The Tenant Project

The Laws Are There.
They Just Don't Work.

Rogue Landlords & Agents Break The Law Every Day, Yet Nothing Happens.

The System Is Broken

Most landlords are legally required to follow basic rules. Few face any consequences when they don’t.

From eviction processes, a tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment and safety certificates, there are clear laws designed to protect tenants.

But without enforcement or simple ways to take action, these rules are often ignored.

This page breaks down the key laws being breached, what tenants can do now, and why we believe civil claims and direct penalties are the only way to make these rights actually matter.

If your former or current landlord/letting agent has broken any of the laws below, head to our anonymous survey to be part of the solution.
Take The Survey
Table of Contents
    Add a header to begin generating the table of contents

    No Valid Gas Safety Certificate

    Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, a landlord must:
    • Arrange an annual gas safety check on every gas appliance and flue in the property by a Gas Safe registered engineer.
    • Provide a copy of the gas safety certificate to existing tenants within 28 days of the check being completed.
    • Provide a copy to new tenants before they move in.
    • Keep a record of the gas safety check for at least two years.
    It is illegal for a landlord to rent out a property without a valid, up-to-date gas safety certificate covering all gas appliances provided.
    Gas appliances that are faulty or poorly maintained can leak carbon monoxide – an invisible, odourless gas that can kill within minutes.

    Lack of a gas safety check risks explosions, fires, and serious health issues, including death.

    Failure to carry out proper gas safety checks puts lives directly at risk, and disproportionately affects tenants who often have no other housing options.
    • Tenants can report the breach to the local council (usually the Environmental Health or Private Rented Sector team).
    • Councils can investigate and, if they choose to act, can issue fines or initiate criminal prosecutions against the landlord.
    • In severe cases, councils can issue an improvement notice or prohibition order.
    • The tenant may also be unable to be lawfully evicted using a Section 21 notice if no valid gas safety certificate was provided at the start of the tenancy.
    • Councils are overstretched and often fail to investigate promptly, if at all.
    • No guaranteed penalty – action is at the council’s discretion and often seen as a last resort.
    • No direct compensation for the tenant, even if the landlord is prosecuted.
    • Risk to the tenant – reporting a landlord can lead to retaliatory eviction, with limited real protection.
    • Timing loophole – some courts have accepted late compliance on gas certificates, undermining tenant rights even further.
    In practice, tenants are left at risk and unprotected, even when the law is technically broken.
    • A clear statutory penalty would automatically trigger if a landlord fails to comply with no need to rely on council discretion.
    • Tenants could bring a simple Part 8 claim through the civil courts.
    • Landlords would face a real financial consequence for non-compliance, creating a powerful incentive to follow the law.
    • Tenants would be able to recover legal costs, making enforcement accessible even for those on low incomes.
    This process would shift the burden onto landlords to prove compliance, not onto tenants to chase it.

    No Valid EPC Provided

    Under the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, a landlord must:
    • Provide a valid Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) to tenants at the start of a tenancy.
    • Ensure the EPC is valid (certificates last for 10 years) and covers the whole property.
    • Provide the EPC free of charge to tenants before or at the point of moving in.
    It is illegal for a landlord to rent out a property without having given the tenant a valid EPC at the outset.
    An EPC gives tenants crucial information about how energy-efficient the property is, and how much it is likely to cost to heat and run.

    Without it, tenants can unknowingly move into homes that are freezing in winter, prone to mould and damp, and cripplingly expensive to heat.

    Poor energy efficiency isn’t just an inconvenience – it can lead to serious health problems, especially for vulnerable tenants, and massive financial strain during periods of rising energy costs.
    • Tenants can report the breach to Trading Standards (typically operating through the local council).
    • Trading Standards can impose a civil penalty of up to £5,000 on the landlord.
    • No compensation is available directly to the tenant.
    • Enforcement is entirely at the discretion of Trading Standards, and action is extremely rare.
    • Enforcement is inconsistent and rare – many Trading Standards teams do not actively pursue EPC breaches.
    • No automatic investigation – the tenant must report it, and even then there’s no guarantee of action.
    • No financial remedy for the tenant, even if the landlord is fined. High-risk, low-reward – tenants who complain risk damaging their relationship with their landlord without any real benefit.
    • Many tenants don’t even realise they were entitled to an EPC, meaning breaches often go completely unnoticed.
    In reality, landlords can break this law with almost no fear of consequence.
    • A statutory penalty would automatically apply if the landlord failed to provide a valid EPC at the start of the tenancy.
    • Tenants could pursue a simple civil claim under Part 8, with costs recoverable.
    • Landlords would face a direct financial consequence, closing the enforcement gap and encouraging compliance.
    • Tenants would be empowered to enforce their rights without needing council action or risking major financial exposure.
    Putting this model into action would turn an invisible right into a real one.

