Agenda item

 

Report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment.

 

Recommendations

That Cabinet:

 

1.    Approve consultation on the draft:

1. Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy, derived from the Association of Chief Environmental Health Officers (ACEHO) National Model Enforcement Policy; and

 

2. Civil Penalty Calculation Mechanism, including local market adjustment.

 

2.    Note that a future report with the outcome of the consultation and revised policy documents will be presented to Cabinet in November 2026.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation, Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing, introduced the report explaining that the Renters Rights Act and associated statutory guidance was published in November 2025.  This introduced significant changes to local authority enforcement powers, including expanded civil penalties, statutory starting points for financial penalties, and additional investigative powers.

 

It was noted that, as these powers fall outside the Regulators’ Code, a revised Private Sector Enforcement Policy and civil penalty calculation mechanism was required. Approval would be sought from Cabinet to undertake a six-week consultation commencing in late June, in order to comply with national legislation and establish a transparent and evidence-based framework for applying civil penalties.

 

The importance of ensuring proportionate and robust enforcement against non-compliance was highlighted, alongside the need to maintain fairness for compliant landlords and to reflect local housing market conditions and enforcement priorities.

 

It was reported that, although the Act increased civil penalties to a maximum of £40,000 and introduced a two-penalty tier system (with a lower tier of £7,000), a local reduction factor of 46.6% was proposed to ensure proportionality and recoverability in the local context. Statutory starting points would be applied, with provision for a 15% early payment discount and officer discretion of up to 20% either way based on mitigating or aggravating factors, as detailed in the appendices.

 

It was noted that the policy would be subject to annual review and that landlords would retain the right to challenge civil penalties through the First-tier Tribunal. Subject to Cabinet approval, a further report outlining consultation outcomes and any revised policy would be presented in November 2026, with findings to be reported back to the Board.

 

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions, with Councillor Blackham expressing concern that the six?week consultation period, while meeting the statutory minimum, coincided with the summer holidays when engagement might be reduced. It was noted that the proposals were complex, involving detailed information and multiple legislative references, raising concerns about achieving meaningful engagement within the timeframe.

 

Sam Barstow, Service Director for Community Safety and Street Scene, acknowledged the complexity and advised that consultation materials would be simplified, focusing on key principles rather than detailed financial calculations. He confirmed the six?week period met statutory requirements and was considered sufficient, with prompt communication and reminders planned to support participation.

 

The Chair noted that similar concerns about summer consultations had been raised previously, suggesting these should take place before the holiday period or extend into September to maximise engagement. It was proposed that this concern be included in the Board’s recommendations.

 

Councillor Tinsley raised concern over the lack of a clear consultation plan, noting that previous exercises, such as selective licensing, had struggled to secure meaningful engagement. Clarification was sought on how the Council would effectively engage private sector landlords, including methods to reach the sector, promote participation, and raise awareness of the Renters’ Rights Act among those not yet informed.

 

It was acknowledged that, despite concerns about the consultation period, the Council was in a relatively strong position. The recent selective licensing consultation had generated a significant number of responses and established a substantial contact base, which would be used to inform and engage participants in the new consultation.

 

Concern was reiterated that reliance on existing data may not fully capture the wider private rented sector, particularly landlords not previously engaged with licensing schemes. In response, it was noted that earlier consultations and ongoing enforcement activity had brought the Council into contact with a broad range of landlords, alongside established links with landlord representative bodies, which would support further engagement.

 

It was also highlighted that the consultation and subsequent policy development provided an opportunity to educate and support landlords in meeting their responsibilities under the Renters’ Rights Act, with the Council’s approach focused on promoting compliance and using enforcement as a last resort where necessary.

 

Councillor Yasseen, building on earlier concerns about the consultation period, compared the proposal with the selective licensing consultation, which had covered only part of the borough yet had run for a longer period, including an extension. On this basis, the six?week consultation was considered insufficient, and support was expressed for this concern to be reflected in the Board’s recommendations.

 

Support was also expressed for aspects of the Renters’ Rights provisions, including a borough?wide approach, although concern remained regarding the Council’s overall approach and timing.

 

Further clarification was sought on the proposed 46.6% reduction factor applied to civil penalties, with concern that it could significantly reduce fines even in serious cases, including those involving vulnerable individuals. Questions were raised about how fairness and proportionality would be maintained, particularly in distinguishing between minor and major offences and between individual landlords and larger corporate operators.

 

In response, it was explained that the legislation already differentiated between minor and major offences through different penalty starting points, ensuring more serious breaches attracted higher fines. The proposed reduction factor reflected the difference between national and local rental levels and aimed to align penalties with local market conditions; it was emphasised that this remained subject to consultation.

