Portsmouth’s Additional Licensing Review – Good Or Bad?

 Last month Portsmouth City Council's (PCC) Cabinet reviewed and agreed a document which summarised the effectiveness of the Additional Licensing scheme after criticism from us. Although it was independently created and funded by central government, we argued that the document and its presentation in the press was grossly misleading and failed to recognise the failings of the scheme. Read on to see why.

Background

Portsmouth City Council brought in a city-wide Additional Licensing scheme on 1 September 2023 under the Housing Act 2004.
– It applies to HMOs with three or four occupants forming two or more households (so just very small HMOs) and also to 'Section 257' properties which are largely older houses which were converted into flats before the mid-1990's
– Licences are issued for one year, two-and-a-half years, or five years, subject to compliance criteria.

The scheme's stated aims are to improve safety, management standards, and curb "out-of-control" HMO growth. 

Independent Assurance Review: Key Findings

 An MHLCG-funded review (March 2025) presented to PCC's Cabinet concluded:

• Portsmouth is not an HMO "outlier" compared to peers such as Bristol and Southampton.
• PCC's tiered licensing model rewards compliant landlords with lower fees.
• Enforcement operates via a clear "ladder of escalation," deemed more transparent than many councils.
• Overall approach described as "more sophisticated" and increasingly popular among local authorities.

The review made recommendations around:

1. Refining fee structures and licence terms
2. Streamlining application workflows
3. Further communication on enforcement thresholds

Press Coverage

The local press, The News, covered the Cabinet meeting approving the document mentioning that the PDPLA had raised concerns but failed to talk to us in publishing a very 'pro-PCC' piece supporting the Licensing scheme. See it here.

We raised our concerns with said reporter, Toby Paine, at The News pointing out that for us, this smacked of the council marking their own homework.

Toby allowed us to respond, quite sensibly asking questions such as "You've said PCC's licensing scheme is unreasonable and different from other councils, but the review found it's in line with national trends and similar to schemes in places like Bristol and Southampton. What makes you think Portsmouth's approach is so different?" and we responded with a detailed and lengthy answer on each of his questions – each and every point supported by factual evidence, not anecdotes.

When talking to journalists, one always hopes for an investigative reporter who will accept the facts offered, verify them, challenge both sides to respond or clarify their position and then to write a piece which analyses the issue from several perspectives and clarifies what has actually happened and where it is leading – sadly, in today's world journalists on provincial newspapers do not have that luxury, being on a treadmill of an article a day or more, so what was printed in the news was presented as Martin Silman's personal view rather than something more reflective of the research that had been undertaken by a wide range of PDPLA members or any analysis or corroboration of that research. 

Why PDPLA Believes the Review Is Misleading

 Despite the review's positive tone, PDPLA identified five critical flaws:

1. Landlord Feedback Was Overlooked

• Over 50 local landlords participated; every respondent flagged major scheme concerns.
• The review characterises feedback as "balanced," downplaying unanimous negativity.

2. Loss of Affordable Housing Stock

• Scheme costs and complexity drove many small landlords out of Portsmouth.
• PDPLA analysis shows a net reduction of several thousand lettable rooms since September 2023.
• Fewer rooms have led to higher rents and fuelled demand for larger HMOs, concentrating tenancies in north Portsmouth

3. Excessive Bureaucracy and Fees

• Portsmouth's additional-licensing form spans 84 pages—quadruple the length of Bristol's 20-minute form.
• Standard licences last only 2.5 years; landlords must satisfy extra conditions (e.g., accreditation, EPCs) and pay further fees to secure a five-year term.
• Despite the review labelling fees "mid-range," the short licence duration effectively forces repeat payments.

4. Trivial Enforcement Actions

• PCC cites "hundreds of property improvements" but many relate to minor issues: missing door-closers, ambiguous signage, low-priority décor tweaks.
• Tenants report no meaningful safety or amenity gains proportionate to the scheme's cost and disruption.

5. Questionable Legal and Strategic Basis

• The review accepts PCC's claim that HMO growth was unchecked—but local planning data never supported this.
• PDPLA has identified at least one instance where PCC's renewal demands breach the 2012 regulations and a High Court ruling on licence renewals.
• Poor communication has seem landlords fined for genuine ignorance of the schemes existence.

