Landlords Are Challenging Unfair and Discriminatory Selective Licensing

We are a group of Leeds landlords seeking a Judicial Review of proposed Leeds Selective Licensing Scheme.

We believe the time has come for Selective Licensing to be properly tested, rather than being allowed to roll out unchecked across local authorities without robust legal scrutiny.

This challenge is not just about Leeds. The expansion of Selective Licensing across England is accelerating, and its spread is increasingly inevitable unless lawfulness, proportionality, and process are examined by the courts.

If successful, this judicial review will benefit every private landlord in the country, by reinforcing the legal limits on how Selective Licensing schemes are introduced and applied.

Selective Licensing applies only to the private rented sector.

Private landlords are required to obtain licences, pay fees, and comply with additional conditions, while other housing providers operating in the same areas — including social landlords and local authorities — are exempt from the scheme.

This differential treatment raises important questions of fairness, justification, and consistency.

A question of proportionality and justification

Where one group is held to a higher regulatory standard than another, public authorities must be able to demonstrate objective and reasonable justification.

If private landlords are required to meet higher standards through Selective Licensing, this inevitably implies one of two things:

• Either private tenants require greater protection than others, or

• Other tenants are being regulated to a lower standard

Neither conclusion sits comfortably with the principle that all tenants deserve equal protection and safety, regardless of tenure.

Why this matters legally

Public authorities are required to act fairly, proportionately, and without unjustified discrimination.

Where regulatory burdens are imposed on one sector alone, while others are exempt, the authority must be able to show that:

• The distinction is justified

• The approach is proportionate

• Relevant impacts have been properly considered

Whether those requirements have been met is a matter for the court to examine.

Discrimination by Postcode, Not Practice

The proposed licensing scheme does not target poor landlords — it targets postcodes.

Two identical properties, managed to the same standard, can be treated entirely differently simply because one falls inside a designated area and the other does not. Responsible landlords are penalised based on location, not behaviour, while poorly managed properties outside the zone remain untouched.

This approach is neither fair nor proportionate.
It is not evidence-led.
And it does nothing to target the root causes of poor housing standards.

Effective regulation should focus on risk and conduct — not arbitrary boundaries.

If one sector is regulated more heavily, the justification must be clear — and the consequences properly considered.

Selective Licensing places additional regulatory and financial burdens on private landlords alone, while social landlords and local authorities operating in the same areas are exempt.

This raises important questions because:

Private landlords are subject to higher costs and scrutiny for providing the same essential service — housing

Other providers are not required to meet scheme-specific standards under the same framework

Regulation is applied based on tenure rather than demonstrable risk or outcomes

Without clear and robust justification, this creates an uneven regulatory landscape where one sector carries a disproportionate burden.

Such distinctions require careful examination to ensure they are fair, proportionate, and consistent with the stated aims of the scheme.

Leeds City Council has repeatedly stated that selective licensing will not affect tenants or rental prices. However, this claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

A licence fee of approximately £1,250 per property is a direct cost imposed on landlords. Like any other operating cost, it cannot simply be absorbed indefinitely. In practice, it is passed on through higher rents or contributes to landlords leaving the sector altogether.

This creates two serious consequences:

First, tenants in licensed areas pay more than tenants in neighbouring streets that fall outside the scheme. The difference is not based on property quality or tenant behaviour, but purely on postcode. That is unequal treatment, and it raises serious questions about fairness and proportionality.

Second, as landlords exit the market due to rising costs and regulatory pressure, the supply of rental homes shrinks. Reduced supply leads to increased competition, higher rents, and fewer choices for tenants — the very opposite of what licensing claims to achieve.

What is most concerning is that these impacts are being downplayed or dismissed, despite being entirely foreseeable. A policy that increases costs, reduces supply, and disproportionately affects certain tenants cannot reasonably be said to be neutral or benign.

This is one of the key reasons a judicial review is necessary.

