A group of landlords has joined forces with letting agency Martin & Co to launch legal action against Leicester City Council, calling its £1,290 per property selective licensing fee “extortionate” and “astonishing.” The challenge, supported by JMP Solicitors, argues the council’s charges are disproportionate, unfair—and ultimately unlawful.
So far, 40 landlords have signed up to the campaign, with more expected to follow as the row over selective licensing costs intensifies. According to those behind the legal push, the steep fees are pushing responsible landlords to the brink, while tenants risk being caught in the financial crossfire through rising rents.
“This action is long overdue,” said Jason Smart, Director at JMP Solicitors. “It is affecting landlords and in turn, tenants who are bearing the cost.”
Fees far exceed other UK councils, say campaigners
Critics argue Leicester’s charges bear little resemblance to those seen elsewhere in the country. A Freedom of Information request revealed that the fee does not reflect the actual cost of running the scheme—a legal requirement for councils implementing selective licensing under the Housing Act 2004.
By comparison:
In Newham, London, landlords pay £750 for a five-year licence—with discounts reducing the figure to £650.
In Liverpool, base fees start from £680, with reductions for energy-efficient homes or accredited landlords bringing the cost down to £407.
Against that backdrop, Leicester’s £1,290 fee appears excessive. Campaigners say this is particularly unreasonable in a city where rental income is below average and many landlords are already under financial pressure.
“This is causing significant financial hardship for responsible landlords,” said Sam Smart, Director at Martin & Co Leicester. “We are urging more landlords to come forward and join our collective action against the council’s unjust practices.”
Transparency and fairness at the heart of the legal claim
The campaign’s central claim is that Leicester Council’s charges lack transparency and may breach legal requirements around proportionality and justification. Under current legislation, local authorities must not use licensing schemes as a revenue generator. Instead, fees should be based solely on the administrative cost of processing applications and monitoring compliance.
Martin & Co and JMP argue that Leicester’s fee structure raises serious questions about how the funds are being allocated. “We’re seeking to ensure the fees are fair, transparent and lawful,” Smart added.
The council, for its part, has yet to engage with the claim directly. A spokesperson said:
“We’ve had no contact from the solicitors referred to in the report, and no service of any claim, so can’t comment on the alleged legal action. The selective licensing scheme was introduced in Leicester in 2022.”
Landlords nationwide watch leicester case closely
Although this legal fight is localised, its outcome could have national consequences. Selective licensing has become a contentious tool for councils—seen by some as a way to improve standards, but by others as a thinly veiled tax on landlords that adds little real value.
For landlords already grappling with mounting regulation, inflation-linked mortgages, and EPC requirements, these licensing fees represent yet another financial hurdle. But this challenge could offer hope. If Leicester’s charges are found to be excessive or unlawful, other councils may be forced to reconsider their schemes.
The growing alliance of landlords in Leicester is a reminder that collective action can push back against overreach. Whether this claim results in compensation or reform, it’s clear that transparency, accountability, and respect for landlords’ contributions must remain central to any future licensing policy.
For now, all eyes are on Leicester.
