Civil penalties policy under the Renters' Rights Act 2025 and other housing legislation
May 2026
This policy should be read in conjunction with the council's Private housing standards enforcement policy.
This policy applies as a means of enforcement by the council once we have decided to commence civil penalties action.
In this policy, the term ‘landlord’ should be read as including letting agents, managing agents, licensors, property owners, corporate landlords, directors of corporate landlords, registered providers of social housing and any other person involved in the letting or management of accommodation.
In this policy, the term ‘corporate landlord’ should be read as referring to a body corporate that meets the definition of ‘landlord’ above.
In this policy, the terms ‘House in Multiple Occupation’ or ‘HMO’ are defined by the Housing Act 2004.
The following breaches are subject to a civil penalty with a statutory maximum of £7,000:
- failure to give a written statement of terms and any other prescribed information under section 16D of the Housing Act 1988
- attempting to let a property for a fixed terms under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
- attempting to end a tenancy by service of a notice to quit under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
- attempting to end a tenancy orally or requiring that it is ended orally under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
- serving an eviction notice that attempts to end a tenancy outside the prescribed section 8 process under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
- relying on a ground where the landlord does not reasonably believe that the landlord is/will be able to obtain possession under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
- failing to provide a tenant with prior notice that a ground which requires it may be used under section 16E of the Housing Act 1988
- failure to give an existing tenant prescribed information about changes made by the Renter’s Rights Act 2025 in the prescribed form and timeframe under paragraph 7(2) of schedule 6 to the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
- discrimination relating to children in the lettings process under section 33 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
- discrimination relating to benefits in the lettings process under section 34 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
- failure to specify proposed rent within a written advertisement or offer under section 56 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
- inviting, encouraging or accepting any offer of rent greater than the stated rate under section 56 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
The following breaches are subject to a civil penalty with a statutory maximum of £40,000:
- breach of duty under Regulation 3, 3B, 3C and 3D of The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England Regulations 2020
- the following offences are subject to a civil penalty with a statutory maximum of £40,000:
- unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier under section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977
- continuation of conduct subject to a relevant penalty (under s.16l or s.16K Housing Act 1988) after the 28-day period (or, if appealed, after conclusion of the appeal) where the final notice has not been withdrawn under section 16J of the Housing Act 1988
- conduct giving rise to liability under s.16I, where within the preceding five years the landlord has either (1) had a relevant penalty (under s.16I or s.16K Housing Act 1988) imposed for different conduct and the final notice has not been withdrawn, or (2) been convicted under s.16J for different conduct under section 16(J) of the Housing Act 1988
- relying on a ground knowing the landlord would not be able to obtain possession or being reckless whether they would under section 16J of the Housing Act 1988
- breach of restrictions relating to reletting (s16(E)(2) Housing Act 1988) or remarketing (s16(E)(3) Housing Act 1988) a property within restricted period after using Grounds1 or 1A of Schedule 2 Housing Act 1988 under section 16J of the Housing Act 1988
- breach of a banning order under section 21 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016
- failure to comply with an Improvement Notice under section 30 of the Housing Act 2004
- contravention of an overcrowding notice under section 139 of the Housing Act 2004
- failure to obtain a selective licence under section 95 of the Housing Act 2004
- failure to obtain a House in Multiple Occupation licence under section 72 of the Housing Act 2004
- knowingly permitting over-occupation of a House in Multiple Occupation under section 72 of the Housing Act 2004
- failure to comply with management regulations in respect of Houses in Multiple Occupation under section 234 of the Housing Act 2004
- failure to comply with House in Multiple Occupation licence conditions under section 72 of the Housing Act 2004
- failure to comply with selective licence conditions under section 95 of the Housing Act 2004
When determining the amount of a civil penalty we will take into account all relevant factors, particularly but not limited to, the severity of the offence, culpability and track record of a landlord and harm/risk of harm caused/likely to be caused. Whilst the overriding principle is that the landlord should not make any financial gain from their failure to comply with the relevant legislation, the imposition of a civil penalty should also, in a way that is fair, punish the landlord and act as a deterrent to prevent future offending by the landlord and by others. Therefore, the level of the penalty is set at a level that is likely to have a significant deterrent effect.
