Wandsworth Council used routine fire safety fixes – missing alarms, broken door locks – to justify a controversial licensing expansion, describing them with language suggesting serious enforcement before refusing to disclose details for two months.
The Council’s 11 November press release highlighted three “unsafe rental properties” where it claimed to have issued “legal notices and/or formal warnings,” including a Putney property with a “dangerously undersized bedroom” lacking “basic fire safety features.”
Documents obtained only after Putney.news challenged the Council’s refusal reveal both landlords fixed standard compliance issues through informal warnings – not the serious statutory enforcement the press release suggested. The “dangerously undersized bedroom” doesn’t appear in the actual enforcement documents.
The licensing expansion costs landlords £1,040 for HMO licenses and £580 for selective licenses – revenue-generating powers the Council justified using these three showcase cases. The scheme has generated an estimated £6.3 million from nearly 6,000 applications since launching in July 2025.
The discrepancy between publicity and reality
The Council initially refused to disclose any details about the three properties cited in its press release, claiming on 1 December that doing so would prejudice a “live enforcement investigation.” Only after we filed a detailed internal review challenge did the Council partially reverse course on 29 January – disclosing two of three property addresses and the enforcement notices, while offering a new legal exemption to continue withholding details of the third property’s location.
Case 1: Cortis Road, Putney
The press release claimed: “A Putney property intended for three tenants with a dangerously undersized bedroom and lacking basic fire safety features, including fire doors and heat alarms.”
The actual preliminary improvement notice, dated 3 September 2025, cited a Category 2 fire hazard (lower-risk tier) including:
- No heat alarm in kitchen
- No fire blanket in kitchen
- Kitchen door missing intumescent strips
- Deadlock on front door requiring key to exit
- Items blocking hallway
The notice makes no mention of an undersized bedroom. If bedroom size violated space standards, it would have been listed as a Category 1 overcrowding hazard.
The landlord signed an undertaking, completed all works by the 19 December deadline, and the property now holds an HMO license. Total enforcement time: three and a half months from inspection to licensed compliance.
Case 3: Sugden Road, Battersea
The press release claimed: “A six-bedroom property lacking fire doors and with a faulty basement door near utility meters.”
The actual preliminary improvement notice, dated 8 October 2025, cited a Category 1 fire hazard (higher-risk tier) including:
- All six bedroom doors were not fire-rated
- All bedroom doors had key-operated locks (means of escape hazard)
- Basement door self-closer not functioning
- Obstructions on first-floor landing
This case was genuine: a six-bedroom HMO operating without proper fire doors is a significant safety failing. But the landlord responded to the informal notice by replacing all six doors with fire-rated versions, installing thumb-turn locks, fixing the self-closer, and clearing obstructions. The property now holds an HMO license.
Both disclosed cases involved preliminary improvement notices – informal warnings that give landlords the option to voluntarily comply or face statutory enforcement. These are not the “legal notices” the press release implied.
Under the Housing Act 2004, preliminary notices are negotiation tools. Landlords can refuse them, at which point councils must serve statutory Improvement Notices – formal legal instruments that become public record, incur charges, and can lead to prosecution for non-compliance.
The Council chose not to use statutory enforcement for either property. Both landlords cooperated immediately, suggesting these were not rogue operators but responsive property owners who fixed problems when identified.
The press release’s language of “crackdown,” “legal notices,” “dangerously undersized” created the impression of aggressive statutory action against seriously unsafe properties. The documents tell a different story: routine HMO inspections finding standard compliance gaps, handled through voluntary cooperation.
The Third Property: still hidden, still “under investigation”
The Council continues to withhold the address of the third property (the spiral staircase case) under Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, claiming disclosure would “erode trust” with managing agents and could enable squatting if the property becomes vacant following a Prohibition Order.
This represents a change in position. The Council’s original 1 December refusal claimed all three properties were exempt under Section 30 (investigations). After the internal review challenge exposed this as untenable – if Cases 1 and 3 weren’t investigation material despite the blanket refusal, why would any of them be? – the Council switched to Section 31 (law enforcement) for Case 2 only.
According to the internal review response, Case 2 is “awaiting fire safety risk assessments from managing agents” and the Council is “reviewing enforcement options with London Fire Brigade.” This is nearly three months after the property was highlighted in a press release claiming immediate action.
If the spiral staircase property posed imminent danger, would the Council wait months for managing agents to submit assessments? Or would it serve an Emergency Remedial Action Notice?
What would actually justify Borough-wide licensing?
