Civil penalty

A fine a council can impose on a landlord for a housing offence, without going to criminal court — separate from, and no guarantee of, any money finding its way back to the tenant.

Is a civil penalty the same as a Rent Repayment Order?

No, and the two are easy to confuse because the same bad conduct — an unlicensed HMO, for example — can trigger both. A civil penalty is a fine the local housing authority imposes on the landlord, and the money goes to the council. A Rent Repayment Order is a separate order, made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) on the tenant's own application, that requires the landlord to repay rent directly to the tenant. A council issuing a civil penalty does not automatically mean a tenant gets anything back — a tenant who wants money has to apply for a Rent Repayment Order themselves.

What is the maximum civil penalty a council can impose?

Up to £40,000 per offence for the main housing offences under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 — failing to licence an HMO, breaching HMO management regulations, failing to comply with an improvement notice, breaching a banning order, and similar failures. That maximum rose from £30,000 on 1 May 2026, when the Renters' Rights Act 2025 increased it. Some other, lesser housing offences carry a lower maximum, such as £7,000 for some of the new letting-discrimination offences. Always check which offence is in play before assuming the top figure applies.

Can the council prosecute me instead of, or as well as, issuing a civil penalty?

Instead of, not as well as, for the same conduct. Section 249A is deliberately structured as an alternative to prosecution: a local housing authority can either prosecute the offence in the criminal courts or impose a civil penalty, but not both for the same instance of the same offence. In practice most councils use civil penalties far more often than prosecution, because the burden and cost of a criminal trial is higher and the penalty itself can already run to tens of thousands of pounds.

How long does the council have to act after discovering the offence?

The notice of intent — the first formal step — must be served within 6 months of the date the authority had sufficient evidence of the offence, under Schedule 13A to the Housing Act 2004. This is not 6 months from when the offence happened; it runs from when the council had enough evidence to act, which can be later. If the council misses that window, it loses the right to impose a civil penalty for that conduct through this route, though other enforcement options may remain.

What can I do if I think the penalty is too high or wrongly imposed?

Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) within 28 days of the final notice. The appeal is a full re-hearing of the authority's decision, not a review limited to what the council knew at the time — the Tribunal can take into account matters that come to light afterwards, and can confirm, reduce, increase or cancel the penalty. Serving the appeal suspends the final notice, so you do not have to pay while it is pending. Get the notice of intent and the final notice themselves checked carefully: tribunal decisions have overturned penalties where the council's stated reasons were not clear enough for the landlord to respond to.

Does paying a civil penalty mean I can carry on letting the property as before?

Not necessarily. A civil penalty punishes past conduct; it does not by itself fix an ongoing problem such as an unlicensed HMO. The council can use other powers alongside or instead of a civil penalty, including requiring the property to be licensed, taking over management in serious cases, or applying for a banning order against a landlord with a history of housing offences. A civil penalty is one tool among several, not a one-off fee that buys a clean slate.

What a civil penalty is for

Not every breach of housing law ends up in a criminal court. Running an unlicensed House in Multiple Occupation, ignoring the conditions attached to an HMO licence, breaching the management regulations that apply to licensable properties, failing to carry out works required by an improvement notice, breaching a banning order, or committing unlawful eviction or harassment are all offences — but section 249A of the Housing Act 2004 gives the local housing authority a second route: impose a civil penalty instead of prosecuting.

The civil penalty route exists because criminal prosecution is slow, expensive, and carries a higher standard of proof in front of a different court, while a council officer with good evidence can usually get a civil penalty through its own internal process and, if challenged, a tribunal appeal. Parliament deliberately gave councils this option to make enforcement realistic rather than theoretical. The Renters' Rights Act 2025 leaned into this further: alongside raising the penalty ceiling, it extended civil penalties to new offences created by the Act itself, including the new letting-discrimination rules and breaches of the private rented sector database requirements.

How much a civil penalty can be

For the core s.249A offences — HMO licensing and management failures, breach of an improvement notice, breach of a banning order, and comparable failures under related housing legislation — the maximum penalty is £40,000 per offence. That ceiling rose from £30,000 on 1 May 2026, when the Renters' Rights Act 2025's increase took effect, so anything describing the cap as £30,000 is describing the position before that date. "Per offence" matters: a landlord running several unlicensed HMOs, or one HMO with several distinct breaches, can face more than one penalty.

Not every civil penalty sits at that top figure. Some of the newer offences created by the Renters' Rights Act 2025, including the letting-discrimination offences (refusing to let, or discouraging an application, because a prospective tenant receives benefits or has children), carry a lower maximum — up to £7,000. The council also has discretion within the maximum: its own published civil penalty policy sets out how it decides the actual figure, usually by reference to the severity and duration of the breach, the landlord's history, and whether the landlord cooperated once the issue was raised.

The process, step by step

Councils must have regard to statutory guidance published by central government when setting their own policies and deciding individual penalties, but each authority still sets its own figures within the statutory maximum, so the same breach can attract different penalties in different areas.

Why a civil penalty is not the same as money for the tenant

This is the point tenants most often get wrong. A civil penalty is a payment from the landlord to the council — it punishes the landlord and funds local enforcement; it does not compensate the tenant who actually lived with the unlicensed HMO, the unresolved hazard, or the harassment. If a tenant wants money back, the relevant route is usually a separate application for a Rent Repayment Order, made to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) by the tenant, which can order the landlord to repay rent directly to them.

The two can run side by side. The same unlicensed HMO can lead a council to impose a civil penalty on the landlord and, separately, allow the tenant who lived there to apply for a Rent Repayment Order covering rent paid during the period the property was unlicensed. Neither process automatically triggers the other — a tenant who only reports the landlord to the council, and does nothing else, may see the landlord fined without ever receiving anything themselves. If getting money back matters to you, you generally need to make your own application, not simply wait for the council's enforcement to produce a result for you.

A landlord lets a converted house to five unrelated tenants without ever applying for the mandatory HMO licence the property needs. A tenant reports the property to the council in March 2026 after a dispute over repairs. An environmental health officer inspects, confirms the licensing requirement was not met, and the council has sufficient evidence by May 2026.

Operating an unlicensed HMO (s.72, Housing Act 2004)

Notice of intent deadline

By November 2026 (6 months from sufficient evidence)

Representations period

28 days from notice of intent

Maximum civil penalty

The council serves a notice of intent proposing a £12,000 penalty, reflecting the length of the unlicensed period and the number of occupants, but short of the maximum because this is the landlord's first recorded breach. The landlord makes representations disputing the amount, the council reduces it slightly, and issues a final notice for £10,000. The landlord does not appeal and pays within the stated period. Separately, the tenant who reported the HMO applies to the First-tier Tribunal for a Rent Repayment Order covering the months the property was unlicensed — a claim entirely independent of the council's £10,000 penalty, and one the tenant has to bring themselves.

Rent Repayment Order (RRO)

HMO — House in Multiple Occupation

Housing Act 2004, section 249A

Housing Act 2004, Schedule 13A

Renters' Rights Act 2025

Civil penalties under the Renters' Rights Act 2025 and other housing legislation

Evicting tenants in England

Civil Penalty (Housing Offences) — Renters' Rights Glossary

What a civil penalty is under section 249A of the Housing Act 2004, the current £40,000 maximum, the notice-of-intent and appeal process, and how it differs from a Rent Repayment Order.