 

It was further explained that discretion would be applied through mitigating and aggravating factors, enabling higher penalties in cases involving corporate landlords or large portfolios, while allowing reductions for less experienced landlords, such as those with a single property. This approach aimed to ensure penalties remained fair, proportionate, and responsive to individual circumstances.

 

Councillor Yasseen acknowledged that further detail would be considered through the consultation process and sought clarification on how the proposed reduction factor had been calculated, including how it would interact with any uplifts applied to different categories of landlord.

 

Further questions were raised regarding the baseline data informing the proposals. It was noted that, while selective licensing had provided some insight into property types and tenure, it did not present a complete picture. Concern was expressed that the report lacked a clear baseline of the private rented sector and clarification was sought on the data underpinning the Council’s approach.

 

In response, it was confirmed that a comprehensive baseline was not currently available, although the Renters’ Rights Act included provision for a national database intended to address this. It was also noted that implementation of the Act would be phased, with the private rented sector database expected in late 2026, which was anticipated to support the development of a more complete baseline at both borough and national level.

 

The Chair asked about the extent of benchmarking with neighbouring authorities on their approaches to civil penalties. It was confirmed that benchmarking had been undertaken as far as possible, although all authorities faced similar limitations due to the absence of a requirement for private rented sector landlord registration, which restricted comparable data.

 

It was noted that benchmarking would continue to develop alongside national changes, particularly as more reliable data became available. The Council was also reported to work closely with regional partners, sharing approaches to implementation and maintaining a collective commitment to collaboration to improve understanding and ensure consistency where appropriate.

 

The Chair asked how the Council would ensure that vulnerable or underrepresented private tenants, particularly those with limited digital access, were made aware of the consultation. It was confirmed that the Council would not rely solely on digital engagement. Drawing on the Selective Licensing consultation, it was noted that some respondents had preferred written submissions, and arrangements had been made to support this.

 

Paper-based consultation materials would be made available in community venues, supported by ward councillors, community networks, and local organisations. Frontline services and partner agencies would also be used to engage vulnerable groups through day-to-day contact.

 

It was further noted that trusted community networks and leaders would help raise awareness, with tailored assistance provided where needed to support participation, including for those who were digitally excluded or unable to complete written responses independently.

 

The Chair asked how the Council would maximise engagement with private landlords, communities, and letting agencies during the consultation. It was advised that this would build on existing engagement channels, including established networks, landlord representative bodies, and community organisations. The Council’s regular day?to?day contact with stakeholders across the sector would also be utilised, alongside trusted community networks, to support broad awareness and participation.

 

Councillor Harper asked about the Council’s preparedness to enforce the new provisions, including whether sufficient staffing and resources were in place given the scale of change and the incomplete understanding of the private rented sector. Reference was also made to previous staffing arrangements between phases of selective licensing.

 

It was noted that the legislation represented a significant shift in regulation, requiring changes to working practices. The Council would receive approximately £149,000 in new burdens funding, supplemented by existing investment, including a Private Sector Housing Manager post. These resources were considered sufficient for initial implementation, including establishing policies and procedures, although some uncertainty remained regarding future enforcement demand as levels of non-compliance became clearer.

 

It was further noted that civil penalties, ring?fenced for reinvestment in enforcement activity, could provide additional funding over time, with ongoing monitoring of capacity and demand expected as implementation progressed.

 

In a supplementary question, Councillor Harper asked whether headcount had increased to support the new responsibilities. It was confirmed that recruitment for a Private Sector Housing Manager was underway following the Council’s March budget decision, with the application phase recently closed. Plans for the use of new burdens funding were also in development, including consideration of additional officer resources. It was emphasised that, despite the new requirements, the Council already had an established regulatory function for private sector housing, with experienced officers in place to support implementation and enforcement of the legislation.

 

The Chair asked how the new burdens funding of approximately £149,000 would be used, including whether it would support training or additional staffing.

It was advised that the funding would likely be used for a combination of purposes, with initial priority given to training officers on the requirements of the Renters’ Rights Act and the practicalities of enforcement. It was further noted that decisions on allocation, including any additional staffing, would be developed in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member and colleagues across the organisation, and refined as implementation progressed and service demand became clearer.

 

Councillor Blackham asked whether specific legal advice had been obtained in relation to the policy and its drafting, particularly to support simplification and minimise potential challenge. It was confirmed that legal advice had been sought, with the report having undergone standard internal consultation, including review by legal and finance officers, before being presented to Cabinet. In a supplementary question Councillor Blackham sought clarification regarding the origin of the statutory starting points for civil penalties. In response, it was confirmed that these were derived from the legislation, supplemented by accompanying statutory guidance.

