Earlier this week I was asked by The Telegraph to comment on proposals coming out of Bristol City Council.

The council is consulting on introducing higher civil penalties for certain breaches where the tenant is considered “vulnerable”. That could include people with addiction issues, those on low incomes, asylum seekers, young adults and others. If a landlord fails to provide a safety certificate, for example, the fine could be increased by 20 percent if the tenant falls into one of those categories.

Under the draft civil penalty policy, nationally set starting penalties include up to £12,000 for failures such as not holding or providing gas or electricity safety certificates, up to £20,000 for failing to take required safety measures, and up to £17,000 for unlicensed HMOs. More serious conduct such as unlawful eviction or harassment attracts starting penalty levels of £30,000 to £35,000 and repeat or continuing breaches can push maximum fines as high as £40,000. These figures are before any uplift based on tenant characteristics is applied.

The first question I was asked was whether any other council is proposing something similar. As it stands, we are not aware of another council suggesting a separate uplift based specifically on the perceived vulnerability of the tenant, although that is not to say it could not happen elsewhere.

It is, of course, imperative that landlords comply with safety and licensing laws. Much of what has been introduced in recent years has been about raising standards in the sector, which I fully support, as I am sure do all reputable landlords. There is no excuse for failing to provide gas certificates, electrical reports or required documentation. Where there is non-compliance, penalties are justified.

However, there is a legitimate question about how penalties are structured.

Traditionally, enforcement is based on the breach itself. The seriousness of the offence is assessed, whether it was deliberate, whether there is a history of non-compliance, and the penalty is set accordingly.

By introducing an automatic uplift linked to who the tenant is, the focus shifts. The risk for landlords becomes less about the breach and more about the profile of the occupant, and that is where the concern arises.

The private rented sector is already under significant pressure. Civil penalties are substantial, licensing schemes are expanding, Rent Repayment Orders are likely to increase and the Renters’ Rights Act is introducing further change. At Landlord Action, we are seeing more landlords serving notice as they look to sell or reduce exposure.

If you create a system where housing certain groups of tenants carries a higher potential financial risk, landlords will naturally become more cautious about who they let to.

That does not mean landlords are unwilling to meet standards. It means they will assess exposure and manage risk, as any business would. If one scenario carries a 20 percent uplift in penalties, that becomes part of the decision-making process.

Those on benefits or with additional support needs already face barriers in the private rented sector. In cities such as Bristol, where homelessness is high and social housing supply is limited, policies should encourage landlords to accommodate vulnerable tenants, not unintentionally narrow supply.

Standards should be high, enforcement should be fair and proportionate, but penalties should relate to the breach, not escalate based on the tenant’s characteristics.

If the aim is to improve housing conditions for vulnerable people, then I believe that the framework should bring landlords with it. Otherwise, the unintended consequence may be fewer homes available to those who most need them.