Dec

Landlords face fines of £3,000 to £35,000 under new government guidance

admin

Property118

Landlords face fines of £3,000 to £35,000 under new government guidance

The government has released new civil penalty tables under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and the figures are outrageous. The official guidance, published this week on GOV.UK, sets out a scale of fines that start at £3,000 and climb to £35,000 for the most serious breaches. Many of these offences were previously treated as routine compliance matters. They now come with penalties that will feel closer to corporate regulation than traditional housing enforcement.

The largest penalties stand out immediately. A breach of a banning order carries a starting figure of £35,000. Using a possession ground that the landlord “knew or should have known” could not be met attracts a penalty of £30,000. Reletting a property during a no-let period is marked at £25,000. Even administrative failures, such as entering a selective licensing area without the correct licence, are set at £12,000.

These numbers land at a time when operating margins have already been eroded by increased regulatory overhead. The message is hard to miss. Compliance is no longer a procedural expectation, it is becoming a major financial risk factor. That change will shape the decisions of every landlord, whether they own one property or several hundred.

A comparison with other UK penalty regimes is also revealing. Many workplace safety offences attract lower penalties than the amounts now set for common licensing breaches. A failure to meet gas safety obligations in a rental property can trigger fines larger than penalties issued to companies that mishandle hazardous equipment. Even misleading rent advertisements carry a penalty of £4,000, which is more severe than fines issued for a range of trading offences in small businesses.

Landlords will question the fairness of these discrepancies. A documentary oversight or a misfiled possession claim may now result in a penalty that exceeds fines levied against regulated businesses in sectors with far higher operational risks. That tension will amplify political and industry debate, because the contrast is difficult to ignore once the figures are placed side by side.

Local authorities are likely to respond quickly. The guidance allows councils to retain revenue from civil penalties to support further enforcement activity. This creates a self-funding model that did not exist with the same clarity before. Enforcement teams that once struggled with budget constraints may now be encouraged to act more frequently and more assertively. Councils will focus on licensing, documentation, advertising and property condition, because these areas now offer significant financial return.

Lenders will take notice as well. A single penalty of £20,000 or more can alter the affordability profile of a portfolio. Breaches involving possession grounds will catch particular attention, because lenders rely on orderly tenancies to control arrears risk. Insurers will likely tighten underwriting for landlords who self-manage or operate in older properties, especially where documentation or licensing may be inconsistent.

Letting agents will face new pressures. The guidance implies shared responsibility in several areas, and agents who manage documentation or advertising on behalf of landlords could be scrutinised more closely. This will push agencies to adopt stricter internal controls, which may in turn increase costs for landlords who rely on full management services.

Tenants will experience the changes too. Councils will intervene earlier in disputes. Penalties allow enforcement without court delays, which means issues around licensing or documentation are likely to escalate more quickly than before. Some tenants will welcome the added oversight. Others may find that the heightened rules lead landlords to withdraw from riskier areas of the market.

Professional advisers will warn landlords to treat possession decisions with far more caution. The £30,000 penalty for relying on the wrong ground introduces a subjective test that invites argument over what a landlord “should have known”. That point alone will generate litigation, appeals and case law in the years ahead.

The guidance signals a tougher era. It reflects a political intention to make enforcement more visible and more costly. For landlords, it introduces a level of regulatory exposure that feels disproportionate when placed alongside penalties used in other sectors.

This is the landscape now set before the private rented sector. Success will belong to those who tighten their compliance processes, document every decision and treat governance as a central part of property management. The figures published this week send a clear warning. Mistakes will carry serious consequences, and the financial risks of non-compliance have never been higher.

Offence	Civil penalty
Unlawful eviction and harassment (s1(2) and (3))	£35,000

Housing Act 1988 breaches and offences

Breach	Civil penalty
Attempting to let the property for a fixed term (s16E(1)(a))	£4,000
Attempting to end the tenancy by service of a notice to quit (s16E(1)(b))	£6,000
Attempting to end the tenancy orally, or require that it is ended orally (s16E(1)(c))	£6,000
Serving a possession notice that attempts to end the tenancy outside of the prescribed section 8 process (s16E(1)(d))	£6,000
Relying on a ground where the person does not reasonably believe that the landlord is/will be able to obtain possession (s16I(1)(e))	£6,000
Failing to provide a tenant with prior notice that a ground which requires it may be used (s16E(1)(f))	£3,000
Failing to issue a written statement of terms within 28 days of an assured tenancy coming into existence (s16D)	£4,000
Failing to provide an existing tenant with prescribed information about changes made by the Renters’ Rights Act (paragraph 7 of schedule 6 to the Renters’ Rights Act 2025)	£4,000

Offence	Civil penalty
Relying on a ground knowing the landlord would not be able to obtain possession or being reckless as to whether they would (s16J(1))	£30,000
Reletting or remarketing a property within the 12 month no-let period after using the moving or selling grounds (s16J(2))	£25,000
Continuing breach, or repeat breach committed within 5 years of receiving a penalty for first breach (s16J(3) and (4))	Double the starting level for the two constituent breaches added together

Housing Act 2004 Offences

Offence	Civil penalty
Failure to comply with an improvement notice (s.30(1))	£25,000
Mandatory HMO unlicensed (s.72(1))	£17,000
Additional HMO unlicensed (s72 (1))	£17,000
Knowingly permitting over-occupation of an HMO (s.72(2))	£20,000
Property subject to selective licensing unlicensed (s.95(1))	£12,000
Failure to comply with an overcrowding notice (s.139(7))	£20,000
Breach of HMO management regulations (SI 2006/372 and SI 2007/1903 (in respect of s257 HMOs) made under s234(1))
Failure to provide information to the occupier (regulation 3)	£3,000
Failure to take safety measures (regulation 4)	£20,000
Failure to maintain water supply and drainage (regulation 5)	£10,000
Failure to supply and maintain gas and electricity or supply gas safety certificate (regulation 6)	£12,000
Failure to maintain common parts (regulation 7)	£7,000
Failure to maintain living accommodation (regulation 8)	£7,000
Failure to provide adequate waste disposal facilities (regulation 9)	£7,000

No starting point for civil penalties for breaches of licensing conditions under sections 72(3) and 95(2) of the Housing Act 2004 are set out in this guidance, as those conditions may vary substantially between local authorities. Local housing authorities will need to determine and publish their own starting levels for civil penalties for these offences.

Housing and Planning Act 2016 Offences

Offence	Civil penalty
Breach of a banning order (s.21(1))	£35,000

Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Breaches

Breach	Civil penalty
Discrimination against those on benefits or with children in the lettings process (s.33 and s.34)	£6,000
Failure to specify proposed rent within a written advertisement or offer (s.56(2))	£3,000
Inviting, encouraging or accepting any offer of rent greater than the advertised rate (s.56(3))	£4,000