ahead and let the property illegally for £3,200 a month.
The fresh revelation piles more pressure on the Chancellor, who had claimed to the Prime Minister she was unaware of the legal requirement.
The reports that before Ms Reeves and her husband engaged Harvey & Wheeler to manage their South London home, they had also spoken to the prestigious agency Knight Frank, which reportedly told them about the licensing rules.
Despite this, the property was later rented out without the necessary selective licence.
Prime Minister must investigate
Emails revealed last week between Ms Reeves’ husband and Harvey & Wheeler showed detailed conversations about the requirement to obtain a licence, contradicting her earlier insistence to Sir Keir Starmer that she did not know she was breaking the law.
A Knight Frank spokesperson told the newspaper: “It is standard procedure to notify all clients of their legal and regulatory obligations when letting a property.”
The latest disclosure raises further doubts about Ms Reeves’ version of events and her claim that she was unaware of the rules.
Questions about Chancellor’s conduct
Shadow Treasury Minister Gareth Davies said: “Each day brings fresh questions about Rachel Reeves’ account.
“This latest revelation casts serious doubt on her claim not to have known about the need for a licence.
“Her story seems to shift with every explanation. The Prime Minister must now get to the bottom of this and order a full investigation without delay.”
Sir Keir has already reprimanded his Chancellor for failing to review the correspondence with Harvey & Wheeler before claiming innocence, but so far insists there is ‘no need’ for further sanction.
Southwark won’t act
Southwark Council has confirmed that no action will be taken against Ms Reeves despite the breach.
Normally, landlords renting without a licence can face fines of up to £30,000 or even prosecution under the Housing Act 2004.
A council spokesperson said: “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.”
The Labour-run authority, which holds 48 of 63 council seats, added that when it becomes aware of an unlicensed property, it issues a warning letter giving the landlord 21 days to apply.
Tenants claim back rent
Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that tenants across the country have begun contacting legal charities about claiming back rent from unlicensed landlords.
Justice for Tenants, a charity endorsed by Southwark Council, said calls about rent repayment orders had risen sharply since the story broke.
Outreach lead Al McClenahan said: “Our helpline services have seen a significant increase in the number of enquiries from tenants who discovered their landlord is unlicensed following news about the Chancellor’s own failure to license her property.
“Now, a lot of these callers have correctly identified that their landlord lacks a licence but misunderstand the law as their property isn’t covered by licensing rules.
“However, many concerned tenants do live in areas with additional HMO or Selective Licensing, meaning they could take action against their landlord – and get up to 12 months’ rent repaid.”
Tags:
Chancellor scandal, Dulwich, Housing Act 2004, Justice for Tenants, Rachel Reeves, rent repayment orders, rental licence, Southwark Council, UK Landlords
Comments
Have Your Say
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
or
Previous Article
Inheritance tax overhaul could hit ordinary homeowners hardestNext Article
How Much Life Cover Do Landlords Really Need?Related Articles
Rachel Reeves could be forced to repay tenants as Southwark Council leads in licensing fees
5 months ago | 15 comments
Emails reveal Rachel Reeves misled the Prime Minister over unlicensed rental home
5 months ago | 9 comments
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 88
1:42 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
I find the LL hypocrisy over this incredible.
We rightly go on about legislation etc being too onerous, and whinge when fines are handed out. Yet Reeves is being pilloried for a lapse that could happen to any of us. As I’ve posted before, she does have a lot on her plate sorting the economic mess Labour inherited…and which they’ve made worse.
Southwark Council have a policy covering this lack-of-license scenario. Where a license is missing, the LL has 21 days to remedy it. I think that’s very fair of them and one most LLs would appreciate.
She should and is being treated like any other LL. End of.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
1:42 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
I’ve been on the Southwark council website. Only the landlord can apply for the license. Landlord has to create an account. So we’re just being fed BS.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1630 - Articles: 3
2:19 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil P at 13:42
She’s not 21 days overdue. She’s over a year overdue! Southwark have some questions to answer, too.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
2:25 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil P at 03/11/2025 – 13:42
Genuine question did you vote Labour in the general election last year ?
Member Since September 2022 - Comments: 192
3:14 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Justice for Tenants is not a charity
This is a limited company that makes money from Landlords by helping tenants get RRO against Landlords.
They of course charge a percentage of any money awarded from the Courts.
Southwark Council should fine Landlords who fail to obtain the correct licence and if need be take the Landlrds to court and obtain an ” Unlimited Fine ”
What does that mean 🤔
The Tenants can and I am sure will also get the RRO it’s £38,000 and maybe more to keep quiet
Member Since November 2020 - Comments: 134
4:06 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
This all sounds very FISHY. Perhaps Rachel Reeves took advice from David Lammy about obtaining licences?
Member Since February 2023 - Comments: 17
4:07 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Southwark Council, like many other local authorities, grants landlords a 21-day grace period following a warning letter to submit required licensing paperwork, often pausing any further action while the documents are completed. The fundamental issue with this, and much of the current landlord regulation, is the lack of clarity regarding the process for unintended non-compliance. The regulatory framework should be standardised nationwide to ensure common knowledge and application, prohibiting individual councils from imposing their own regulatory nuances. There should be greater emphasis on a tiered response from authorities to all unintended compliance issues.
The current penalties for non-compliance for landlords are often disproportionately harsh, particularly given the significant financial impact on small-scale landlords. This lack of proportionality is evident when compared to other sectors: telecoms companies in the UK face a maximum fine of 10% of their turnover, while Water companies are subject to an automatic fine of £10k for certain breaches.
Consider the hypothetical scenario where a Rent Repayment Order (RRO) is sought. Even if the landlord (e.g. Rachel Reeves) has been exemplary—timely deposit protection, up-to-date safety checks (gas/electrics), quick response to repairs, and satisfied tenants who wish to remain— so a great product. However, the tenants demand their money back via a RRO solely due to a technical paperwork issue with the Council (with the Council not actually seeing any actual problems with this exemplary rental property). For the average small-scale landlord, this financial shock (potentially 100% of turnover) acts as a powerful disincentive to remain in the sector, prompting them to sell despite the Capital Gains Tax burden, and ultimately reducing the supply of quality private rental housing.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 508
4:41 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
What Southwark Council does is fact.
What tenants may claim from Rachel Reeves is law.
Southwark and the tenants are separate entities with their own agendas.
No big issue or debate.
It’s up to the holder of any trigger to decide whether or not to pull it.
Sadly, what many would love to see happen may not be what does happen!
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1630 - Articles: 3
4:53 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil P at 03/11/2025 – 13:42
Many landlords also have demanding jobs, are held to account when they slip up, and don’t have an entire Treasury to help them. Reeves is, after all, only the mouthpiece, and not a good one at that. She doesn’t actually think up these disastrous economic policies herself in any case.
Member Since January 2023 - Comments: 317
5:16 PM, 3rd November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 03/11/2025 – 13:42
Southwark Property License register is available in the public domain so if someone has google street viewed it and worked out the postcode then surely they just need to input this on the register. Do we know what the lead time is for Southwark to issue a licence?
This story could grow arms and legs if a journalist dug deeper.
Let’s see what she does to tax LLs at the budget and the reaction she will get.
https://southwark.metastreet.co.uk/public-register