HMO Licence Conditions Win for Portsmouth Landlords

Landlords and a local council have finally reached an agreement in a long-standing dispute over licensing houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

Portsmouth & District Private Landlords Association (PDPLA) has announced the conclusion of a three-year technical and legal battle with Portsmouth City Council (PCC) regarding HMO licensing conditions.

Following years of debate and multiple tribunal hearings, a definitive ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has established limits on local authority powers, paving the way for clearer, fairer, and legally compliant licensing frameworks.

The conflict began in 2023 when the council introduced highly restrictive, rewritten conditions to the city’s Additional Licensing scheme.

The PDPLA argued that these rules were overly bureaucratic, stretched beyond statutory requirements, and imposed unfair administrative burdens that forced many smaller landlords to exit the HMO market entirely.

Council’s licence rules rejected

When collaborative discussions between the association and the council stalled, the landlords started legal action. Backed by the PDPLA, landlords Simon and Iva Fletcher challenged the council's framework, driving a test case all the way to the Upper Tribunal to secure definitive regulatory boundaries.

The Upper Tribunal’s final decision overturned several of the council's key licensing conditions, drawing a sharp line between mandatory national standards and local discretionary overreach. The core rulings focused on five areas:

• Tenancy Agreement Autonomy: The Tribunal confirmed that local councils have no authority to dictate the detailed contents of individual tenancy agreements. PCC’s previous requirements mandating specific clauses for inventories, rent schedules, and deposit arrangements were stripped out, reducing the condition to basic, mandatory statutory wording.
• No "On-Demand" Document Requests: Previous licence conditions required landlords to produce documents immediately on council demand. The tribunal ruled that failing to produce paperwork is only an offence if the council issues a formal, statutory Section 235 notice. Consequently, "on-demand" clauses have been erased.
• Rejection of Blanket Discretionary Conditions: In what the PDPLA highlights as the most significant victory, the court ruled that discretionary conditions cannot be applied as a blanket policy across all HMOs. While standard mandatory safety rules remain intact, any additional discretionary conditions must be justified by the council on a property-specific basis.
• Neighbour Notification and Data Privacy: The ruling upheld prior findings that forcing landlords to distribute their personal contact details to neighbours was unreasonable, clarifying that neighbour-notification schemes are entirely separate from the housing licensing regime. Furthermore, tenant personal data should only be shared when explicitly required by law.
• Electrical Safety Alignment: Expanded electrical safety requirements that went beyond national regulations were reined in, returning strictly to mandatory statutory benchmarks.

Years of costly argument end

Despite years of frustrating and costly arguments, the story concludes on a collaborative note.

Following the judgment, Portsmouth City Council acted swiftly, writing to licence holders to confirm that future templates will be updated to ensure clarity and alignment with current legislation. The council also noted the need to avoid duplicating sweeping national laws, such as the Renters' Rights Act 2025.

While existing licences remain valid without immediate action, landlords can now request variations if they face improper discretionary conditions.

Ultimately, the PDPLA welcomes this swift, positive turn from the council, noting that streamlined, legally sound guidelines protect tenants while allowing compliant housing providers to operate without unnecessary administrative interference.

Decision

Read the decision: Simon Fletcher & Anor v Portsmouth City Council [2026] UKUT 234 (LC)