Public authorities have a duty to act proportionately, transparently, and on the basis of evidence. Where a policy results in financial harm to tenants, unequal treatment between areas, and foreseeable market distortion, those impacts must be properly assessed and justified.

For many months, Leeds landlords have tried — repeatedly and in good faith — to engage constructively with Leeds City Council about the proposed licensing scheme.

• We have asked for dialogue.
  We have asked for evidence.
  We have asked for clarity, fairness, and transparency.

What we have received in return is silence, refusal to engage, and a continued reliance on claims that are not supported by clear evidence or measurable outcomes.

Throughout this process, Leeds Landlords and Landlord representatives have sought to work collaboratively with the Council. We have asked for meetings. We have raised legitimate concerns. We have offered practical, workable alternatives. None of these efforts have resulted in meaningful engagement.

Instead, the Council has chosen to proceed without addressing those concerns, without providing robust data to justify its claims, and without demonstrating how this scheme will achieve what it promises.

This has left Landlords with no realistic avenue for discussion or resolution.

• We are not opposed to regulation.
  We are not opposed to improving housing standards.
  We are not opposed to tackling poor practice where it genuinely exists.

What we are opposed to is policy being imposed without evidence, without consultation, and without regard for the real-world impact on responsible landlords and tenants alike.  We believe that this is simply a fund raising excersie, which will ultimately be paid for by tenants.

Many of the claims being used to justify the licensing scheme — relating to health, employment, education, deprivation, and community improvement — are broad, ambitious statements that simply cannot be delivered through licensing alone. In some cases, they fall entirely outside the scope of what a housing licence can reasonably achieve.

When a public authority introduces a far-reaching scheme that affects thousands of people, it has a duty to:

• Act transparently

• Base decisions on sound evidence

• Properly consult those affected

• Demonstrate proportionality and necessity

We believe that has not happened here.

After exhausting all reasonable attempts at engagement, we have reached the point where the only remaining option is to seek legal scrutiny through a judicial review.

This step has not been taken lightly.
It is not politically motivated.
And it is not about resisting standards or accountability.

It is about ensuring that public power is exercised lawfully, fairly, and on the basis of evidence — not assumption.

Judicial review exists precisely to protect the public when meaningful dialogue fails.
That is why we are now pursuing it.

For too long, landlords across the UK have been treated as an easy target.

Individually, most landlords do not have the resources to challenge local authorities or government policy. Legal action is expensive, time-consuming, and daunting — especially when taken on alone. That reality has allowed unfair, poorly justified policies to be introduced with little resistance.

But collectively, landlords are not weak.

There are nearly two and a half million landlords in the UK. Together, we represent one of the largest providers of housing in the country. And yet, because we are fragmented and often isolated, our voices are too easily ignored.

This is why this judicial review matters.

Leeds City Council’s licensing scheme is not just about Leeds. It reflects a growing national trend where private landlords are increasingly singled out, over-regulated, and blamed for problems that licensing schemes simply cannot solve. These schemes are being introduced without proper evidence, without meaningful consultation, and without accountability.

As individual landlords, we cannot take on a local authority alone.

But together, we can.

This legal challenge is about more than one city. It is about sending a clear message:

• That landlords are not an easy target

• That regulation must be fair, proportionate, and evidence-based

• That councils cannot impose sweeping schemes without scrutiny

• And that landlords across the UK are prepared to stand up for themselves

If this scheme is allowed to go unchallenged, it will not stop in Leeds. Other councils will follow. The costs will rise. The regulations will increase. And landlords everywhere will feel the impact.

By supporting this campaign, you are not just helping one group of landlords —
you are helping protect landlords across the country, including yourself.

Even a small contribution helps.
If enough landlords stand together, this becomes a powerful, collective voice that cannot be ignored.

We cannot do this without you.

If you believe in fairness, accountability, and the right to be heard — please support this campaign and help us take a stand.

Together, we can make a difference.