THE PROPERTY FILTER TAKE
The Upper Tribunal ruled that Portsmouth City Council imposed unlawful blanket conditions on HMO licences, dictating tenancy agreement contents without any individual property assessment.
HMO investors in other English council areas now have grounds to scrutinise their licence conditions - the ruling establishes that blanket policies applied to every property are on weak legal footing.
You may wish to review the conditions attached to your HMO licence and consider speaking to a property solicitor if any appear to lack individual justification.
The Upper Tribunal (the appeal body that can overrule local authority decisions) ruled on 6 July 2026 that Portsmouth City Council imposed unlawful blanket conditions on HMO (houses in multiple occupation) licences. The council exceeded its statutory powers by dictating tenancy agreement contents and applying identical conditions to every licensed property without individual assessment.
What the Tribunal Found
Portsmouth City Council operated an HMO licensing scheme (a council-run system requiring landlords to hold a licence to let shared properties). All licence holders had to include specific inventories, deposit arrangements and rent clauses in their tenancy agreements as a condition of holding that licence. The authority also required landlords to hand over tenant information directly to the council.
The Upper Tribunal found that councils cannot use HMO licensing powers to dictate what goes into a tenancy agreement. It held that discretionary conditions must be assessed property by property - not imposed as a blanket policy across an entire scheme. The case was brought by landlords Simon Fletcher and Iva Fletcher, supported by the Portsmouth & District Private Landlords Association (PDPLA), according to PropertyWire.
Portsmouth City Council told current licence holders that future licences would carry updated wording "to ensure clarity and alignment with current legislation," according to PropertyWire. Existing licences remain valid. The council has not indicated whether it will appeal.
What It Means for Your Tenants
This ruling matters on both sides of the tenancy. If conditions were attached to an HMO licence beyond what the law permits, they may have shaped tenancy agreements in ways that go further than the Housing Act 2004 (the legislation governing HMO licensing in England) actually allows. Your tenants have a stake in knowing which obligations in their agreement had proper legal backing.
For landlords, the damage has already shown up in Portsmouth. PDPLA chairman Martin Silman told PropertyWire that the council's licensing approach contributed to investors leaving the HMO market. "I had four small HMOs, now I have none," Silman stated. Fewer HMO properties means fewer rooms for tenants who depend on shared accommodation. That tightening of supply pushes up void risk for remaining landlords when demand in the city's private rented sector holds firm.
The yield impact of overly prescriptive licence conditions runs beyond inconvenience. Mandatory inventory formats, council data-sharing requirements and standardised rent clauses all add compliance cost. Use the HMO valuation calculator to model how changes to licensing conditions affect room yield and capital value on individual properties.
Wider Implications for HMO Investors
The tribunal's ruling does not automatically overturn conditions in other councils' licensing schemes. But Simon Fletcher told PropertyWire that "a large number of councils impose conditions on a blanket policy basis without proper justification." That is a statement worth testing against your own licence.
Councils retain full powers to licence HMOs and attach appropriate conditions under the Housing Act 2004. The Upper Tribunal has confirmed that this power is not unlimited. Conditions imposed identically across every property in a scheme - without individual assessment - are on weak legal ground. In practice, any condition that reads as copy-pasted policy rather than tailored to your property may be worth querying.
For portfolio operators managing compliance across multiple HMOs, the business and systems blog covers how landlords track regulatory change at scale. The property investment strategies blog has broader context on managing HMO licensing risk. A full library of planning and compliance tools is available at the free resources hub.
Key takeaways
The Upper Tribunal ruled that Portsmouth City Council applied identical, unjustified conditions to all HMO licences in its scheme, exceeding its statutory powers under the Housing Act 2004.
Councils in England cannot use HMO licensing powers to dictate the contents of tenancy agreements.
PDPLA chairman Martin Silman reported going from 4 HMOs to zero after the council's conditions pushed him out of the market.
Future Portsmouth HMO licences will carry amended wording; existing licences remain valid and are unaffected by this ruling.