The Council expanded HMO licensing borough-wide in July 2025, imposing additional costs and bureaucratic requirements on all landlords. The scheme requires licenses for all HMOs (properties with three or more tenants from different households) plus selective licensing for all private rental properties in four wards. Landlords pay £1,040 for HMO licenses and £580 for selective licenses – costs that are often passed through to tenants.
Such schemes are meant to address serious problems: rogue landlords ignoring statutory notices, dangerous properties with Category 1 hazards across multiple locations, repeat offenders, or evidence of tenants in immediate danger.
The Council’s press release promised to show why licensing “matters.” The disclosed documents show:
- Two responsive landlords who fixed problems immediately when asked
- Standard fire safety equipment gaps – the routine findings of any HMO inspection regime
- No prosecutions, no statutory enforcement, no emergency action
- Both properties now licensed and compliant
If these are among the worst cases found in the Council’s stated “110 inspections” that resulted in “over 40 formal notices,” the question is whether the risk profile justifies borough-wide expansion. Missing fire blankets and broken self-closers are what basic HMO licensing was designed to catch – but do they demonstrate a landlord crisis requiring expensive additional regulation?
The Council’s own fire safety record
The timing of the Council’s press release is notable. On 11 November 2025 – the same day the “crackdown” announcement went out – we published an investigation revealing that 64% of Wandsworth Council housing blocks had failed fire safety audits, with hundreds of overdue Fire Risk Assessment actions dating back years.
In February 2025, the Regulator of Social Housing issued Wandsworth Council a C3 rating for “serious failings” in its own housing stock, citing nearly 1,800 overdue fire safety actions – all more than 12 months old. The Regulator’s report found:
- 80% of communal areas lacked up-to-date electrical safety tests
- 40% of homes had no current electrical safety checks
- Only 6.5% of the Council’s 17,000 homes had been properly surveyed for condition
Random sampling by internal auditors in October 2025 found the problem persisted: 16 of 25 tested blocks (64%) still had overdue fire safety actions, including 11 high-risk items all from 2025 – meaning urgent issues identified this year were already overdue.
The audit warned: “Significant delays in completing medium risk FRA actions can lead to potential fines for the Council and injury to residents.”
When the Regulator issued the damning C3 rating, Cabinet Member for Housing Aydin Dikerdem – the same councillor who fronted the 11 November “crackdown” press release – described it as “not what we hoped for.”
While the Council was highlighting missing fire blankets and broken door-closers in private rentals, its own tenants were living in buildings with fire safety deficiencies dating back years. While it was requiring landlords to install intumescent strips within three months, its own properties had overdue fire actions spanning back more than 12 months.
The Regulator put the Council under “intensive” oversight, requiring monthly progress meetings and evidence of improvement. The Council is now scrambling to complete stock surveys – starting in late 2025 – that should have been done years ago.
Cllr Dikerdem told the media about the private rental “crackdown”: “These inspections show why licensing matters. The message is clear: unsafe rentals will not be tolerated.”
The Council’s own regulator said about its housing management: “There are serious failings… and significant improvement is needed.”
The FOI battle to get the truth
When Putney.news requested the addresses and enforcement documents on 14 November – three days after the press release – the Council refused everything, claiming a “live enforcement investigation” would be prejudiced by disclosure.
The Council had proactively publicised these three specific cases, including detailed descriptions of the hazards found. By placing this information in the public domain, the Council had already determined that transparency outweighed any investigation concerns. Property addresses – with names redacted – are routinely disclosed under FOI law, with Tribunal cases consistently holding that addresses of properties subject to enforcement action should be disclosed where there is public interest in regulatory oversight.
The internal review challenge, submitted on 1 December, argued the Council’s own press release already disclosed key details, property addresses aren’t “investigation material,” Section 30 requires demonstrable prejudice, no proper public interest test had been conducted, and the blanket refusal violated the duty to consider partial disclosure.
After extending the deadline by 20 working days, the Council reversed course on Cases 1 and 3. But rather than acknowledge the change, it applied a new exemption to Case 2.
The pattern is telling. When questioned about spending, performance, or enforcement, Wandsworth Council’s default position is opacity. Information is released only when legally compelled, often after months of delay and only after challenges.
The Council makes bold claims in press releases and committee papers, then refuses to provide underlying data. Inquiries are routinely deflected or ignored, forcing unnecessary FOI requests. Exemptions are applied broadly and switched between when challenged.
All while the Council imposes licensing costs on private landlords as its own housing stock fails basic fire safety compliance.
