Renters’ Rights Act 2025
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
105 Unlicensed HMOs and houses: offences
(1) Section 72 of the Housing Act 2004 (offences in relation to licensing of HMOs) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4). (2) For subsection (1) substitute— (1) If an HMO is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 61(1)) but is not so licensed, an offence is committed by— (a) any person within subsection (1A), and (b) any person who as landlord under a tenancy or licensor under a licence to occupy has an estate or interest in, or a right in relation to, the HMO that is superior (whether directly or indirectly) to the estate, interest or right of any person within subsection (1A). (1A) The following are within this subsection— (a) any person having control of or managing the HMO, and (b) any person who is the landlord or licensor in relation to a person occupying the HMO under a tenancy or licence. (3) After subsection (4) insert— (4A) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(a) it is a defence for them to prove that they had a reasonable excuse— (a) for having control of or managing the HMO, or (b) for being the landlord or licensor in relation to a person occupying the HMO under a tenancy or licence, in circumstances in which the HMO was required to be licensed under this Part but was not so licensed. (4B) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(b) it is a defence for them to prove that they— (a) did not know, and had a reasonable excuse for not knowing, that the building or part of the building concerned was an HMO, (b) took all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the HMO was licensed under this Part, or (c) had some other reasonable excuse for failing to ensure that the HMO was so licensed. (4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B), a term in the tenancy agreement or licence to occupy relating to the occupation of the building or part of the building that is an HMO does not on its own constitute a defence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection. (4) In subsection (5)— (a) for “subsection (1), (2) or (3)” substitute “subsection (2) or (3)”, and (b) omit paragraph (a) (together with the “or” at the end of it). (5) Section 95 of the Housing Act 2004 (offences in relation to licensing of houses under Part 3) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) to (8). (6) For subsection (1) substitute— (1) If a house is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 85(1)) but is not so licensed, an offence is committed by— (a) any person within subsection (1A), and (b) any person who as landlord under a tenancy or licensor under a licence to occupy has an estate or interest in, or a right in relation to, the house that is superior (whether directly or indirectly) to the estate, interest or right of any person within subsection (1A). (1A) The following are within this subsection— (a) any person having control of or managing the house; (b) any person who is the landlord or licensor in relation to a person occupying the house under a tenancy or licence. (7) After subsection (3) insert— (3A) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(a) it is a defence for them to prove that they had a reasonable excuse— (a) for having control of or managing the house, or (b) for being the landlord or licensor in relation to a person occupying the house under a tenancy or licence, in circumstances in which the house was required to be licensed under this Part but was not so licensed. (3B) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(b) it is a defence for them to prove that they— (a) did not know, and had a reasonable excuse for not knowing, that the house was one to which this Part applies, (b) took all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the house was licensed under this Part, or (c) had some other reasonable excuse for failing to ensure that the house was so licensed. (3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B), a term in the tenancy agreement or licence to occupy relating to the occupation of the house does not on its own constitute a defence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection. (8) In subsection (4)— (a) for “subsection (1) or (2)” substitute “subsection (2)”, and (b) for the words following “excuse” substitute “for failing to comply with the condition”.
105 Unlicensed HMOs and houses: offences
(1) Section 72 of the Housing Act 2004 (offences in relation to licensing of HMOs) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4). (2) For subsection (1) substitute— (1) If an HMO is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 61(1)) but is not so licensed, an offence is committed by— (a) any person within subsection (1A), and (b) any person who as landlord under a tenancy or licensor under a licence to occupy has an estate or interest in, or a right in relation to, the HMO that is superior (whether directly or indirectly) to the estate, interest or right of any person within subsection (1A). (1A) The following are within this subsection— (a) any person having control of or managing the HMO, and (b) any person who is the landlord or licensor in relation to a person occupying the HMO under a tenancy or licence. (3) After subsection (4) insert— (4A) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(a) it is a defence for them to prove that they had a reasonable excuse— (a) for having control of or managing the HMO, or (b) for being the landlord or licensor in relation to a person occupying the HMO under a tenancy or licence, in circumstances in which the HMO was required to be licensed under this Part but was not so licensed. (4B) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(b) it is a defence for them to prove that they— (a) did not know, and had a reasonable excuse for not knowing, that the building or part of the building concerned was an HMO, (b) took all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the HMO was licensed under this Part, or (c) had some other reasonable excuse for failing to ensure that the HMO was so licensed. (4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B), a term in the tenancy agreement or licence to occupy relating to the occupation of the building or part of the building that is an HMO does not on its own constitute a defence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection. (4) In subsection (5)— (a) for “subsection (1), (2) or (3)” substitute “subsection (2) or (3)”, and (b) omit paragraph (a) (together with the “or” at the end of it). (5) Section 95 of the Housing Act 2004 (offences in relation to licensing of houses under Part 3) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) to (8). (6) For subsection (1) substitute— (1) If a house is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 85(1)) but is not so licensed, an offence is committed by— (a) any person within subsection (1A), and (b) any person who as landlord under a tenancy or licensor under a licence to occupy has an estate or interest in, or a right in relation to, the house that is superior (whether directly or indirectly) to the estate, interest or right of any person within subsection (1A). (1A) The following are within this subsection— (a) any person having control of or managing the house; (b) any person who is the landlord or licensor in relation to a person occupying the house under a tenancy or licence. (7) After subsection (3) insert— (3A) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(a) it is a defence for them to prove that they had a reasonable excuse— (a) for having control of or managing the house, or (b) for being the landlord or licensor in relation to a person occupying the house under a tenancy or licence, in circumstances in which the house was required to be licensed under this Part but was not so licensed. (3B) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1)(b) it is a defence for them to prove that they— (a) did not know, and had a reasonable excuse for not knowing, that the house was one to which this Part applies, (b) took all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the house was licensed under this Part, or (c) had some other reasonable excuse for failing to ensure that the house was so licensed. (3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B), a term in the tenancy agreement or licence to occupy relating to the occupation of the house does not on its own constitute a defence under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection. (8) In subsection (4)— (a) for “subsection (1) or (2)” substitute “subsection (2)”, and (b) for the words following “excuse” substitute “for failing to comply with the condition”.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.