 

Councillor Yasseen raised concern about the sufficiency of the £149,000 new burdens funding and whether existing resources, particularly from selective licensing, would be used to support borough?wide implementation of the Renters’ Rights provisions. It was confirmed that selective licensing income was legally ring?fenced and could only be used within designated areas and therefore could not subsidise wider enforcement activity. It was further explained that additional investment, including enforcement and engagement posts within selective licensing areas, had been agreed through the budget?setting process in response to consultation feedback. The Private Sector Housing Manager role was the only post with a broader remit linked to the Renters’ Rights Act, funded through separate Council investment rather than selective licensing income.

 

Councillor Bacon raised broader concerns about the potential impact of the legislation on the private rented sector, noting it could increase pressure in an already competitive market. A question was asked about the level of discretion available in applying the proposed local reduction factor, including whether alternative evidence or greater reductions could be considered, or if the legislation required the use of specific data such as that from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

 

It was confirmed that some discretion was available, but any adjustment would need to be supported by a robust evidence base. National data, including ONS figures, was cited as providing a reliable benchmark for the proposed reduction. It was emphasised that this was an initial position, with the consultation intended to invite feedback and alternative approaches. It was further explained that the Council aimed to implement the legislation in a balanced and proportionate way, addressing non-compliance while recognising the potential impact of significant penalties on housing supply. The approach would focus on supporting landlord compliance, with enforcement used where necessary.

 

In response to a follow?up, it was confirmed that the consultation would be a genuine and open process. While any changes would need to remain evidence?based and within legislative requirements, feedback from stakeholders could inform revisions to the reduction factor, with all responses considered in developing the final policy.

 

The Chair asked about resilience planning should enforcement volumes exceed expectations. It was advised that resilience existed within the Community Protection and Environmental Health function, supported by ongoing upskilling and multi?skilling of officers. Roles had evolved from being narrowly defined to more flexible, enabling officers to undertake a wider range of enforcement functions and respond in a more coordinated way. This approach was noted to improve the customer experience by reducing the need for multiple officers and allowing resources to be directed to areas of highest demand. It was further explained that any short?term increase in enforcement demand could be managed within existing capacity, while, over time, income from ring?fenced civil penalties could be reinvested to support additional resources if required.

 

The Chair asked how the Council would obtain intelligence on private landlords and identify non?compliant operators in the absence of a comprehensive database. It was acknowledged that this was a national challenge, with a private rented sector database not expected until late 2026. In the interim, the Council would rely on a multi?source approach, including information sharing across internal services such as council tax, benefits, and licensing, alongside collaboration with external partners including the police, fire service, health services, and voluntary organisations.

 

Tenant complaints would remain a key source of intelligence, supported by targeted work in higher?risk areas and information from selective licensing schemes. While the lack of a registration requirement presented challenges, it was emphasised that the new powers would enable the Council to respond effectively using available intelligence while preparing for the national database.

 

Councillor Yasseen questioned the timing of the equality analysis, noting it was scheduled to be completed after the consultation, and raised concern that it had not been undertaken earlier to inform the consultation design, drawing on lessons from previous processes such as selective licensing. In response, it was advised that the equality analysis would be conducted once the policy was finalised to ensure its full implications were assessed. However, it was noted that standard Council consultation processes already incorporated consideration of equality and accessibility from the outset, with assurance given that the consultation would be designed to be inclusive and accessible, supported by appropriate measures to enable participation from all groups.

 

Councillor Yasseen queried the climate impact assessment, noting it indicated no impact, despite the report referencing enforcement of the Decent Homes Standard, which would support emissions reduction and improved energy efficiency. Concern was raised over this apparent inconsistency, particularly in light of the Council’s climate emergency declaration. In response, it was acknowledged that the Decent Homes Standard would contribute to carbon reduction and energy efficiency in the private rented sector. However, it was explained that these provisions were part of a later phase of the Renters’ Rights Act, not expected until around 2030, and therefore had not been reflected in the current policy or appendices.

 

Councillor Blackham noted, for information, that Saville’s recent review found a 14% drop in private rented properties in New York over the past two years, prompting consideration of the outlook for the next three years. It was stated that the council adopts a balanced approach to regulation, as set out in the policy, and this was provided as the response to Council.

 

The Chair asked what governance arrangements would ensure consistent decision?making and whether officers’ use of discretionary powers would be recorded and monitored for fairness. It was confirmed this would be in place, with management oversight supporting officers and legal advice sought where necessary. Consistency would be monitored through key performance indicators and team data. The importance of sharing knowledge with neighbouring authorities was noted, given landlords often operate across multiple areas. Achieving both local and regional consistency was recognised as a priority, supported through regional enforcement networks, professional forums, and guidance from the Association of Chief Environmental Health Officers, with alignment to emerging national standards where possible.

