Over the past decade, the enforcement of regulations for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in England has undergone a significant transformation. This shift has been driven by new legislation and changing dynamics among landlords, tenants and local authority officers. Prior to 2017, prosecutions for HMO violations were infrequent, primarily due to lengthy and expensive court procedures and the fact that relatively few properties required licences. According to data from the UK Sentencing Council, only around 280 individuals were sentenced for HMO offences in 2016, with annual case numbers typically ranging between 250 and 350. Local housing authorities (LHAs) tended to focus enforcement efforts on major violations, as prosecuting was the only option.  

Change in enforcement: Civil penalties and practical impact 

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 introduced civil penalties, marking a pivotal change in HMO enforcement. Civil penalties enabled LHAs to take action more swiftly and efficiently. 

Authorities were able to impose fines of up to £30,000 through administrative procedures, bypassing the traditional court process. Consequently, LHAs are equipped to address a broader spectrum of non-compliant HMOs, rather than limiting action to the most severe cases, with the added bonus that the penalty is returned to the LHA for enforcement purposes. This penalty has now been increased to up to £40,000. 

Increased awareness and changing behaviours

The publicity generated by the Housing and Planning Act 2016 significantly increased awareness among both landlords and tenants regarding HMO offences. The primary criteria for HMOs covers properties with three or more residents from at least two households, shared facilities, serving as a main residence, and at least one tenant paying rent. This heightened awareness has motivated some landlords to modify tenancy agreements in an attempt to avoid detection by naming only one occupant. One LHA officer reported seeing a list of house rules taped to a fridge in an unlicensed HMO, rule number one was, ‘If the council visit, tell them we are related’. 

Tenants can often be hesitant to provide evidence, which complicates enforcement efforts. Officers report instances in which occupants deliberately conceal information during investigations, underscoring the ongoing challenges in this area. 

Challenges and consistency

One of the persistent difficulties in HMO enforcement is determining who is legally responsible for managing or controlling properties, whether it be landlords, letting agents or rent-to-rent operators. Complex or informal payment systems, particularly those involving ‘rack rent’ payments, can obfuscate responsibility and hinder targeted enforcement. 

Despite LHAs having extensive powers, limitations such as resource constraints, lack of experience or insufficient incentives may result in inconsistent enforcement practices. Research from the National Residential Landlords Association revealed considerable variation in enforcement: a small number of authorities conducted most inspections and issued the majority of penalties, while many others did very little. This inconsistency has produced what is often referred to as a ‘postcode lottery’ effect in enforcement outcomes. 

Case study: Investigating an overcrowded HMO

A housing officer with 12 years’ experience provided insight into the use of current powers and tools to build strong legal cases and issue civil penalties in challenging HMOs.  

An investigation was initiated following a complaint from a local university after an international student unexpectedly found themselves faced with living in an overcrowded HMO. The student found a room near campus through an online advertisement. They contacted the advertiser and paid three months’ rent in advance (a practice no longer permitted). Upon arrival, the room was not as advertised and the student discovered they had to share the room with two others. The student refused the arrangement, forfeited their rent and went to the university, which fortunately was able to assist them in securing alternative accommodation. The university contacted the council to report a suspected unlicensed HMO. 

Section 239(7) of the Housing Act 2004 

Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA04) gives LHA officers powers to inspect homes for hazards or compliance, typically after providing at least 24 hours’ notice to tenants and landlords. This notice period has been amended by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA25) to allow tenants in the PRS to waive notice and for landlords to be given retrospective notice.  

Section 239(7) permits entry without notice when there is suspicion of unlicensed HMOs or management regulation breaches, although this power is not always used as often as it could be, allowing circumstances to be staged to hide hazards. Serious incidents, such as a fatal fire in Tower Hamlets, highlighted the consequences of failing to conduct no-notice inspections. If entry is refused under section 239(7), officers may apply for a warrant. In the student property case study, entry under section 239(7) was denied, prompting officers to execute a warrant at 6 a.m. a week later. 

The Housing App 

The Housing App has become an essential tool for officers conducting inspections, surveys and HHSRS assessments, and can be used on smartphone or tablet. The app facilitates efficient on-site data collection of defects and compliance, supports offline work and enables syncing of findings to a cloud platform for streamlined workflow and reporting. It integrates automated data, hazard assessment, tenant reporting and AI-assisted analysis, enhancing evaluations of housing conditions and decision-making. 