HMO investors in other English council areas may wish to review their own licence conditions in light of this judgment.
The Upper Tribunal (the appeal body that can overrule local authority decisions) ruled on 6 July 2026 that Portsmouth City Council imposed unlawful blanket conditions on HMO (houses in multiple occupation) licences. The council exceeded its statutory powers by dictating tenancy agreement contents and applying identical conditions to every licensed property without individual assessment.
What the Tribunal Found
Portsmouth City Council operated an HMO licensing scheme (a council-run system requiring landlords to hold a licence to let shared properties). All licence holders had to include specific inventories, deposit arrangements and rent clauses in their tenancy agreements as a condition of holding that licence. The authority also required landlords to hand over tenant information directly to the council.
The Upper Tribunal found that councils cannot use HMO licensing powers to dictate what goes into a tenancy agreement. It held that discretionary conditions must be assessed property by property - not imposed as a blanket policy across an entire scheme. The case was brought by landlords Simon Fletcher and Iva Fletcher, supported by the Portsmouth & District Private Landlords Association (PDPLA), according to PropertyWire.
Portsmouth City Council told current licence holders that future licences would carry updated wording "to ensure clarity and alignment with current legislation," according to PropertyWire. Existing licences remain valid. The council has not indicated whether it will appeal.
What It Means for Your Tenants
This ruling matters on both sides of the tenancy. If conditions were attached to an HMO licence beyond what the law permits, they may have shaped tenancy agreements in ways that go further than the Housing Act 2004 (the legislation governing HMO licensing in England) actually allows. Your tenants have a stake in knowing which obligations in their agreement had proper legal backing.
For landlords, the damage has already shown up in Portsmouth. PDPLA chairman Martin Silman told PropertyWire that the council's licensing approach contributed to investors leaving the HMO market. "I had four small HMOs, now I have none," Silman stated. Fewer HMO properties means fewer rooms for tenants who depend on shared accommodation. That tightening of supply pushes up void risk for remaining landlords when demand in the city's private rented sector holds firm.
The yield impact of overly prescriptive licence conditions runs beyond inconvenience. Mandatory inventory formats, council data-sharing requirements and standardised rent clauses all add compliance cost. Use the HMO valuation calculator to model how changes to licensing conditions affect room yield and capital value on individual properties.
Wider Implications for HMO Investors
The tribunal's ruling does not automatically overturn conditions in other councils' licensing schemes. But Simon Fletcher told PropertyWire that "a large number of councils impose conditions on a blanket policy basis without proper justification." That is a statement worth testing against your own licence.
Councils retain full powers to licence HMOs and attach appropriate conditions under the Housing Act 2004. The Upper Tribunal has confirmed that this power is not unlimited. Conditions imposed identically across every property in a scheme - without individual assessment - are on weak legal ground. In practice, any condition that reads as copy-pasted policy rather than tailored to your property may be worth querying.
For portfolio operators managing compliance across multiple HMOs, the business and systems blog covers how landlords track regulatory change at scale. The property investment strategies blog has broader context on managing HMO licensing risk. A full library of planning and compliance tools is available at the free resources hub.
Key takeaways
The Upper Tribunal ruled that Portsmouth City Council applied identical, unjustified conditions to all HMO licences in its scheme, exceeding its statutory powers under the Housing Act 2004.
Councils in England cannot use HMO licensing powers to dictate the contents of tenancy agreements.
PDPLA chairman Martin Silman reported going from 4 HMOs to zero after the council's conditions pushed him out of the market.
Future Portsmouth HMO licences will carry amended wording; existing licences remain valid and are unaffected by this ruling.
HMO investors in other English council areas may wish to review their own licence conditions in light of this judgment.
Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
Does this ruling cancel existing HMO licences in Portsmouth?
Can councils still attach conditions to HMO licences?
Does this ruling apply outside Portsmouth?
What conditions was Portsmouth applying unlawfully?
What should I do if my licence conditions seem unusual?
