Private Sector Housing Civil Financial Penalty Policy

Civil Penalties Matrix

In determining the level of a civil penalty, oﬃcers will have regard to the matrix set out below.

The matrix consists of the following sequential steps:

determining the starting point based on the seriousness of the breach or oﬀence
adjustment for factors relating to the type of landlord; size and type of portfolio controlled, owned or managed; experience of the landlord ("Landlord Type")
mitigating and aggravating factors the Council deems signiﬁcant including, but not limited to, factors relating to the track record and culpability of the landlord and the actual or potential harm to the occupants
financial considerations
applying the totality principle

Starting point based on seriousness of the breach or offence

The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government has provided statutory guidance that prescribes starting points for all breaches and oﬀences based on the seriousness of the breach or oﬀence. The exception to this prescription is for breaches of licensing conditions under sections 72(3) and 95(2) of the Housing Act 2004, where the Council has determined its own starting levels based on the seriousness of the speciﬁc licence condition or type of licence condition that has not been complied with.

Adjustment for factors relating to the type of landlord; size and type of portfolio controlled, owned or managed; experience of the landlord ("Landlord Type")

While all landlords are expected to comply fully with their legal obligations, the Council considers that a higher standard of professionalism and regulatory awareness is reasonably expected of landlords who operate at greater scale, who have greater experience, or who are involved in more complex forms of letting. Where such landlords fail to comply with their obligations, this will ordinarily justify a higher civil penalty.

In particular, a higher degree of professionalism is expected of landlords who:

control, own, or manage a signiﬁcant portfolio of properties
have signiﬁcant experience in the letting or management of property
are or have been involved in the letting or management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)
are corporate landlords
are or have been directors of corporate landlords.

An upward adjustment of 20% of the applicable starting point will be applied where the landlord meets any one or more of the following criteria:

the landlord has, at any point in time, controlled, owned, or managed six or more properties. These properties need not be held concurrently or at the time civil penalty proceedings are brought
the landlord has, at any point in time, controlled, owned, or managed three or more properties that operated as HMOs, whether or not concurrently
the landlord is, or has previously been, a director of a corporate landlord
the landlord is a corporate landlord
the landlord has, in the Council's assessment and by reference to the available evidence, signiﬁcant experience in the letting or management of property.

A downward adjustment of 20% of the applicable starting point will be applied only where all of the following criteria are met:

the landlord has, at any point in time, controlled, owned, or managed no more than two properties
the landlord has controlled, owned, or managed no more than one property that has operated as an HMO, at any point in time
the landlord has, in the Council's assessment and by reference to the available evidence, very limited experience in the letting or management of property

Mitigating and aggravating factors the Council deems significant including, but not limited to, factors relating to the track record and culpability of the landlord and the actual or potential harm to the occupants

To promote fairness and consistency in the administration of civil penalties, the Council will apply a structured and consistent framework when determining the extent to which mitigating and aggravating factors aﬀect the quantum of any civil penalty.

General approach

Each breach or oﬀence may have oﬀence-speciﬁc mitigating and/or aggravating factors, which will be considered alongside the generic factors set out below. Where multiple civil penalties are issued under this policy against the same landlord at the same time, and except where expressly stated otherwise, mitigating and aggravating factors will be considered and applied separately to each civil penalty when determining the quantum of each penalty.

Mitigating factors

The Council may reduce the level of a civil penalty by up to 20% of the applicable starting point to reﬂect the presence of mitigating factors. Only under exceptional circumstances may the Council depart from the application of this policy in respect of mitigating factors and apply a reduction in excess of 20%. Exceptional circumstances are rare and unusual and are not established merely by the presence of multiple mitigating factors.

Within the framework of this policy, the Council has not sought to provide an exhaustive list of mitigating factors, recognising that a wide range of circumstances may potentially give rise to mitigation. However, the following generic mitigating factors will be considered in respect of each breach or oﬀence:

Steps taken to remedy the basis of the breach or oﬀence

Non-exhaustive examples include:

promptly remedying all elements of the breach or oﬀence after receiving communication from the Council
promptly remedying all the signiﬁcant elements of the breach or oﬀence leaving only less signiﬁcant elements of the breach or oﬀence.