Continuing with our case study of the student property, officers used a warrant to gain entry and relied on The Housing App to gather photographic evidence, assess hazards and record details. The assessment identified Category 1 hazards related to fire, electrical hazards and damp and mould growth. The property, occupied by 12 students in 5 bedrooms, was found to have serious fire safety deficiencies. As a result, an emergency prohibition order was issued. 

Power to require documents 

LHAs can, through section 235 HA04, formally request documents in the course of HMO investigations, with non-compliance potentially leading to prosecution. Officers can obtain records such as tenancy agreements, safety certificates, emails, invoices and bank statements to determine property management responsibility. Notices may also be served on tenants to assist with establishing responsibility when informal cooperation is lacking. While some officers may overlook the full scope of ‘documents’, these powers are crucial for evidence gathering and enforcing complex HMO compliance. 

In our HMO case study, officers served a demand for documents notice on both the landlord and tenants, requesting bank statements, rent receipts, email communications, tenancy agreements, deposit information, ID copies and inspection records. Copies of safety certificates were also required from the landlord. Compliance with these notices enabled officers to confirm rent payments and identify management responsibilities. 

Investigatory powers under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 

Section 115 RRA25 confers power on LHAs to serve formal notice requiring any person connected to a rental property to provide information or documents where there are reasonable grounds to suspect offences such as breaches of HMO licensing, safety regulations or tenancy laws. This provision allows authorised officers to collect evidence from landlords, letting agents and third parties, facilitating the uncovering of hidden or complex violations.  

Following the university’s report in our case study, officers used a RIAMS notice template to serve a Section 115 notice on the online advertising company, requesting copies of any adverts placed for the student property, together with the landlord’s details. Another notice went to the university, requiring a list of all students registered with the matching address. Both parties responded with evidence that the landlord posted 10 adverts over 6 months, that rooms were regularly re-advertised and up to 3 students shared a room. The university confirmed that at least 8 occupants were students and the property served as their main residence. 

National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN) 

The National Anti-Fraud Network provides local authorities with central intelligence and verification services, enabling housing officers to perform credit checks and link occupancy to a property through the electoral roll and credit records. 

In the case study, officers utilised NAFN to link occupants identified during the property inspection to credit entries, such as phone contracts and finance agreements, strengthening the assertion that it was their primary residence. This extended the period of non-licensing offences and increased culpability for penalty calculations. 

Justice for Tenants Financial Penalty Generator 

The Justice for Tenants (JFT) has a Civil Penalty Notice Generator, which can assist LHAs in quickly and consistently issuing civil penalty notices for housing enforcement cases. The tool applies a published penalty policy and statutory guidance, generating compliant notices tailored to each case, thereby reducing officer workload. LHAs use it to produce robust legal notices that are less likely to be challenged, with JFT providing review feedback to enhance accuracy. Adoption of the tool is increasing as enforcement under RRA25 rises, helping to standardise financial penalties across different locations. 

In the case of the student property, officers used the generator to calculate penalties totalling £68,000 for failing to obtain an HMO licence and multiple management regulation breaches. Officers can input factors such as culpability, harm, financial benefit, previous history of offences, landlord’s portfolio, number of occupants and number of breaches into the generator, which then uses that information to calculate a penalty amount. This step-by-step justification process ensures a uniform approach and minimises the risk of appeals or penalties being overturned should there be an appeal. 

Other enforcement powers 

Other enforcement powers include compliance with the Electrical Safety Regulations, the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations, Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) and Section 16 requisitions for information under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. These provisions also give officers powers to request documents and information to support investigations. However, the investigatory powers provided by RRA25 are particularly effective for HMO enforcement, offering comprehensive tools to gather evidence and hold landlords to account. 

Conclusion 

The introduction of new investigatory powers under RRA25, combined with a thorough understanding and application of existing enforcement tools, significantly enhances the LHAs’ ability to address HMO non-compliance. By equipping officers with a broad range of mechanisms for evidence-gathering and holding landlords to account, the aim is for enforcement to become both faster and more consistent. As more authorities adopt these powers and fully utilise more familiar provisions (such as section 239(7) and section 235 HA04), the disparities in geographical enforcement can be reduced. This move towards standardised, robust enforcement is poised to eliminate the ‘postcode lottery’ effect described, ensuring all tenants, regardless of location, benefit from safer and better-managed accommodation.