If a landlord has committed multiple breaches or offences, a separate civil penalty can, and usually will, be imposed for each breach and offence. In each case, the level of any civil penalty imposed will be determined in accordance with this policy.
If multiple landlords have committed the same breach or offence at the same property, a separate civil penalty can, and usually will, be imposed on each offender. In each case, the level of civil penalty imposed on each offender will be in accordance with this policy.
This policy outlines our methodology and mechanism for assessing and setting the level of a civil penalty at all stages where a civil penalty is under consideration, including the preparation of a notice of intent, and where a final decision has been made to impose a civil penalty.
When applying the civil penalties matrix, interim calculations at individual stages may result in figures that exceed the statutory maximum. Where the final amount reached following application of all relevant steps exceeds the statutory maximum, the civil penalty will be reduced to the applicable statutory maximum.
We consider the need for transparency and consistency to be of primary importance to ensure fairness in the discharge of its functions. The general objective of this policy is, therefore, to promote both transparency and consistency in the imposition of financial penalties so that those involved in the letting or management of accommodation (1) know how we will generally penalise relevant breaches and offences and (2) are assured that, generally, like cases will be penalised similarly, and different cases penalised differently.
We recognise that, despite our best efforts, landlords may operate unlawfully for a significant period without detection, and that only a proportion of those committing relevant breaches and offences will be identified. Accordingly, we seek to ensure that civil penalties are set at a level that makes it clear to the landlord concerned and to others that operating unlawfully as a landlord is financially disadvantageous when compared to operating lawfully.
We have a duty to act fairly, transparently and consistently when assessing civil penalties. To maintain fairness between all landlords, we will not give weight to claims advanced as factors that might reduce the amount of a civil penalty unless those claims are supported by evidence that we reasonably consider to be relevant, reliable, credible, and sufficient in scope and detail to enable proper assessment of the claim, having regard to the nature of the claim, the information ordinarily available to the landlord, and the need for consistent and fair decision-making. The onus is on the landlord to provide any information s/he seeks to rely upon to the council. Allowing inadequately evidenced assertions to influence outcomes would risk rewarding those who provide incomplete or misleading information and would create an unfair advantage over landlords who provide a full and properly evidenced account. Accordingly, we expect landlords against whom a civil penalty is being considered to provide all documents and records that would ordinarily exist if their account were accurate. Where such evidence is not provided, and no explanation that we consider adequate is given, the council may draw an adverse inference.
Where claims are advanced without sufficient supporting evidence, we may request specified supporting material before determining whether to issue a final notice or whether any mitigation has been sufficiently evidenced to justify a lower civil penalty.
The further objectives of using financial penalties in particular as a means of enforcing the above breaches and offences are explained below.
Statutory guidance
The government has issued statutory guidance entitled “Civil penalties under the Renters' Rights Act 2025 and other housing legislation”. We have regard to this guidance in the exercise of our functions in respect of civil penalties.
We have considered the following factors in developing this civil penalty policy to help ensure that the civil penalty is set at an appropriate level:
- severity of the breach or offence - the more serious the breach or offence, the higher the penalty should be
- culpability and track record of the offender - a higher penalty will be appropriate where the offender has a history of failing to comply with their obligations and/or their actions were deliberate and/or they knew, or ought to have known, that they were in breach of their legal responsibilities
- the harm caused to the tenant - this is a very important factor when determining the level of penalty. The greater the actual harm or the potential for harm, principally to the tenant but also potentially the local community, the higher the penalty should be
- punishment of the offender - the penalty should, in a way that is fair, both punish the offender and demonstrate the consequences of not complying with their responsibilities
- deter the offender from repeating breaches or offences - the ultimate goal is to prevent any further offending and help ensure that the offender fully complies with all of their legal responsibilities in future. The level of the penalty should therefore be set at a level that it is likely to have a very significant deterrent effect
- deter others from committing similar breaches or offences - while the fact that someone has received a civil penalty may not be in the public domain, the civil penalty policy itself will be and local authorities should consider how their formal enforcement activity can be effectively publicised
An important part of deterrence is the realisation on the part of landlords that the local housing authority is proactive in levying civil penalties where the need to do so exists and the civil penalty will be set at a high enough level such that operating lawfully will be the sensible financial choice.
