Wandsworth Council has taken enforcement action against several landlords for operating unsafe or unlawful rental properties ahead of sweeping changes to its licensing regime.
But while the council is keen to show it’s getting tough on substandard housing, its reluctance to share key details—including names, addresses, and even basic locations—has raised eyebrows.
In a press release issued Friday, the council announced that it had taken one case to tribunal involving an unlicensed house in Wandsworth Common where eight unrelated tenants were living. The property was not registered as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), as required under council rules. After a complaint by a former tenant, the managing agent agreed to pay a £5,000 settlement.
Two other cases were cited. In one, a landlord was fined more than £17,500 and served an Improvement Notice for letting an unlicensed HMO. In the other, a property had been split into two makeshift flats—each with a kitchen and bathroom crammed into the same room. That landlord received a Prohibition Order and agreed to stop renting out the home.
The council gave no information about the second or third cases beyond those brief descriptions—no street names, no wards, and no identification of the landlords or agents involved. Only the Wandsworth Common case included even a general location. That’s unusual for local government press releases about enforcement, which often include names and addresses to signal seriousness and act as a public deterrent.
A strategic silence?
The decision to withhold details appears to follow a significant misstep earlier this year. In April, the council issued a press release naming Bernard Margulies as the landlord behind a £43,000 planning enforcement case. That turned out to be incorrect—the individual fined was Charles Margulies. The press release, attributed to council leader Simon Hogg, was later removed from the council website and, according to Marguiles’ legal representative, an apology was issued. The council acknowledged the mistake and confirmed an internal review was underway but has not provided any more details.
It appears that as a result, the council has avoided naming individuals or giving location specifics—even in cases where the legal process has concluded and the council would normally have the right, and arguably the duty, to disclose. For those tracking housing standards and regulatory action, the absence of these details makes scrutiny difficult.
While the council may be exercising caution, the shift in approach is not exactly a sign of confidence. When licensing enforcement is meant to deter bad practice, the lack of public detail is an odd choice—especially when the council has the information, a valid legal basis to publish it, and a clear public interest argument for doing so.
Big changes on the way
The announcement comes just weeks ahead of a major expansion in Wandsworth’s rental licensing system. From 1 July, all shared houses with three or more unrelated tenants will require a licence across the borough. In four areas—Furzedown, South Balham, Tooting Bec and Tooting Broadway—every privately rented home, even those occupied by a single household, will now need a licence under a new selective licensing scheme.
Landlords in affected areas will be required to pay fees of up to £2,000 per property, meet legal safety standards, and supply documentation such as tenancy agreements and deposit protection. Civil penalties for non-compliance could reach £30,000.
The council says the goal is to raise standards, protect tenants, and give officials stronger powers to inspect properties and act on poor conditions. It has framed the licensing changes as part of a broader effort to hold landlords to account and drive up quality in the private rented sector, which now houses roughly a third of borough residents.
Promise vs. proof
Similar licensing schemes in other London boroughs have produced mixed results. Some have improved conditions and enforcement; others have been criticised as costly, bureaucratic, or poorly implemented. Legal challenges have followed where councils failed to justify their schemes with adequate evidence.
For Wandsworth—historically known for a more market-led, landlord-friendly approach—the shift represents a marked departure. But whether it brings about lasting improvements in housing conditions may depend less on the rules themselves and more on the council’s willingness and capacity to enforce them transparently.
