Low-level and inconsistent sentences for housing-related offences are often cited by local authorities as being a contributing factor to the relatively low number of prosecutions. 

The Sentencing Council, an arms-length organisation for the judiciary that promotes transparency and consistency and issues guidelines that the courts in England and Wales must follow when passing a sentence, has, for many years, received requests and representations from various stakeholders within the private rented sector (PRS) to produce guidance for housing offences. With the enactment of the Renters’ Rights Act and its forthcoming implementation, the council has decided that now is the right time and is looking to develop and issue sentencing guidelines for this area. 

The Sentencing Council is currently consulting the public on a proposed new package of guidelines to be issued in relation to housing offences, in particular, two guidelines relating to nine offences of unlawful eviction and unlawful harassment of tenants and four guidelines covering offences related to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and other housing standards offences. 

The consultation is seeking views on a number of the proposals, including:

• The factors set out as relevant for the levels of culpability and harm

• The ranges and starting points for sentencing/fine levels for individuals and for organisations by offence severity (as set out in the matrix of culpability and harm)

• The mitigating and aggravating factors to be taken into account

• The guidance on obtaining financial information

• Brief guidelines to cover a breach of an overcrowding notice.

You may ask why prosecution numbers matter if local authorities can just turn to civil penalties to address the issue. It really boils down to deterrence, the severity of an offence and public benefit. While financial penalties have been strengthened and expanded under the Renter’s Rights Act, they remain capped, whether at £40,000 for repeat and more serious offences or £7,000 for initial or minor non-compliance. However, for many of these offences, there is the option of taking a prosecution instead, which, if convicted, would incur an unlimited level of fine. Equally, local authorities can publicise prosecution cases; this cannot be done with financial penalties to the same degree, and so has a public benefit in increasing awareness. As such, in each case, a decision needs to be made on which option to go with, as the use of one precludes the other. Whether to take a prosecution or issue a civil penalty should ultimately be based on what is most appropriate for the case, not on an automatic default or a perception that it is the easier option.

The Sentencing Council acknowledges the need for such a considered decision; the intention is that the new guidelines will not only increase the consistency of sentences and levels of fines but also help local authorities differentiate when a financial penalty or prosecution approach is most suitable. The consultation sets out that the proposed guidelines operate independently of the civil enforcement regimes currently within the housing regulatory sector, but that they would still support the overall enforcement framework and assist local authorities and the courts in understanding their options for tackling housing offences.

The consultation is currently open and runs until 9 April 2026.