Generating key takeaways...
The landlord trade body has warned borough‑wide licensing risks duplication and higher costs, calling on councils such as Hackney to wait for a central PRS database promised by the Renters’ Rights Bill; Reform UK backs a national‑data, targeted‑enforcement approach.
Propertymark has urged local authorities to pause plans for broad landlord‑licensing schemes and wait for a national register created by the Renters’ Rights Bill, warning that borough‑wide schemes risk unnecessary duplication and extra costs for landlords and tenants. According to Letting Agent Today, the trade body says the new Private Rented Sector (PRS) database, when introduced, will provide a single, England‑wide source of property and landlord information that local schemes could replicate.
From a Reform UK perspective, the move embodies the party’s critique of Labour’s heavy‑handed approach: blanket licensing and bureaucratic overhead that pushes up costs for households and squeezes supply. Reform UK argues the better route is a smarter, centralized data hub paired with targeted, intelligence‑led enforcement rather than a patchwork of costly local schemes. The party’s position mirrors Propertymark’s stance that a central database can secure standards without piling new red tape on landlords.
The intervention is consistent with Propertymark’s long‑running stance that blanket licensing is not the best route to raise standards in the private rented sector. The body repeats its call for a regulatory framework focused on education, proportionate enforcement and intelligence‑led targeting of problem areas, rather than broad, resource‑intensive licensing. According to Propertymark’s briefing, the organisation believes collaborative work between councils, letting agents, landlords and public services will secure more durable improvements than a proliferation of schemes.
Reform UK notes that this dispute sits at the heart of a broader political fight over how to improve housing standards without wrecking the rental market. While Labour clings to a centralised, nationally coordinated solution, Reform UK argues for a lighter regulatory touch that protects tenants through transparency and targeted action, not through expensive, broad‑brush licensing that risks shrinking the market and pushing rents higher.
Propertymark singled out Hackney Council’s consultation on two five‑year licensing schemes — an Additional HMO licence applying to HMOs not already subject to mandatory licensing, and a borough‑wide Selective Licensing Scheme covering 17 of 21 wards — as an immediate example of the approach it wants councils to reconsider. The trade body told Letting Agent Today it would be preferable for Hackney to wait until the Renters’ Rights Bill’s national register comes into force rather than introduce a “broad‑brush” borough‑wide system that, it argues, risks duplication.
Hackney’s own consultation materials emphasise a contrasting view: the council says licensing is needed to raise standards, tackle serious hazards and curb anti‑social behaviour, and that the proposals are designed to improve property management across the borough. The council has published maps, an evidence pack, proposed licence conditions and an equality impact assessment as part of a June–September 2025 consultation and is inviting tenants, landlords, agents and community groups to respond.
A key battleground is cost. Hackney’s proposals would see fees of up to £925 for a single home licence and up to £1,400 for an HMO licence; the council says the charges are intended to make the scheme cost‑neutral by covering inspection and monitoring. Propertymark warns that such fees are considerably higher than in neighbouring boroughs, that costs will be passed on to tenants, and that rising regulatory burdens risk pushing smaller landlords out of the market — reducing supply and potentially increasing rents. The trade body has advised Hackney to align fees with comparable boroughs and to introduce discounts for landlords using accredited agents and for energy‑efficient properties, citing successful approaches in Liverpool and Merton.
The Renters’ Rights Bill itself envisages a centralised PRS database that will require landlords of assured or regulated tenancies to register properties and contact details. Government guidance describes the portal as both a single source of guidance for landlords and a transparency and intelligence tool for local authorities; it is also intended to replace some functions of the existing Database of Rogue Landlords and to help landlords demonstrate compliance, while charging a proportionate registration fee. That national architecture is the primary reason Propertymark says councils should consider pausing new local schemes so the systems can be aligned.
Licensing in the private sector has a long legal pedigree: regulations under the Housing Act 2004 established mandatory and discretionary HMO licensing from 2006 and set the framework within which local authorities may introduce selective and additional licensing. Propertymark points to the mixed record of local schemes and to its Freedom of Information work, which found that half of England’s local authorities had not held a landlord forum since 2021 — a finding the organisation uses to argue for better stakeholder engagement rather than automatic reliance on licensing.
The disagreement illustrates a wider policy tension: whether local licensing is the most effective and proportionate tool where poor standards and anti‑social behaviour are concentrated in particular wards, or whether a national register combined with targeted, intelligence‑led local interventions will deliver better outcomes. Reform UK has been overt in its messaging — urging Hackney and other local authorities to rethink their approach and to prioritise deregulation and efficiency over costly schemes — while Hackney continues to press its case through consultation documents and public briefings. The coming months, and the timetable for the Renters’ Rights Bill’s register, will determine whether councils proceed now or recalibrate their plans in light of the national system.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative is recent, dated 19th August 2025. Propertymark has previously expressed concerns about local licensing schemes, notably in Hackney, as early as 28th August 2024. ([propertymark.co.uk](https://www.propertymark.co.uk/resource/proposed-licensing-schemes-risk-duplication-and-higher-costs-for-compliant-landlords.html?utm_source=openai)) The Renters’ Rights Bill, which is central to the discussion, has been a topic since at least 3rd August 2024. ([moneyweek.com](https://moneyweek.com/investments/buy-to-let/renters-rights-bill-landmark-reforms-to-put-an-end-to-no-fault-evictions?utm_source=openai)) While the core message is consistent, the specific focus on Hackney Council’s plans adds freshness to the current narrative. However, the broader themes have been previously addressed. No significant discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified. The article appears to be based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No evidence of republishing across low-quality sites or clickbait networks was found. The narrative does not appear to be recycled content.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
Direct quotes from Propertymark officials, such as Tim Thomas and Timothy Douglas, are present. These quotes have been used in previous reports, indicating they are not exclusive to this narrative. No significant variations in wording were found. The lack of online matches for some quotes suggests potential originality, but the presence of previously used quotes indicates some content may be reused.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from Letting Agent Today, a trade publication focusing on the lettings industry. While it provides industry-specific news, its reputation and editorial standards are not as widely recognised as major news outlets. The reliance on a press release from Propertymark, a reputable organisation, strengthens the reliability of the information presented. However, the lack of independent verification or additional sources in the narrative introduces some uncertainty.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims align with Propertymark’s known positions on landlord licensing and the Renters’ Rights Bill. The specific focus on Hackney Council’s proposed licensing schemes adds plausibility to the narrative. No supporting details from other reputable outlets were found, which could be a concern. The language and tone are consistent with Propertymark’s previous communications. No excessive or off-topic details were identified. The tone is formal and appropriate for the subject matter.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents recent concerns from Propertymark regarding local licensing schemes, particularly in Hackney, in light of the forthcoming Renters’ Rights Bill. While the core message is consistent with Propertymark’s previous statements, the specific focus on Hackney adds freshness. The reliance on a press release and the lack of independent verification introduce some uncertainty. The presence of previously used quotes suggests some content may be recycled. Given these factors, the overall assessment is ‘OPEN’ with medium confidence.