Remove any financial benefit the offender may have obtained as a result of committing the breach or offence. The principle here is that it should not be in the offender’s financial interest to commit a breach or offence rather than comply, for example that the penalty for breaching licensing conditions in respect of occupancy of a property is less than the additional rent received as a result of the over crowding. The absence of any financial benefit to the landlord does not mean though that the penalty should be reduced.
Civil penalties matrix
In determining the level of a civil penalty, officers will have regard to the matrix set out below. The matrix consists of the following sequential steps:
- Determining the starting point based on the seriousness of the breach or offence.
- Adjustment for factors relating to the type of landlord; size and type of portfolio controlled, owned or managed; experience of the landlord (“Landlord Type”).
- Mitigating and aggravating factors the council deems significant including, but not limited to, factors relating to the track record and culpability of the landlord and the actual or potential harm to the occupants.
- Financial considerations.
- Applying the totality principle.
Step 1: Starting point based on seriousness of the breach of offence
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has provided statutory guidance that prescribes starting points for all breaches and offences based on the seriousness of the breach or offence. The exception to this prescription is for breaches of licensing conditions under sections 72(3) and 95(2) of the Housing Act 2004, where we have determined our own starting levels based on the seriousness of the specific licence condition or type of licence condition that has not been complied with.
Step 2: Adjustment for factors relating to the type of landlord, size and type of portfolio controlled, owned or managed, experience of the landlord (“Landlord Type”)
While all landlords are expected to comply fully with their legal obligations, we consider that a higher standard of professionalism and regulatory awareness is reasonably expected of landlords who operate at greater scale, who have greater experience, or who are involved in more complex forms of letting. Where such landlords fail to comply with their obligations, this will ordinarily justify a higher civil penalty.
In particular, a higher degree of professionalism is expected of landlords who:
- control, own, or manage a significant portfolio of properties
- have significant experience in the letting or management of property
- are or have been involved in the letting or management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)
- are corporate landlords; or
- are or have been directors of corporate landlords
An upward adjustment of 20% of the applicable starting point will be applied where the landlord meets any one or more of the following criteria:
- the landlord has, at any point in time, controlled, owned, or managed six or more properties. These properties need not have been held concurrently or at the time civil penalty proceedings are brought
- the landlord has, at any point in time, controlled, owned, or managed three or more properties that operated as Houses in Multiple Occupation, whether or not concurrently
- the landlord is, or has previously been, a director of a corporate landlord
- the landlord is a corporate landlord
- the landlord has, in our assessment and by reference to the available evidence, significant experience in the letting or management of property
A downward adjustment of 20% of the applicable starting point will be applied only where all of the following criteria are met:
- the landlord has, at any point in time, controlled, owned, or managed no more than two properties
- the landlord has controlled, owned, or managed no more than one property that has operated as a House in Multiple Occupation, at any point in time
- the landlord has, in our assessment and by reference to the available evidence, very limited experience in the letting or management of property
Step 3: Mitigating and aggravating factors
These factors the council deems significant including, but not limited to, factors relating to the track record and culpability of the landlords and the actual or potential harm to the occupants.
To promote fairness and consistency in the administration of civil penalties, we will apply a structured and consistent framework when determining the extent to which mitigating and aggravating factors affect the quantum of any civil penalty.
General approach
Each breach or offence may have offence-specific mitigating and/or aggravating factors, which will be considered alongside the generic factors set out below.
Where multiple civil penalties are issued under this policy against the same landlord at the same time, and except where expressly stated otherwise, mitigating and aggravating factors will be considered and applied separately to each civil penalty when determining the quantum of each penalty.
Mitigating factors
We may reduce the level of a civil penalty by up to 20% of the applicable starting point to reflect the presence of mitigating factors.
Only in exceptional circumstances may the council depart from the application of this policy in respect of mitigating factors and apply a reduction in excess of 20%. Exceptional circumstances are rare and unusual and are not established merely by the presence of multiple mitigating factors.
Within the framework of this policy, we have not sought to provide an exhaustive list of mitigating factors, recognising that a wide range of circumstances may potentially give rise to mitigation. However, the following generic mitigating factors will be considered in respect of each breach or offence.
