How the Renters’ Rights Act is Changing Housing Enforcement Policies – and the Issues Arising
One of the implications of the new Renters’ Rights Act – and one that has perhaps not received much consideration so far – is the changes that will need to be made to local authority private sector housing enforcement policies.
Currently local authorities are at various stages of updating these policies. But already it seems apparent this is likely to pose a number of issues for enforcement going forward.
In putting together this report we have looked at a selection of both draft and adopted policies, and associated reports, from local authorities around the country. And we have tried to identify some of the issues and problems that authorities are occupied with.
Introduction
It is by no means unusual for local authorities to update their enforcement policies periodically. Some issued new policies as recently as last year, even as the RRA was close to being finalised.
The RRA, however, has brought this to the top of their ‘to do’ lists. The new law brings new offences, new ways of enforcing, new investigatory powers and the likelihood there will be more complaints and more offences.
All these must be taken account of in enforcement policies.
Why do policies need to change?
The local authorities we reviewed reports from discussed whether to completely renew their policies, to amend them – or even do nothing for now.
A number of reasons have been put forward as to why inaction is not an option:
The RRA brings in new duties to enforce, not just the power to. This particularly applies to landlord legislation under section 107 of the RRA.
For example, authorities must enforce in cases of illegal eviction.
The RRA has brought in a new approach to enforcement. For example, some local authorities have preferred to give support and seek voluntary compliance in the past. But this may no longer be possible where an offence has been committed. Formal action will have to be taken.
Local authorities are concerned about reputational risk if they enforce the RRA ineffectively.
Local authorities could be found in breach of their statutory duties if they do not have up to date and robust policies.
Ultimately their decisions could be subject to judicial review.
There is a risk actions (for example notices and civil penalties) could be legally challenged if authorities do not have up to date and robust policies for implementing them.
The RRA brings in new requirements for local authorities to report on their enforcement activities to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The challenges involved
It is clear that updating these policies is not a simple task. Let’s take a look at some of the challenges involved.
The RRA does not exist in isolation. It works alongside other laws such as the Housing Act 2004 and Planning Act 2016.
The new PRS Ombudsman and PRS Database are expected to be unveiled this autumn. Details of these are still fairly limited.
Updated housing enforcement policies in light of the RRA also need to work alongside other local housing policies, which vary from authority to authority.
For example, in the reports we have looked at some authorities cross-reference their HMO policies, while others do not.
At least one authority (Brighton and Hove City Council) pointed out that, while the new regime applies to tenancies under the former ASTs and not social tenancies, there could be overlap in some situations. For example, where local authorities contract PRS property for temporary accommodation.
Changes to the HHSRS are coming soon.
There are a myriad of other changes, either recent or in the pipeline, which enforcement policies must allow for. Briefly these include building safety, fire safety, smoke/carbon dioxide alarms, electrical safety and Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES).
Some local authorities looked at drafting their new enforcement policies very loosely. Then delegating powers to make future changes as and when needed to individual council portfolio holders or officers. This is a pragmatic approach perhaps but it does hold potential to make enforcement across different authorities more inconsistent.
On the other hand, enforcement policies already vary considerably from area to area. Some authorities have talked about the ‘postcode lottery’ that this creates. They have looked at co-operating with other authorities – or third party bodies – to adopt standardised, model policies. An example of this is discussed in the next section.
Most looal authorities pointed out that the risks the new regime poses will need to be continually monitored, addressed and managed.
An interesting case study – civil penalties
The RRA has introduced a significantly expanded civil penalty regime. It places new duties on authorities to enforce a wider range of laws. It includes enhanced penalties for repeat or serious offences. It introduces a clearer expectation for enforcement to be fair, consistent and proportionate.
The existing civil penalty regime is already something of a postcode lottery – with inconsistencies in the way they are applied, assessed and evidenced. Clearly the new requirements hold potential to make it even more so. This could make civil penalties more open to challenge, and make it difficult for authorities to show that they are meeting their responsibilities to enforce.
Several authorities have suggested that the existing way of setting policy here – the Regulators’ Code – is no longer an appropriate way of setting policy on civil penalties.
Authorities report that they are looking at adopting the national model policies being developed in partnership with the Association of Chief Environmental Health Officers (ACEHO) and the Justice for Tenants organisation.
These model policies include a civil penalty policy, and an enforcement policy, with a further policy on civil penalty debt recovery anticipated. They include so-called civil penalty generator software.
The transition between old and new
The transition between the two systems could prove to be a confusing time for landlords, tenants and enforcement alike. Local authorities have debated whether, in the early months of the RRA, breaches of the law will be dealt with under the old or new regimes.
A broad consensus is that there will be a ‘tandem’ arrangement for at least the first six months. Offences will be dealt with according to the regime that was in place when they were committed – not necessarily that in force when they are dealt with.
The implications for financial and human resources
The additional resources needed to enforce the RRA are, needless to say, a major concern for many in housing.
New Burdens funding has been made available from the MHCLG. In April the government announced £41 million of funding – on top of £18 million announced last year – to be shared between over 300 local authorities.
Let’s take in a few thoughts:
Brighton and Hove City Council say, interestingly: ‘The adoption of the revised Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy does not create additional funding needs. It is a clarification rather than expanding the scope of services.’
Uttlesford District Council said it received £20,371 in new burdens funding in 2025/26.
Pendle Borough Council received £33,085 in 2025/26, and expects £43,705 for 2026/27 and £20,578 for 2027/28. It says: ‘Beyond this it is unlikely that further funding will be available.’
These last two are not large authorities perhaps but neither are the awards.
Of course, the RRA offers an opportunity to raise additional income for enforcement from civil penalties. It may be ring fenced for this purpose. However, at least one authority pointed out in their report that ‘this income is uncertain and cannot be built into the budget’.
As to human resources, several authorities pointed out that they already have a shortage of skilled personnel, and enforcement of the RRA is likely to exacerbate this problem. They emphasised the need to both retain and recruit more staff. Interestingly they also suggest that there might be a need to triage requests for assistance and implement a prioritisation process with cases.
Some final thoughts
It’s clear that the RRA will generate a huge volume of additional work for local authorities and their housing officers. Some might suspect the politicians who brought in the new law did not really give too much consideration to the implications of this.
Updating policies is just the start. There are new systems, training, implementation and monitoring to do, to say nothing of the actual enforcement on the ground.
Housing enforcement is already a stressed service in most places. Both in terms of financial and human resources. Enforcing the RRA will be costly in both. The additional financial support being provided is modest. Perhaps more crucially it is unclear where the additional personnel will materialise from.
There are a few positives to take from our research.
Many local authorities seem to be fairly ‘on the ball’ when it comes to recognising the challenges the RRA brings for enforcement. Even if the actual enforcement will not be so simple.
Another possible positive is the moves that are being made to standardise some policies across local authorities. That might bring benefits for everyone.
Ultimately though there is a very big elephant in the room, and many of the reports we looked at drew attention to this: As well as changing to a new system there will be more rules to enforce and there will likely be more complaints and cases to deal with. Added to the fact that most local authorities are not really sure how many PRS properties are under their jurisdiction.
So, even if these new policies are robust, authorities are facing an unknown amount of enforcement work – and enforcing against an unknown quantity – in the years ahead.
