Council scraps £1,500 HMO licensing plans after legal challenge

Landlords have avoided licensing fees of more than £1,500 per property after Telford and Wrekin Council scrapped plans to extend its HMO licensing regime.

The council had proposed bringing smaller shared properties with three or four occupants into additional licensing.

But after consulting on the plans in late 2025, the local authority has now revoked the designation. The decision took effect on 15 September 2026.

The withdrawal follows a challenge from the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA). It raised concerns about the consultation process and threatened legal action.

The association argued that the council had failed to properly publicise the designation. It also claimed key consultation documents had not been provided.

The NRLA questioned the legal basis for some charges. It also said the council had failed to respond adequately to concerns.

The council initially disputed the NRLA’s position. It then proposed addressing some of the steps challenged by the organisation.

However, it subsequently decided to revoke the designation entirely.

National landlord database approaching

The decision also comes ahead of the introduction of the government’s national landlord database.

The West Midlands will become the first region required to register from 15 December 2026.

The abandoned Telford scheme would therefore have operated alongside the new national registration requirements.

The NRLA argued that landlords could have ended up submitting some of the same compliance information under both systems.

Ben Beadle, chief executive of the NRLA, said: “We raised serious concerns about both the process followed and the additional costs landlords would have faced.

“When those concerns were not addressed, we were prepared to challenge the designation through the courts. The council has now revoked it in full.”

He added: “At a time when a new national landlord database is being introduced, councils should also think very carefully before imposing additional local schemes which duplicate information and costs without demonstrating clear benefits.”