Wandsworth Council is expanding its landlord licensing scheme to three more wards from April despite refusing to provide evidence showing whether the existing scheme works.
The expansion to East Putney, West Putney and Northcote will require thousands more landlords to pay £850 fees that will likely be passed to tenants through higher rents. For a council facing serious budget pressures, the millions already collected represents substantial income – making transparency about effectiveness even more critical.
But when Putney.news requested basic data about which properties have been inspected and what hazards were found since the scheme launched in July, the council refused claiming disclosure would prejudice “live enforcement investigations.”
The council announced the expansion on Monday, stating that 444 inspections have uncovered “serious safety hazards” and resulted in 85 enforcement notices. Yet it won’t say which properties, what hazards, or whether notices were complied with.
The council is marketing this expansion using language like “early-bird discount” – as if paying £850 to legally rent your property is a consumer choice you can “take advantage of” rather than mandatory compliance with penalty charges for delay. While the current council administration clearly believes licensing schemes deliver genuine benefit to tenants and landlords, the economic reality is that landlords pass these costs to tenants, imposing a regulatory burden that adds costs without clear justification.
The evidence vacuum
The council may well have found serious safety problems. Licensing schemes can improve housing standards when properly enforced. But when you’re expanding to more wards and passing costs to tenants through higher rents, residents deserve to see the evidence.
On 14 November, Putney.news asked which properties were inspected, what hazards were found, and whether enforcement notices were complied with. On 1 December, the council refused claiming disclosure would prejudice “live enforcement investigations.”
Yet the council is actively publicising these inspection results in press releases. If the information is sensitive enough to withhold under Freedom of Information law, why is it safe to announce in public statements?
A month after requesting basic transparency, the council still won’t provide specific data showing the scheme is working, but expects residents to accept expansion and higher housing costs on trust. Transparency isn’t just good practice when imposing new costs on residents, it’s the basic bargain.
The council’s licensing scheme began in July covering all HMOs borough-wide plus single rental properties in four wards: South Balham, Furzedown, Tooting Bec and Tooting Broadway.
The progression of council press releases shows rapid expansion without verification:
June 20, 2025: Announced scheme launching July 1, highlighting cases of eight unrelated tenants in an unlicensed property and “combined kitchen and bathroom” conversions.
November 11, 2025: Claimed “110+ inspections” resulting in “40+ formal notices,” citing examples including “dangerously undersized bedrooms” and properties lacking fire doors.
December 15, 2025: Now states “444 inspections” and “85 notices served,” while announcing expansion to three additional wards and urging landlords to pay before the “early-bird” deadline.
The press releases offer examples of problems found: dangerous bedrooms, missing fire safety equipment, structural issues. But they don’t name specific properties, provide compliance data, or demonstrate that licensed properties have become measurably safer.
The costs and the language
The council’s announcement emphasises that landlords “have until 31 December 2025 to take advantage of the early-bird discount” before fees increase.
For selective licensing covering single rental properties in the affected wards, landlords can pay £697 if they apply by the end of December, or £850 after. For properties requiring additional HMO (Houses in Multiple Occupation) licenses, the choice is £1,189 now or £1,450 later.
The council calls this a “discount” but landlords aren’t getting 30 per cent off, they’re avoiding a 30 per cent surcharge for not complying quickly enough with a legal requirement. It’s penalty avoidance, not a benefit.
A landlord facing an £850 licensing fee (or £697 if paid by December 31) will likely pass that cost to tenants through higher rent. Divided over a five-year license period, that’s £140-170 per year, or roughly £12-14 per month added to rent, before accounting for any repair costs required to pass inspection.
Multiply this across the expanded wards and thousands of tenants face higher housing costs. Whether they receive £850 worth of safety improvements in return remains unclear, because the council won’t say.
When we covered the scheme’s launch in June, the concern was that “higher compliance and compulsory fees could be used to justify rent increases in an already expensive market.” Six months later, those predictions appear well-founded.
Since launching in July, the scheme has generated substantial income for the council. With 5,955 license applications received to date – comprising roughly 4,000 selective licenses and 2,000 HMO licenses based on the ward coverage – the council has collected approximately £5-6 million in fees.
The fee structure includes two payments: Part A covers “processing and administration” while Part B covers “management and enforcement.” Notably, Part A is non-refundable even if the council refuses to grant a license. For selective licensing, that’s £510 the council keeps regardless of outcome.
The council offers various “discounts” for landlords who meet higher standards but achieving these standards typically costs far more than the discount saves, meaning landlords will likely pass all costs to tenants anyway.
The pattern
This isn’t the first time Wandsworth has announced enforcement while withholding specifics.
The council’s June press release touted enforcement actions – £5,000 settlements, £17,500 fines – without naming a single property or landlord, even in concluded cases where legal proceedings have finished.
In November, we highlighted the council prosecuting private landlords for fire safety failures identical to those documented at council-owned housing estates: a double standard in enforcement transparency.
The licensing scheme extends this pattern: announce “serious safety hazards,” claim “swift action,” collect millions in fees, refuse to provide data showing whether it’s working, then expand anyway.
The council has not published:
- Cost-benefit analysis of the licensing scheme
- Modelling of rent impact on tenants
- Geographic pattern of properties failing inspections (justifying expansion to specific wards)
- Compliance rates (what percentage of served notices led to actual improvements)
- Comparison data (whether licensed properties have fewer hazards than before)
- Revenue allocation (where the millions go)
From April, thousands more tenants in East Putney, West Putney and Northcote will begin paying higher rents to cover landlord licensing fees. The council should either provide the evidence that justifies these costs, or explain why residents should pay for a scheme it refuses to prove is working.