Supporting Examples

The Evidence

We argued that the 'HMO Additional Licensing Assurance' document which was presented to PCC's Cabinet in July was a whitewash. Whilst we accept that it was independently funded and produced, I believe that PCC officers have obfuscated and very selectively presented and interpreted data disingenuously to achieve this outcome.

A simple example, the report states that "During our review, we heard that some changes had been made to the documentation around the scheme, as a direct result of PDPLA feedback. This included changes to questions on the application form process, some minor changes to conditions, and updates to the website for landlords". This presents a very different perspective to the reality. Taking the 'minor changes to conditions', the PDPLA held at least 5 meetings with PCC staff and countless emails requesting that the Licence Conditions as written were open to interpretation and could leave landlords open to criminal convictions through no fault of their own. We had issues with the majority of the 36 conditions. After many hours of discussion and multiple email exchanges, the ONLY changes that were made was a correction to 2 obvious mistakes – they had used an incorrect term for a 'gas safe engineer' and also their definition of the qualifications required to 'PAT test' the electrical safety of portable appliances was incorrect. All the rest of our concerns were ignored which is why we had to take PCC to court on these issues and that process is ongoing.

We have always had two major issues. Firstly, the scheme should never have been introduced – it applies only to 3 and 4 bed HMOs and as we highlighted at the time, no evidence was ever presented that there was a city-wide issue with small HMOs. It was also introduced in the belief that HMO growth was out of control based on numbers which were never supported by any local evidence – in fact, every possible PCC data point, from refuse collection, to previous Licensing to Council Tax all pointed to considerably fewer HMOs than claimed by PCC staff. Our second issue is that the scheme as built could not have been more bureaucratic and cumbersome and we directly attribute the introduction of the scheme to the virtual wipe out of small HMOs in the city and the loss of thousands of affordable rooms as a result.

The News asked us 4 questions:

1. You've said PCC's licensing scheme is unreasonable and different from other councils, but the review found it's in line with national trends and similar to schemes in places like Bristol and Southampton. What makes you think Portsmouth's approach is so different?

Southampton has just approved an Additional Licencing Scheme to be introduced in October but does not have one currently in place. There were no plans when the review took place so how can PCC claim similarity? Southampton will introduce a scheme for several wards only, not city wide as in Portsmouth. Southampton issues 5-year licences as standard for Mandatory HMOs and will when the new Additional scheme comes into effect, whereas Portsmouth will offer a 1, 2.5 or 5 year licence depending on their complex rules. When you go down a layer, you will find Portsmouth expect much more stringent adherence to their space and amenity standards – for example, you must have a full-size wash basin in an ensuite that has a dedicated shower, Southampton do not and are generally much more realistic in these areas. Another example, Portsmouth insists on certain maximum gaps in stair rails in HMOs (which rarely house children) whereas rails which exceed allowable size appear in council houses and blocks housing families with children all over the city. Indeed, those outside the Civic Offices do not comply.

Bristol only introduced Additional licencing in August 2024, so far too early to say that works well. Bristol claim it takes about 20 minutes to complete an application form. Whereas, completing Portsmouth's online application form takes at least 4 hours. PCC admit that if printed, the questionnaire runs to 84 pages – it takes 4 times as long to apply for an HMO licence as it does to apply for a passport, a driving licence AND complete the paperwork to sell a house. Bristol issue 5-year licences as standard, with a discount off the fee where either the licence holder or manager is accredited whereas Portsmouth have a much more complex 3-tier licensing system which ensures most landlords have to go through the whole application process at least twice during a 5-year period.

Based on the above, we continue to assert that the Portsmouth system is considerably more complex, bureaucratic, and difficult to negotiate than either Southampton or Bristol, to take those examples, and argue that things are complicated further because the implementation has been so poorly handled, resulting in a hugely complicated and cumbersome solution.

2. The review found that PCC's licensing fees are mid-range compared to other councils and give discounts to landlords who follow the rules. What kind of fee system would PDPLA consider to be fair and workable?

Portsmouth offered discounts in their 2013-18 licencing scheme for those who signed up to their accreditation scheme, but there have not been any discounts available for several years.

