Property regulation

Property regulation

Background

This subtopic deals with the wide powers vested in local housing authorities (LHAs) in respect of property-related issues regarding the safety and condition premises; tenant protection from unscrupulous landlords and antisocial behaviour within their area of control.

There are a broad range of matters for which the LHA has responsibility and/or powers, including:

HMO regulation

The Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) concerns the regulation of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) introducing compulsory licensing for most types of HMOs. All HMOs are subject to management regulation. The duties are imposed on the HMO manager (the owner or lessee who collects rents from tenants or licensees) and include taking safety measures, maintaining water supply and drainage, supplying and maintaining gas and electricity, maintaining common parts, and providing waste facilities. There are two types of HMO licensing: mandatory, and additional licensing (when a local authority can impose a licensing scheme on other categories of HMOs in its area that are not subject to mandatory licensing). See Practice Notes:

•
Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)
•
Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)—licensing regime, and

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Local Government News

Ofsted updates multi-agency information sharing agreement

Ofsted has announced updates to its information sharing agreement with other inspectorates. The revised agreement includes clarity improvements and additional signatories. The agreement covers information sharing between Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services , HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons.

Key planning provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Planning analysis: The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 10 July 2025 and is awaiting a second reading. The Bill gives legislative effect to the government’s ambitions to reintroduce strategic planning across England and create a consistent framework for devolved powers. This analysis looks at the key planning provisions of the Bill, alongside the background to its introduction and the potential implications for the planning and development sector.

Post adoption contact—where are we now? (Re S (Placement Order Contact))

Family analysis: The Court of Appeal judgment in Re S (Placement Order Contact) carefully considers the court’s approach to contact between siblings at the placement for adoption stage. There has been a shift in recent years with a great deal of research as to the potential advantages to adopted children of maintaining some sort of direct contact with their birth family. That being said, on the ground it remains unusual for orders to be made under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) for direct contact, with proposals in final care plans often being for indirect or letterbox contact. The Court of Appeal makes clear that in each case where placement orders are made, there needs to be a bespoke analysis of the future contact arrangements, in order to meet the complex and life-long needs of children who are to be placed for adoption. Written by Gemma Adams, associate solicitor at Dawson Cornwell LLP.

High Court refuses permission to review Government’s export decision on combat aircraft components—R (Al-Haq v Secretary of State for Business)

Public Law analysis: Judicial review—the High Court refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the government’s decision to exclude licences for the export of components for F-35 combat aircraft which could not be identified as destined for Israel (the F-35 exclusion). On 2 September 2024, the defendant, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (the SSBT), decided to suspend licences authorising the export of items that might be used in carrying out or facilitating Israeli military operations in the conflict in Gaza. The SSBT did so explicitly because the government had formed the view that Israel was not committed to compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza and that there was therefore a clear risk that such items might be used in that conflict to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. The claimant, supported by the interveners, challenged the lawfulness of the F-35 exclusion, which was referred to in the judgment as the ‘F-35 Carve Out’. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers.

View Local Government by content type :

News