Propertymark has challenged proposed landlord-penalty uplifts in Bath and North East Somerset and Gosport, arguing that portfolio size and a missed council letter should not automatically increase a fine.
Its response, published on 14 September, addresses two live private-rented-sector enforcement consultations. The trade body accepts penalties for deliberate, serious or repeated failures, but says councils should distinguish those cases from isolated administrative errors or prompt remedial action.
Bath’s draft policy is particularly important because it would add adjustments for factors including landlord type, portfolio size and experience. Owners and agents have a limited opportunity to scrutinise the approach before local policies translate wider enforcement powers into day-to-day financial risk.
Bath proposal puts uplifts under scrutiny
Bath and North East Somerset has proposed starting penalties of £20,000 for failures to complete required electrical remedial work and for serious HMO fire-safety or amenity breaches. Its consultation also sets out aggravating and mitigating adjustments, including a proposed 20 percent change linked to landlord type, portfolio size and experience.
Propertymark’s new response says a larger portfolio should not, by itself, mean an otherwise identical breach attracts a higher financial penalty. It also argues that a failure to reply to a council letter should not automatically be treated as deliberate non-cooperation, particularly where no immediate tenant risk is involved.
The distinction is material. A council can properly target serious safety failings, but a framework that treats scale as a shortcut for culpability could widen the gap between the underlying breach and the final fine. Landlords facing an investigation need a clear route to show what happened, what they did to put it right and whether a risk to occupiers actually existed.
Gosport response calls for clearer landlord guidance
At Gosport, Propertymark has asked for plain-English summaries, checklists and worked examples alongside the proposed enforcement policy. It says the documents are legally and technically detailed, while landlords, agents and tenants need to understand what evidence is needed and how a case will progress.
The organisation also wants the council to explain how it will use the updated Housing Health and Safety Rating System, which took effect in June 2026, when assessing hazards and deciding enforcement action. That is a practical point for landlords: the quality of inspection records, repair instructions and communication with the tenant may shape both the finding and any sanction.
This follows Landlord Knowledge’s August report on Propertymark’s warning over £40,000 penalties and licensing risk. Today’s response adds a narrower test: local policies should account for harm, risk, culpability and remedial action rather than rely on automatic escalators.
Consultation responses are a warning, not a rule change
Neither response changes a landlord’s existing legal duties. Bath and Gosport remain responsible for their final policies, and Propertymark’s position is not a legal ruling. But it shows where the next argument over local enforcement is likely to sit: not whether councils can fine, but how consistently they explain the calculation and allow for evidence of compliance.
Landlords can compare this debate with Bristol’s move to fines of up to £35,000, which highlighted how quickly local enforcement policies can raise the cost of poor records and unresolved hazards. The sensible response is not to assume a warning will always be available, but to keep safety evidence and repair decisions ready before an officer asks for them.
Propertymark’s full consultation response on housing enforcement sets out its recommendations for Bath and Gosport in more detail.
What this means for landlords
- If you receive a council request: respond promptly, keep a dated record and provide the documents requested, even where the issue appears administrative.
- If a hazard is identified: record the inspection, repair instruction and completion evidence so any remedial action can be demonstrated.
- Watch for: final Bath and Gosport policies, particularly the treatment of aggravating factors, portfolio size and cooperation.
- Bottom line: local enforcement is becoming more detailed, so evidence of risk management and prompt repairs is increasingly valuable.
Editor’s view
There is a reasonable case for higher penalties where a landlord has put occupants at risk or ignored repeated warnings. The difficult part is ensuring that a council’s formula measures the breach rather than simply the size of the business it is dealing with.
Author: Editorial Team – UK landlord & buy-to-let news, policy, and finance
Published: 14 September 2026
Sources: Propertymark
Related reading: Propertymark warns £40,000 penalties raise licensing risk