Portsmouth now has a punitive 3-tier fee structure. A landlord whose property would previously qualify for a 5-year licence now only gets a 2.5-year licence as standard, for the "mid-range" fee. The threshold to fall into the category for a 1-year licence is far lower than most councils, and the threshold to get into the most cost-effective 5-year bracket much tougher than most councils.

At the same time as introducing the tougher rules on accreditation, PCC both cancelled its own accreditation scheme and announced that that those landlords previously accredited by PCC themselves would not qualify for a 5-year licence without some other form of accreditation.

Unlike Bristol, PCC does NOT accept the accreditation of the managing agent, the licence holder themself needs to be accredited. This is unfair on elderly landlords who have been letting well-managed HMOs for decades. Either they pay licence fees twice every 5 years, or they need assistance to become accredited when the property is already professionally managed.

Saying Portsmouth fees are mid-range does not take account of the fact that the standard licence duration in Portsmouth is 2.5 years, not 5 years. There are extra costs for landlords who jump through the hoops to obtain a 5-year licence.

Those who fall into the 1 year or 2.5-year categories are expected to pay the £180 application fee each time even though all their information and information of the property will be on record, so we see this as simply a money-making scheme with no benefit to tenants but with significant costs and bureaucracy for landlords.

Even the hundreds of the professionally managed flats within purpose-built student halls have not been granted 5-year licences because the criteria are essentially so arbitrary.

Those with Section 257 buildings (typically flats in converted houses) are worst affected by the wacky rules, only 54% of S257 building owners have been able to secure a 5-year licence.

Despite just a 1% increase in large HMOs and a net loss of around 2,000 smaller ones, most landlords denied a 5-year licence are simply renewing existing licences. They've operated HMOs for years without enforcement issues and have previously qualified for 5-year licences without concern. The only plausible explanation for withholding licences from compliant landlords is to boost PCC revenue and sustain an expanded PCC workforce. Unfortunately, these added costs are passed directly to tenants, driving up rents.

A fair and workable solution would be a standard 5-year licence with reductions in fees for those landlords who have an appropriate accreditation (where a managing agents accreditation counts) and for those who use 3^rd party inspectors to ensure the quality of their properties (as is the case in Southampton).

3. PDPLA has claimed that the council is acting unlawfully and unfairly. But the review didn't find any evidence of this. Does the PDPLA still maintain this position?

There are many examples we could use – perhaps a simple one to start with is the regulations introduced in 2012 with the aim to "reduce the information requirements for applications for the renewal of licences for HMOs", that is: The Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Amendment)(England) Regulations 2012. It defines a reduced amount of information that can be requested at licence renewal. This was tested in the High Court in 2017: Gaskin, R v Richmond Upon Thames LBC [2017] EWHC 3234 (Admin) where the Judge (at para 37) made clear that the local authority cannot insist on information beyond that defined by the 2012 regs.

To renew a 5-year mandatory licence, a landlord in Portsmouth must complete an online form with a huge number of required fields which are not defined in the 2012 regs, and it takes many hours to complete. Portsmouth simply do not offer a renewal form that is compliant with the 2012 regs.

There are many other examples.

One of our members, Liz, had an HMO with 4 long-term tenants which had been perfectly acceptable to PCC in the previous (2013-18) round of licencing. This time around, PCC added a condition that the landlord needed to evict one of the tenants because they thought the lounge was too small. The landlord appealed that decision to the First Tier Tribunal, which is the appropriate legal path for such disputes. The First-tier Tribunal had two well-qualified surveyors on the panel as well as a judge, and they found the house to be suitable for the 4 people and reversed PCC's decision – confirming that PCC had acted unlawfully. However, PCC have refused to accept the court's decision and have appealed to the Upper Tribunal still wanting the landlord to evict someone from a safe home where that individual has stated they are happy and would like to stay. The same property in Southampton, Brighton, Bristol or anywhere else would be perfectly suitable for 4 people and if it were a new build house, would be considerably larger than is required to accommodate that many individuals.

