Standards matter

For years, the private rented sector has accepted that stronger enforcement against rogue landlords was both necessary and overdue. No responsible landlord or agent wants to see unsafe housing, unlawful evictions or tenants living in poor conditions. Most landlords understand that proper standards and meaningful enforcement are essential for the credibility of the sector as a whole and in fact make the market a better place for reputable landlords to operate.

However, as local authorities begin implementing the expanded enforcement powers available under the Renters’ Rights Act 2026, there is concern within the sector that the balance between robust enforcement and revenue generation will need careful scrutiny.

Some of the emerging enforcement policies now being introduced by councils are extraordinarily detailed and far-reaching. They provide for significant civil penalties not only for serious offences, but also for procedural, administrative and technical breaches that many landlords may not even realise could result in enforcement action.

Under some policies, relatively minor breaches relating to paperwork, prescribed information or possession procedures can attract starting penalties running into thousands of pounds, while multiple breaches can potentially trigger multiple separate penalties at the same property.

Thousands for paperwork errors?

For example, some proposed policies suggest starting penalties of around £4,000 for failures relating to prescribed information, while attempting to use the wrong possession process could start at £6,000. In some cases, multiple breaches at the same property could also result in multiple separate penalties being issued simultaneously. In my view, this raises questions about proportionality.

There is a big difference between going after genuinely criminal landlords and hitting landlords with thousands of pounds in penalties for technical mistakes or paperwork errors.

Common sense has to apply

I am already aware of cases where landlords have faced significant financial penalties despite making repeated attempts to comply with their legal obligations. In one case we are currently handling, a landlord has been issued with fines totalling more than £12,000 after being unable to complete legally required safety and compliance checks because his tenant persistently refused access to the property.

Despite repeated written requests, involvement from the managing agent and ongoing court proceedings, access continued to be denied. The landlord was therefore left in the impossible position of being legally responsible for compliance while having no lawful ability to force entry into the property.

Situations like this raise legitimate questions about how much discretion and common sense councils are prepared to apply where landlords can clearly evidence genuine attempts to comply.

The bigger risk

The concern is not that councils are enforcing standards, they absolutely should, because without proper enforcement the rules have no credibility. At a time when local authorities are themselves under significant financial pressure, it is understandable that concerns are being raised about the potential for civil penalties to become an increasingly important source of enforcement funding.

My concern is whether some authorities may begin moving towards increasingly aggressive, penalty-led enforcement models because the legislation now gives them the ability to do so.

Many of these policies openly state that penalties should act as a deterrent and ensure that operating unlawfully becomes financially disadvantageous. While deterrence is understandable, there is a risk that enforcement begins to focus less on actual tenant harm and more on maximising compliance through fear of financial punishment.

There is also concern around how these policies distinguish between different types of landlords. In some cases, landlords with larger portfolios or greater experience can automatically face increased penalties on the basis that they are considered more professional operators.

Again, while there is logic behind expecting experienced landlords to understand their obligations, there is also a danger that the assumption becomes that any error made by a professional landlord automatically warrants harsher financial punishment, regardless of the actual impact on the tenant.

At a time when landlords are already dealing with increasing regulation, rising costs, court delays and ongoing uncertainty following the abolition of Section 21, there is a real risk that overly aggressive enforcement approaches will further damage confidence in the sector.

Don’t drive more landlords away

The reality is that the vast majority of landlords are not rogue operators. Most are simply trying to navigate an increasingly complex legal landscape where even small mistakes can now carry significant financial consequences

Good enforcement should always focus on improving standards and protecting tenants, but if enforcement regimes begin to be viewed primarily as income-generating mechanisms or become disproportionately focused on technical non-compliance, councils risk creating an adversarial relationship with the very landlords still willing to remain in the sector.

Ultimately, enforcement must remain proportionate, transparent and focused on genuine harm. Otherwise, there is a danger that policy intended to improve standards could instead accelerate landlord exits, reduce supply further and place even more pressure on an already overstretched rental market.