Great Yarmouth’s Selective Licensing Proposal Raises Questions About Landlord Inspections
In a climate where selective licensing schemes are spreading like wildfire, a recent proposal in Great Yarmouth is causing more controversy than many. It is proposing a condition that landlords must inspect their properties no less than once every three months. Here we will look at the proposed scheme and at the wider issue raised: How often landlords should, or must, inspect their properties.
Great Yarmouth – some background
Great Yarmouth in Norfolk is around 20 miles east of Norwich. It is a traditional seaside resort whose heyday was in the 1800s and early 1900s.
The decline of the seaside holiday trade left the town with something of a surfeit of housing and house prices that are well below the national average. This has made it popular with property investors seeking attractive yields, as well as tenants on a budget seeking affordable accommodation.
Great Yarmouth’s latest selective licensing proposal
Great Yarmouth Borough Council has previously operated a selective licensing scheme. This ran in the Nelson ward between 2019 and 2024 and saw licences issues to around 1,550 PRS homes.
In spring 2025 the Council announced a proposal for a new and extended selective licensing scheme and subsequently launched a consultation process. The new scheme will cover the Nelson ward plus the wards of Southtown and Cobholm, Central and Northgate and part of Yarmouth North. It is estimated this will cover 5,000 properties or 60% of the borough’s PRS.
Reasons the Council give for justifying this scheme in their proposal document are poor housing conditions, levels of deprivation and the above average levels of PRS property in some wards. In a BBC report on the issue Paul Wells, Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s cabinet member for licensing, says: “We all know in Great Yarmouth we’ve got properties that have been used as cannabis factories; properties used as houses in multiple occupation piling people in when we know they aren’t suitable for that; with mould up the walls; with faulty electrics.” He says there is a “specific concentration” of these problems in the town.
The 3 monthly inspection condition
On the face of it, Great Yarmouth’s proposals are for a pretty standard selective licensing scheme. It will have the usual conditions including on fit and proper standards, gas and electrical safety, antisocial behaviour, tenancy and property management. Five year licences will cost £784.
However, a somewhat controversial condition in their proposal is that landlords who obtain a selective licence will be required to inspect their property at least every 3 months.
The draft conditions say:
‘The licence holder must inspect the property at least every 3 months to ensure that the licence conditions are being met and that it is being maintained in a reasonable condition.’
Not only that, landlords will be required to keep records of their inspections and produce them on request:
‘A record of every inspection should be retained for the duration of the licence and a copy made available to the Council, on demand, for its inspection.’
It is worth noting, perhaps, that the proposal document does not shed any further light about what should be inspected, or how.
Issues arising from this proposed condition
As most will know, one reason for introducing selective licensing schemes from a local authority point of view is that it allows properties to be identified and creates a legal right to inspect them. However, in their proposal, Great Yarmouth Borough Council suggest there will be other benefits of such frequent inspections. In the BBC report James Wilson, the Council’s head of environmental services, says the scheme would give landlords “the opportunity to see the condition of their property and possibly prevent some illegal activity taking place”. He added: “It might put some people off if they know these inspections are coming”.
Not unsurprisingly this particular proposed condition has attracted some criticism. For example the Eastern Landlords Association, who can take much credit for publicising this condition in the first place, point out how intrusive it will be for tenants. In the press report Paul Cunningham, chairman, describes it as “a huge imposition on tenants”.
In practice, of course, tenants will probably face many more visits than four per year. Such a regime could generate multiple visits from trades to rectify any issues found and follow up visits from landlords and agents. This is to say nothing of inspection and compliance visits from the Council themselves.
Are inspection conditions like this permitted? And are they widespread?
The Housing Act 2004 sets mandatory conditions for a local authority to attach to selective licences. It also allows them to attach their own conditions in their local areas or to particular licences.
However, and although we stand to be corrected, we do not know of other schemes which have such an intensive and onerous landlord inspection requirement.
A quick whistle top tour of the country shows:
Leeds’ (now lapsed) selective licensing scheme merely suggested that ‘It is good property management practice to carry out regular internal and external inspections of a licensed property’. But it did not suggest a frequency. Interestingly, it advised landlords to source inspection forms ‘from the Internet’ and to ‘include a clause detailing the inspections in the tenancy agreement.’
Brent says landlords should ‘Ensure regular inspections of the property are carried out, at least every 6 months’.
Lambeth also require inspections every 6 months.
Bristol suggests landlords should inspect ‘regularly’ and says it should be done quarterly. However, crucially, they suggest this is only insofar as it relates to detecting antisocial behaviour.
Salford requires inspections at least every 12 months.
Birmingham, Manchester and Tower Hamlets do not specify regular inspections in their standard selective licence conditions.
It is perhaps worth mentioning the upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill. This contains many complex rules for landlords to contend with. Yet it says nothing about requiring regular nor indeed any property inspections.
Some thoughts
Good landlords will have a positive approach to property inspections. But they will generally do them on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, rather than to a rigid timetable. They will try to have a relationship with tenants that encourages them to raise issues, without needing to go in and find them.
A sensible inspection regime will also depend on the particular property or tenant. A single family property let to a reliable, longstanding tenant may be inspected only rarely (and perhaps never). An HMO much more often.
On the other hand deficient landlords, who are happy to let their tenants live in unsatisfactory properties, are unlikely to take this task that seriously. If they do them at all then, in the absence of any specific rules to follow, will their inspections be that thorough?
Assuming this condition is adopted it will be interesting to see how Great Yarmouth Borough Council intend to operate it. Under what circumstances/how often will they demand to see inspection reports? What will they expect to see recorded? Will they enforce this condition with a light touch or a heavy one? Do they have the resources to handle all the extra work this could generate? What happens if tenants deny access, perhaps despite a landlord’s best efforts?
Indeed, as the Eastern Landlords Association have highlighted, this last question is one of the key problems with this proposed condition. Tenants may not be very keen to accommodate such a frequent stream of visitors and prying-and-poking in their homes. It could foster pushback from tenants and sour landlord-tenant relations. While the law allows landlords to access their property as often as they like, with appropriate notice, it is not that simple in practice.
This is even before we consider the extra work and expense for landlords. Which, at the end of the day, is likely to place upward pressure on rents.
In conclusion, while the basic idea behind imposing these frequent inspections is no doubt well meaning, it is inherently problematic. There is a risk that it will create new problems for diligent landlords and tenants in the area, while not being of much benefit to properties that actually need improvement.
Further information
At the time of writing Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s selective licensing scheme is still in consultation and this runs until 1 September. If you would like to contribute you can find it here:
The Council are likely to make a decision on the proposed scheme this November. If approved it would come into operation no sooner than March 2026.