A high level of cooperation

Non-exhaustive examples include:

proactive provision of signiﬁcant information the Council reasonably considers relevant beyond that required by statutory notice.

Acceptance of liability

Non-exhaustive examples include:

accepting liability before or within the period for representations.

Where a landlord relies on a reasonable excuse defense or otherwise contests liability, this mitigating factor will not usually apply.

Health circumstances

Non-exhaustive examples include:

a serious health condition or medical incident experienced by the landlord during, or in the period immediately preceding, the breach or oﬀence, where there is clear and reliable evidence that the condition had a direct and material impact on the landlord's ability to comply with the relevant legal obligation. Examples may include, but are not limited to, a heart attack, stroke, cancer diagnosis, or other acute or serious medical event causing signiﬁcant incapacity or impairment.

Diminished culpability (limited responsibility)

Non-exhaustive examples include:

a joint landlord who has evidenced that compliance arrangements for the subject property were directed and controlled by another joint landlord, and not by them
a landlord who became involved only after an unforeseen change in circumstances (such as the death of the previous landlord) and who committed the breach or oﬀence only for a limited period while putting their aﬀairs in order.

The instruction of a managing or letting agent, or reliance on an agent's actions or omissions, will not of itself constitute diminished culpability.

Aggravating factors

The Council may increase the level of a civil penalty by up to 20% of the applicable starting point to reﬂect the presence of aggravating factors.

Only in exceptional circumstances may the Council depart from the application of this policy in respect of aggravating factors and apply an increase in excess of 20%. Exceptional circumstances are rare and unusual and are not established merely by the presence of multiple aggravating factors.

The following generic aggravating factors will be considered in respect of each breach or oﬀence:

Previous history of non-compliance

Non-exhaustive examples include:

previous successful prosecutions (including relevant spent convictions), previous civil penalties, previous rent repayment orders, previous works in default, previous simple cautions.

Concurrent investigations or proceedings relating to other civil penalties, prosecutions, or rent repayment orders will not be treated as previous non-compliance.

Non-cooperation with the Council

Non-exhaustive examples include:

failure to comply with notices issued under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, section 235 of the Housing Act 2004, or section 114 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025
failing to provide a substantive response to a letter of alleged oﬀence
failing to attend previously agreed meetings.

Where the Council has prosecuted, or is pursuing a prosecution, in respect of the same act or omission involving failure to provide legally required information (including failure to comply with statutory notice), that conduct will also not be treated as an aggravating factor for the purpose of setting the civil penalty, in order to avoid double counting.

Where multiple civil penalties are imposed against the same landlord at the same time, this aggravating factor will be applied only to the civil penalty with the highest starting point, unless there is a clear and reasoned basis for applying it diﬀerently.

Deliberate intent or negligence when committing the oﬀence

Non-exhaustive examples include:

knowledge that the breach or oﬀence was occurring
continuation of oﬀending after communication from the Council
premeditation or planning, including steps taken to prevent detection or eﬀective investigation
providing false or misleading information to the Council
applying pressure to occupants to deter cooperation with the Council.

The number of occupants aﬀected

Non-exhaustive examples include

3-5 occupants aﬀected

Duration of non-compliance

Non-exhaustive examples include

the oﬀence or breach occurred over a 3-6-month period

Vulnerability of occupants

Non-exhaustive examples include children and young adults, persons vulnerable by reason of age, disability or sensory impairment, persons with drug or alcohol dependency, victims of domestic abuse, children in care, persons with complex health needs, persons who do not speak English as a ﬁrst language, victims of traﬃcking or sexual exploitation, refugees, asylum seekers, and pregnant women.

Financial considerations

The Council will review the quantum of the civil penalty and consider whether it is suﬃcient to act as an eﬀective deterrent to future non-compliance. Where the Council has evidence that it is considered to be suﬃciently reliable regarding rental income and/or asset value from the landlord's, it may determine that an increase in the level of the penalty is appropriate in order to achieve eﬀective deterrence.

It is essential that, as an absolute minimum, landlords do not ﬁnancially beneﬁt from their oﬀending behavior.

Financial circumstances will ordinarily be considered after any written representations have been received and as part of the determination of any ﬁnal notice.

Where a landlord seeks to rely on a strained or limited ﬁnancial position as a basis for reducing the level of a civil penalty, that position must be supported by appropriate and veriﬁable evidence suﬃcient to enable the Council to assess the landlord's ﬁnancial position consistently, objectively, and transparently. Unsupported assertions, partial disclosure, or selective provision of information will not be given weight.

At a minimum, and where such information exists, the following should be provided as part of any written representations

the last three full tax years full self-assessment tax returns ﬁled with HMRC, including all additional and supplemental pages
the last three full tax years' SA302 documents and tax year overviews
the last three months' pay slips
the last three years of P60 certiﬁcates
the last twelve months' Universal Credit payment statements
a list of all property assets owned or jointly owned (not limited to rental properties), together with corresponding Land Registry title documents
a list of all property assets owned, or held on a long lease, by any corporate entity in which the landlord has a beneﬁcial interest, together with corresponding Land Registry documentation
the most recent annual mortgage statement for each property, or the last twelve months' mortgage statements where the mortgage has been in place for less than twelve months
valuation statements for all ISAs held
statements from any crypto asset exchange accounts showing balances and valuations
a list of all shareholdings
recent bank statements for any account holding a balance more than £5,000
recent statements for all secured and unsecured loans
bankruptcy orders and oﬃcial notiﬁcations of bankruptcy

Where the Council is not satisﬁed that it has been provided with suﬃciently reliable, complete, and accurate information to assess the landlord's ﬁnancial position, the Council may draw the inference that the landlord is able to pay the civil penalty as imposed.

A claimed inability to pay will not, in itself, outweigh the need to ensure eﬀective deterrence or to remove any ﬁnancial beneﬁt obtained as a result of the breach or oﬀence.

The totality principle

The Council will have regard to the totality principle to ensure that the overall outcome of its enforcement action is just and proportionate. In exceptional cases, and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Council may take account of totality at an earlier stage by deciding not to pursue a civil penalty in respect of a specific breach or offence where doing so would render the overall outcome disproportionate.

In general, however, the application of the totality principle will form the final step in the Council's decision-making process, undertaken after any written representations have been considered and before final notices are issued, once the level of each individual civil penalty has been assessed in accordance with this policy.

As a final step before issuing final notices, the Council will consider whether multiple civil penalties being imposed under this policy against the same landlord at the same time result in an aggregate amount that is just and proportionate. Where the Council concludes that the aggregate amount would not be just and proportionate, it will consider whether a proportionate reduction of the penalties is appropriate.

The totality principle does not operate across different legal persons who are separately liable in law, nor does it operate across civil penalties imposed at different times. In general, it applies only to multiple civil penalties imposed under this policy on the same person at the same time. Where, however, legislation provides that an officer of a body corporate, or a person concerned in its management, may be separately liable in relation to the same conduct as the body corporate, and that officer also holds a shareholding interest in the body corporate, the Council will, where civil penalties are imposed at the same time on both the body corporate and the officer arising from that same conduct, consider whether the combined outcome results in punitive duplication and is therefore not just and proportionate.

Where a reduction is applied under the totality principle, the Council will ordinarily do so by applying a uniform percentage reduction across all relevant civil penalties being issued at the same time, being those civil penalties that form part of the same totality assessment. Where, however, the application of the totality principle is required to address punitive duplication arising from a shared economic interest between a body corporate and an officer, the Council may apply a differential adjustment to ensure that the overall outcome is just and proportionate.

This approach reflects the statutory guidance on the application of the totality principle and is intended to promote consistency, transparency, and proportionality, while avoiding arbitrary or selective adjustment of individual penalties.

In accordance with the statutory guidance, any rent repayment orders made in respect of the same breach or offence will be disregarded for the purposes of assessing the totality of civil penalties under this policy.