Bath Council consults on draft landlord penalty policy with proposed 50% uplift for ignoring allegation letters

Bath & North East Somerset Council is consulting on a revised enforcement and financial penalty policy that would allow a proposed uplift of up to 50% where a landlord fails to give a “substantive response” to a letter alleging an offence. The policy is not yet in force, but the draft wording is a clear warning that poor correspondence handling could count against a landlord if the council decides to impose a civil penalty.

According to reporting by Landlord Today, the draft sets out starting penalties of £12,000 for some electrical safety breaches and £20,000 for some failures to meet HMO fire safety standards. It also indicates that prolonged non-compliance in relation to Category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) may be treated seriously. Landlords should verify the latest wording on the Bath & North East Somerset Council consultation page before relying on summaries alone.

What is confirmed, and what is still only proposed

The consultation itself is real and current. The 50% uplift is still a proposal, not an adopted rule. That distinction matters. A landlord cannot assume the draft wording will survive unchanged, and equally should not ignore it on the basis that it is only a consultation.

The draft is described as part of a wider update linked to changes in the sector, but landlords should be careful not to treat local policy proposals as if they were the same thing as national legislation. If you plan to comment, check the council’s consultation page directly for the closing date and final draft text.

What counts as a “substantive response”

The draft wording focuses on a failure to provide a substantive response to an allegation letter. In practice, that is likely to mean more than a brief acknowledgement.

A sensible written response would usually include:

• the date of the reply
• the address of the property concerned
• a direct response to each alleged breach
• copies of relevant certificates, reports or invoices
• details of works already completed
• booked dates for outstanding works
• a named contact for follow-up

If a managing agent is involved, the landlord should still make sure there is a clear record of what was sent and when.

Electrical safety should be checked first

The proposed £12,000 starting point for some electrical safety breaches is high enough to justify an immediate file review. For most private rented homes in England, the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 require landlords to ensure that electrical installations are inspected and tested at least every five years, with further investigative or remedial work carried out within the period stated in the report where required.

Landlords with Bath property should pull the latest EICR for each address and check:

• the date of the last inspection
• whether any C1, C2 or FI items were identified
• whether remedial works were completed on time
• whether certificates and invoices are stored in one accessible file

If the council writes, being able to send that evidence the same day may help show cooperation.

HMO fire safety failures could attract the highest starting figures

The draft’s £20,000 starting figure for some HMO fire safety failures is the most striking number in the policy summary. For HMO landlords, this is the point to revisit both licence paperwork and the condition of the building itself.

That means checking:

• whether the property requires an HMO licence and whether it is current
• whether all licence conditions are being met
• smoke and heat alarm coverage
• fire doors and self-closers where required
• escape routes and compartmentation
• emergency lighting, if specified
• fire alarm and emergency lighting test records

For landlords with properties in more than one area, Bath may be a separate authority, but the practical lesson is transferable: councils tend to look closely at records, timescales and evidence of cooperation, not just the underlying defect.

Category 1 hazards need dated evidence of action

The draft reportedly treats non-compliance lasting more than six months as an aggravating factor in some cases involving Category 1 hazards under HHSRS. If a property has issues such as damp and mould, dangerous electrics, excess cold, serious trip hazards or fire risks, landlords should not wait for the matter to escalate.

Keep a simple chronology:

1. complaint received
2. inspection arranged
3. contractor instructed
4. works completed
5. tenant informed
6. evidence filed

If the council asks what happened, a dated paper trail is far more persuasive than a general assurance that the issue was being dealt with.

The biggest practical risk may be correspondence handling

Many enforcement problems get worse because letters or emails are missed internally. Post may go to an old address, an unmanaged mailbox or an agent’s general inbox. Landlords should put a written procedure in place now so that any council letter alleging a breach is:

• logged on the day it arrives
• escalated within 24 hours
• answered in writing
• supported by attachments where available
• copied to the landlord and retained centrally

For company landlords, one director or senior manager should have clear responsibility for enforcement correspondence.

Three useful actions to take now

Before the consultation closes, Bath landlords should consider three immediate steps:

1. Audit property files for EICRs, gas safety records, EPCs, HMO licences and proof of completed remedial works.
2. Create a response process for any allegation letter, including who drafts the reply, who approves it and where evidence is stored.
3. Read the consultation documents directly on the Bath & North East Somerset Council website before making assumptions about penalty levels or aggravating factors.

This article is general information, not legal advice.