Steps taken to remedy the basis of the breach or offence
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- promptly remedying all elements of the breach or offence after receiving communication from the council
- promptly remedying all the significant elements of the breach or offence leaving only less significant elements of the breach or offence
A high level of cooperation
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- proactive provision of significant information the council reasonably considers relevant beyond that required by statutory notice
- acceptance of liability
- non-exhaustive examples include:
- accepting liability before or within the period for representations
Where a landlord relies on a reasonable excuse defence or otherwise contests liability, this mitigating factor will not usually apply.
Health circumstances
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- a serious health condition or medical incident experienced by the landlord during, or in the period immediately preceding, the breach or offence, where there is clear and reliable evidence that the condition had a direct and material impact on the landlord’s ability to comply with the relevant legal obligation. Examples may include, but are not limited to, a heart attack, stroke, cancer diagnosis, or other acute or serious medical event causing significant incapacity or impairment
Diminished culpability (limited responsibility)
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- a joint landlord who has evidenced that compliance arrangements for the subject property were directed and controlled by another joint landlord, and not by them
- a landlord who became involved only after an unforeseen change in circumstances, such as the death of the previous landlord, and who committed the breach or offence only for a limited period while putting their affairs in order
The instruction of a managing or letting agent, or reliance on an agent’s actions or omissions, will not of itself constitute diminished culpability.
Aggravating factors
We may increase the level of a civil penalty by up to 20% of the applicable starting point to reflect the presence of aggravating factors.
Only in exceptional circumstances may the council depart from the application of this policy in respect of aggravating factors and apply an increase in excess of 20%. Exceptional circumstances are rare and unusual and are not established merely by the presence of multiple aggravating factors.
The following generic aggravating factors will be considered in respect of each breach or offence:
Previous history of non-compliance
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- previous successful prosecutions (including relevant spent convictions), previous civil penalties, previous rent repayment orders, previous works in default, previous simple cautions
- concurrent investigations or proceedings relating to other civil penalties, prosecutions, or rent repayment orders will not be treated as previous non-compliance
Non-cooperation with the council
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- failure to comply with notices issued under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, section 235 of the Housing Act 2004, or section 114 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025
- failing to provide a substantive response to a letter of alleged offence
- failing to attend previously agreed meetings
Where we have prosecuted, or is pursuing a prosecution, in respect of the same act or omission involving failure to provide legally required information (including failure to comply with a statutory notice), that conduct will not also be treated as an aggravating factor for the purposes of setting the civil penalty, in order to avoid double counting.
Where multiple civil penalties are imposed against the same landlord at the same time, this aggravating factor will be applied only to the civil penalty with the highest starting point, unless there is a clear and reasoned basis for applying it differently.
Deliberate intent or negligence when committing the offence
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- knowledge that the breach or offence was occurring
- continuation of offending after communication from the council
- premeditation or planning, including steps taken to prevent detection or effective investigation
- providing false or misleading information to the council
- applying pressure to occupants to deter cooperation with the council
The number of occupants affected
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- three to five occupants affected
Duration of non-compliance
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- the offence or breach occurred over a three to six month period
Vulnerability of occupants
Non-exhaustive examples include:
- children and young adults
- persons vulnerable by reason of age, disability or sensory impairment
- persons with drug or alcohol dependency
- victims of domestic abuse
- children in care
- persons with complex health needs
- persons who do not speak English as a first language
- victims of trafficking or sexual exploitation
- refugees
- asylum seekers; and
- pregnant women
Step 4: Financial considerations
We will review the quantum of the civil penalty and consider whether it is sufficient to act as an effective deterrent to future non-compliance. Where we have evidence that it considers to be sufficiently reliable regarding rental income and/or asset value from the landlords, it may determine that an increase in the level of the penalty is appropriate in order to achieve effective deterrence.
It is essential that, as an absolute minimum, landlords do not financially benefit from their offending behaviour.
Financial circumstances will ordinarily be considered after any written representations have been received and as part of the determination by the council of any final notice.
Where a landlord seeks to rely on a strained or limited financial position as a basis for reducing the level of a civil penalty, that position must be supported by appropriate and verifiable evidence sufficient to enable us to assess the landlord’s financial position consistently, objectively, and transparently. Unsupported assertions, partial disclosure, or selective provision of information will not be given weight.