Details on this specific case here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67cf0c0e75d299c71177bd14/87_Binsteed_Rd_25_Feb_HP.pdf where the court stated "condition restricting the use of the property to 3 occupants is not reasonable". These actions are forcing local landlords to spend thousands appealing unreasonable decisions which are unfair (and again, impacts rents). Sadly, PCC defend these cases with expensive London barristers which we would argue is not a good use of taxpayers money.

Uniquely in the country, as far as we can tell, PCC require HMO landlords to give their contact details to neighbours of their properties. One of our members, Caroline, has been stalked by such a neighbour previously and had to get the Police involved. Another has had death-threats. These landlords made formal representations to PCC not to have that condition on their licences giving their reasons and PCC refused.

Looking at Tribunal hearings since 2018, Portsmouth have had 32 compared to Southampton's 12 – which supports our view that it is harder for landlords to offer homes in Portsmouth as the rules are unfair, harder to comply with and at times not lawful.

And on the unfairly point, would you agree that if you were a landlord whose property was registered under the previous additional licensing scheme from 2013-18 and you had been paying council tax as an HMO since before 2010, you would be upset if the first you heard about the new licensing scheme was when a council officer turned up at your HMO and told your tenants that you were an unlicensed landlord and the tenants should take their landlord to court asking for rent repayment from when the licensing scheme was introduced? Rob is one such landlord, he lives in Oxford but visits his property once or twice a month and has always managed it to a high standard – he was fined £7,500 exactly in this way even though there was no way he would know about the new scheme and had assumed PCC would tell him if local regulations changed.

Isolated incident? Meet Sally and John, they spend their time between their local home and their NZ home and have been fined £10,000 in exactly the same situation.

These are not rogue landlords – they are local landlords who have offered quality homes in the city for nearly 20 years and in both examples, they have sold or are selling as they do not want the stress, expense, hassle and perceived unfairness of dealing with PCC ever again.

4. You've used anecdotal evidence that licensing is leading to fewer HMOs and higher rents. Would PDPLA support an independent review of how licensing is affecting the local housing market, as suggested in the report?

Beyond anecdotal evidence, data most recently published by PCC shows 3-4 bed HMOs in the city have halved in number since 2018. That's not licencing alone, but the combined effect of Article 4, Licencing, and the wider UK trend in landlords retiring and de-leveraging. However, it is hard to argue against the view that the anti-landlord stance of PCC, the high cost both financial and bureaucratic of getting an HMO licence and the rigorous and in our view, unnecessary expectations of PCC are a major contributor if not the final straw which wiped out small affordable HMOs in the city.

An independent review is most likely to say that there are too many other factors to quantify the effect of licencing, but to see that local policy has a local effect, this chart from the ONS is really telling:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E06000044/#rent_price

We would want any independent review to be clearly independent – a local government officer interviewing PCC staff as was done for the document approved last week is far from an independent review and we would argue, based on our exposure to the process that the civil servant who compiled the report was as ill-qualified to do so as PCC appear to be in crafting a scheme aimed at improving the standard of HMOs in the city.

And this last point is key – the stated objective of the HMO additional licensing scheme in Portsmouth is to improve the standard of housing in this sector in the city. We would argue that is the question any independent review should focus on. We can say the current solution is unnecessary, cumbersome, expensive, ill crafted and unworkable and in parts illegal and grossly unfair all day long and PCC will argue it is not. Any follow-on review must answer the fundamental question as to whether this scheme was ever needed and if it was, what it has done to improve housing in the city.

So yes, we would fully support further review, but it would need to be unarguably independent – not civil servants protecting civil servants – and should include taking extensive evidence and input from a wide range of PRS providers. 

PDPLA Recommendations

1. Suspend the Additional Licensing scheme pending robust, independent cost-benefit analysis.
2. Introduce a standard five-year licence with a single fee, reducing renewals and bureaucracy.
3. Simplify the application form to under 20 pages, aligning with Bristol and Southampton practices.
4. Target genuine risks—prioritise critical safety standards over minor amenity issues.
5. Engage meaningfully with landlords via an independent panel to co-produce any future licensing policy.

Portsmouth landlords are encouraged to join PDPLA's upcoming meeting on 8^th September 2025 at 7.30 pm where are main speakers are the PCC Private Sector Housing team updating us on Additional Licensing in the city.