18 Feb 2026
Des Taylor, Landlords Licensing & Defence
Two notices of intent to impose a Financial Penalty landed on a landlord’s desk in November 2025
The allegations were operating an unlicensed mandatory HMO under section 72 Housing Act 2004 and breaching multiple HMO Management Regulations under section 234.
The proposed civil penalties totalled £30,000.
The property had been let as a single-family dwelling.
There was no evidence from the PACE interview that the landlord knew it had allegedly become an HMO.
No admission.
No documentary proof of knowledge.
No evidential foundation establishing intent.
Civil penalties require strict adherence to statutory process.
The alleged breaches were not properly particularised.
Broad references to “multiple regulations” were made without identifying specific duties or evidencing individual failures.
The Notices did not clearly specify the dates of the alleged offences.
Offence dates determine limitation, liability period and application of the council’s own penalty matrix.
Precision is not optional in enforcement.
Both Notices were withdrawn for defect before any Final Notice was issued.
The matter was dismantled at the Notice of Intent stage because the evidential threshold had not been met and the statutory framework had not been properly applied.
Representation in enforcement cases requires calm analysis, technical accuracy and disciplined legal argument.
If you receive a Notice of Intent, the stage at which you respond can determine the outcome.
Early intervention protects position and prevents escalation.
Call now to book a diagnostic call: 0208 088 3484