At a minimum, and where such information exists, and where the landlord seeks to rely on a strained or limited financial position as a basis for seeking a reduction in the level of the civil penalty, the following should be provided as part of any written representations:
The last three full tax years full self-assessment tax returns filed with HMRC, including all additional and supplemental pages:
- the last three full tax years’ SA302 documents and tax year overviews
- the last three months’ payslips
- the last three years P60 certificates
- the last 12 months’ Universal Credit payment statements
- a list of all property assets owned or jointly owned (not limited to rental properties), together with corresponding Land Registry title documentation
- a list of all property assets owned, or held on a long lease, by any corporate entity in which the landlord has a beneficial interest, together with corresponding Land Registry documentation
- the most recent annual mortgage statement for each property, or the last 12 months’ mortgage statements where the mortgage has been in place for less than 12 months
- valuation statements for all ISAs held
- statements from any crypto asset exchange accounts showing balances and valuations
- a list of all shareholdings
- recent bank statements for any account holding a balance in excess of £5,000
- recent statements for all secured and unsecured loans
- bankruptcy orders and official notifications of bankruptcy
Where we are not satisfied that we have been provided with sufficiently reliable, complete, and accurate information to assess the landlord’s financial position, we may draw the inference that the landlord is able to pay the civil penalty as imposed.
A claimed inability to pay will not, of itself, outweigh the need to ensure effective deterrence or to remove any financial benefit obtained as a result of the breach or offence.
Step 5: The totality principle
We will have regard to the totality principle to ensure that the overall outcome of our enforcement action is just and proportionate. A civil penalty should be fair and proportionate but, in all instances, should act as a deterrent and remove any gain as a result of the offence. If issuing a financial penalty for more than one offence, or where the offender/landlord has already been issued with a financial penalty, we will consider whether the total penalties are just and proportionate to the offending behaviour.
In exceptional cases, and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, we may take account of totality at an earlier stage by deciding not to pursue a civil penalty in respect of a specific breach or offence where doing so would render the overall outcome disproportionate.
In general, however, the application of the totality principle will form the final step in our decision-making process, undertaken after any written representations have been considered and before final notices are issued, once the level of each individual civil penalty has been assessed in accordance with this policy.
As a final step before issuing final notices, we will consider whether multiple civil penalties being imposed under this policy against the same landlord at the same time result in an aggregate amount that is just and proportionate. Where we conclude that the aggregate amount would not be just and proportionate, we will consider whether a proportionate reduction of the penalties is appropriate.
The totality principle does not operate across different legal persons who are separately liable in law, nor does it operate across civil penalties imposed at different times. In general, it applies only to multiple civil penalties imposed under this policy on the same person at the same time. Where, however, legislation provides that an officer of a body corporate, or a person concerned in its management, may be separately liable in relation to the same conduct as the body corporate, and that officer also holds a shareholding interest in the body corporate, we will, where civil penalties are imposed at the same time on both the body corporate and the officer arising from that same conduct, consider whether the combined outcome results in punitive duplication and is therefore not just and proportionate.
If the aggregate total is not just and proportionate we may consider how to reach a just and proportionate civil penalty. There are a number of ways in which this can be achieved. For example:
- where an offender is to be penalised for two or more offences that arose out of the same incident or where there are multiple offences of a repetitive kind, especially when committed against the same person, it will often be appropriate to impose for the most serious offence a civil penalty. This should reflect the totality of the offending where this can be achieved within the maximum penalty for that offence. No separate penalty should be imposed for the other offences
- where an offender is to be penalised for two or more offences that arose out of different incidents, it will often be appropriate to impose a separate civil penalty for each of the offences. We should add up the financial penalties for each offence and consider if they are just and proportionate. If the aggregate amount is not just and proportionate we should consider whether all of the civil penalties can be proportionately reduced. Separate civil penalties should then be issued
This approach reflects the statutory guidance on the application of the totality principle and is intended to promote consistency, transparency, and proportionality, while avoiding arbitrary or selective adjustment of individual penalties.
In accordance with the statutory guidance, any rent repayment orders made in respect of the same breach or offence will be disregarded for the purposes of assessing the totality of civil penalties under this policy.
Offences and breaches where a civil penalty may be levied and relevant considerations as to the level of that penalty