 

The Chair asked what key risks might arise during the transition period when both the old and new policies could apply, and how these would be managed.

It was noted that the new policy incorporates previous Housing Act offences and will provide a single approach to housing enforcement once fully implemented, although risks during the interim period were acknowledged. Officers would manage this through clear transitional arrangements and defined cut-off points, with a detailed implementation timeline to be set out following consultation and Cabinet approval. Clear communication with stakeholders was highlighted, alongside the importance of staff guidance and training to support consistency. Ongoing support from legal services would also ensure that the transition period was managed appropriately.

 

The Vice-Chair asked how the Council would balance supporting the viability of the private rented sector with protecting tenants from non-compliance, particularly given concerns about landlords exiting the market, and whether the impact of increased enforcement on housing supply would be monitored. It was noted that monitoring landlord exits would take place where information was available, though there is currently no accurate baseline. The planned national database is expected to provide a more reliable basis for future monitoring. It was confirmed that the policy sets out a proportionate and balanced enforcement approach, including local adjustments to reflect rental values. The consultation process was highlighted as key to gathering feedback on whether this balance is appropriate or requires adjustment.

 

The Chair asked what key performance indicators (KPIs) would be used to measure the success of the enforcement policy, including compliance rates, appeal outcomes, and tenant impacts.

It was confirmed that a balanced suite of indicators would be used at multiple levels within the service. Performance information would be reviewed across the management structure, including at Head of Service and Director level. KPIs would include compliance rates, reduction and prevalence of repeat offences, and outcomes of enforcement cases. Monitoring would also cover appeals and tribunal outcomes, including both successful Council cases and successful appeals by appellants. Tenant outcomes would be assessed, particularly in relation to improvements in housing conditions, safety, and quality. Timeliness would also be measured, including response times and end-to-end case durations. It was noted that this performance information would be available for scrutiny, which may take an ongoing interest in these measures.

 

Councillor Yasseen noted support for the recommendation but stated that six weeks was insufficient and should be extended. It was highlighted that the scope of the work and the size of the market were unclear, with significant unknowns, and that more time was required to complete the work thoroughly and fairly. Concern was raised that conducting the work over the six-week summer period, including August, would be ineffective due to reduced availability. It was further noted that the Council had previously agreed not to consult residents during holiday periods, and proceeding in this way would be inconsistent with that position.

 

The Chair asked what the latest consultation end date could be to enable the report to return to Cabinet in November, noting a reluctance to debate the matter in Cabinet. In response, the Service Director for Community Safety and Street Scene advised that they could not provide an answer without further consideration, due to the risk of giving incorrect information. It was explained that the timing would need to take into account key factors, such as obtaining appropriate legal advice on the final draft of the policy, and that this would require consultation with legal colleagues to determine a suitable timeframe.

 

The Service Director for Community Safety and Street Scene further stated that extending the consultation period would be challenging while still being able to deliver a robust report that had been properly engaged across the organisation. While acknowledging that scrutiny could make its own recommendations, it was maintained that a six-week consultation complied with statutory requirements and expressed confidence that an effective consultation could be delivered within that period, enabling a legally sound decision by the Council.

 

A Member suggested that, given no action would occur until 27 April, consultation could run from September to November, allowing four months for completion. It was reiterated that the ambition remained to return the final policy to Cabinet in November and that further delay would be difficult, although it was acknowledged that previous reports had been delayed. Concern was expressed by the Board regarding consultation taking place during holiday periods, reflecting longstanding practice.

 

Members emphasised that determining consultation timeframes was the role of scrutiny and proposed recommending an extended consultation period running from September to mid-November, with the final report presented to Cabinet in December. It was noted that Cabinet may choose not to accept this recommendation, but the Committee’s views would be formally put forward.

 

RESOLVED: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

1. Approve consultation on the draft:
   1. Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy, derived from the Association of Chief Environmental Health Officers (ACEHO) National Model Enforcement Policy; and
   2. Civil Penalty Calculation Mechanism, including local market adjustment.
2. Note that a future report with the outcome of the consultation and revised policy documents will be presented to Cabinet in November 2026.

 

Additional recommendations to Cabinet from OSMB were that:

3. That Cabinet extend the consultation period into September to provide an adequate timeframe for responses.

 

Further actions that arose from discussions were:

·       That service report to OSMB prior to presentation of the final policy to Cabinet, to demonstrate how feedback from the public consultation process has been incorporated into the final Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy.