The government has issued new civil penalty tables under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and the figures represent a major shift in how housing offences will be handled. The updated guidance, published this week on GOV.UK, outlines penalties starting at £3,000 and reaching as high as £35,000 for the most serious breaches. Many of the offences listed were previously treated as simple compliance issues, but they will now carry financial consequences that feel far closer to corporate regulation than traditional housing enforcement.
Some of the new penalties stand out immediately. A breach of a banning order begins at £35,000, placing it among the most severe sanctions in the sector. Using a possession ground that a landlord “knew or should have known” could not be justified now comes with a £30,000 penalty. Reletting a property during a no-let period is priced at £25,000. Even administrative issues, such as operating within a selective licensing area without the correct licence, will cost £12,000. These figures underline a clear message: oversight is no longer a small error, but a financial risk that can have a major impact on day-to-day operations.
These penalties arrive at a time when landlords are already facing slimmer margins due to rising regulatory costs. The scale of the fines makes it clear that compliance is now central to financial planning, not just a routine obligation. This shift will affect every landlord, from single-property owners to large portfolio landlords, as decisions will now carry significantly higher consequences.
The guidance becomes even more striking when compared with other penalty systems across the UK. Several workplace safety breaches attract lower fines than some of the newly published housing penalties. Failing to meet gas safety requirements in a rental property can now result in fines larger than those levied on companies handling hazardous machinery. Even a misleading rent advertisement carries a £4,000 penalty, which is higher than fines for many minor trading offences. These comparisons will inevitably create questions about proportionality, and landlords may struggle to understand why housing-related administrative errors could lead to harsher penalties than offences in more dangerous industries.
Local authorities are also expected to step up their enforcement efforts. The guidance allows councils to retain civil penalty revenue to support further enforcement, effectively creating a self-funding system. This will allow enforcement teams, many of which have faced years of budget limitations, to increase inspections and issue penalties more readily. Licensing, property condition, documentation and advertising are likely to be key focus areas, simply because they now present significant financial return to councils.
The financial sector will pay close attention as well. A single penalty worth £20,000 or more could change the affordability calculations of an entire portfolio. Possession-related breaches will be particularly important to lenders, as unplanned tenancy issues directly affect arrears and risk management. Insurers are also likely to tighten requirements for landlords who self-manage or own older properties, especially where paperwork and licensing may not be fully compliant.
Letting agents will also feel the impact. The guidance suggests that responsibility is shared between landlords and agents for some breaches, meaning agencies may face greater scrutiny over documentation, advertising and management practices. This could lead to more robust internal processes, which may in turn increase management fees for landlords.
Tenants are likely to see effects too. Local authorities will be able to intervene more quickly, as civil penalties allow action without lengthy court delays. Issues involving licensing, property standards or documentation may now escalate sooner. Some tenants will appreciate the increased protection, but others may find that tighter enforcement leads some landlords to leave higher-risk markets, reducing the supply of available homes in certain areas.
| 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 |
Professional advisers will urge landlords to take far more care with possession grounds. The £30,000 penalty for relying on the wrong ground introduces a subjective test that could easily be disputed. This is likely to generate appeals, court cases and new case law over the coming years as landlords and councils challenge how the rules should be interpreted.
Overall, the new guidance marks a turning point for the private rented sector. It signals a clear political push towards stronger enforcement and higher accountability. For landlords, it introduces a level of regulatory exposure that feels significantly heavier than before, especially when compared with penalties in other regulated sectors.
Going forward, landlords will need to tighten their compliance processes, keep thorough documentation and treat governance as a core part of their business. The message from the government is unmistakable: mistakes will be expensive, and the financial risks of non-compliance are now higher than ever.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property