    Landlord or Agent Entering Without Permission

    Under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and the common law right to quiet enjoyment, a landlord or agent must:
    • Give at least 24 hours’ written notice before entering a tenant’s home (except in emergencies like a gas leak or fire).
    • Visit only at reasonable times, unless the tenant agrees otherwise.
    • Respect the tenant’s right to live in the property without interference.
    It is illegal for a landlord or agent to enter a rental property without proper notice or consent outside emergencies.
    Tenants have a fundamental right to peace, privacy, and security in their homes.

    Unlawful entry can cause stress, intimidation, and fear – making people feel unsafe in what should be their safe space.

    In serious cases, repeated unlawful entries can amount to harassment and can be used to intimidate tenants into accepting poor conditions or even leaving a property without formal eviction.
    • Tenants can apply for an injunction to stop the landlord entering without permission.
    • Tenants can bring a civil claim for damages for breach of quiet enjoyment (typically through the small claims court).
    • Repeated or aggressive unlawful entry could amount to harassment, which is a criminal offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, enforceable by the council.
    • Injunctions and civil claims require tenants to pay fees and navigate complex legal processes, often without any legal support.
    • Enforcement is reactive – the law only works after harm has been caused, and often after significant stress.
    • Council enforcement is rare, especially for non-violent breaches.
    • Damages awarded are usually low, making it financially unviable for tenants to pursue claims.
    • Tenants often fear retaliation, including eviction, if they challenge their landlord’s behaviour.
    In practice, many tenants simply endure unlawful entry because the system is too slow, too risky, and too stressful to fight.
    • A statutory penalty would automatically apply if a landlord entered a property unlawfully without proper notice.
    • Tenants could pursue a simple civil claim under Part 8, with legal costs recoverable.
    • It would create a real financial disincentive for landlords and agents to breach privacy rights.
    • It would empower tenants to enforce their right to quiet enjoyment without needing to take on expensive and complex legal action.
    With real penalties and powers for tenants to bring claims against rogue landlords, unlawful entry would no longer be a “risk-free” breach of tenant rights.

    Serious Disrepair Ignored

    Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord must:
    • Keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair (including walls, roof, drains, windows, doors).
    • Keep installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, heating, and hot water in proper working order.
    • Carry out repairs within a reasonable time after being notified of the problem by the tenant.
    It is illegal for a landlord to fail to address serious disrepair once they are aware of it.
    Serious disrepair – such as damp, mould, leaking roofs, broken heating, faulty electrics – has a devastating impact on tenants’ health, safety, and quality of life.

    Prolonged exposure to these conditions can cause respiratory illnesses, mental health problems, physical injuries, and financial hardship due to higher bills or property damage.

    Children, the elderly, and vulnerable tenants are particularly at risk when disrepair is ignored.
    • Tenants can bring a civil claim for disrepair through the county court.
    • Local authorities can inspect and issue improvement notices under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
    • If serious risks are identified, councils can take enforcement action, including fines or prohibition orders.
    • Legal claims are expensive and slow – tenants must pay court fees, obtain expert reports, and often wait months or even years for a hearing.
    • No guaranteed compensation unless serious harm can be proved.
    • Landlords can evade responsibility by carrying out temporary or superficial “patchwork” repairs, which are often enough to convince courts or councils that they are “taking reasonable steps,” even if the problem persists.
    • Cases take too long – tenants are expected to tolerate unsafe or unfit housing for extended periods while legal action drags on.
    • Council enforcement is patchy and underfunded – many tenants wait months for an inspection or see no action at all.
    • Risk of eviction remains high for tenants who complain, discouraging many from reporting problems.

    In practice, tenants are left to suffer in silence or risk homelessness by standing up for their rights.

    • A statutory penalty would automatically apply if a landlord failed to remedy serious disrepair within a reasonable time after being notified.
    • Tenants could bring a simple civil claim under Part 8, making it fast, accessible, and affordable.
    • Landlords would face a clear financial consequence for neglecting repairs, closing the current loophole where minor “patch jobs” are used to delay action.
    • Tenants would be able to recover legal costs, allowing them to enforce their rights without taking on huge personal financial risk.
    By adopting the tenancy deposit claim model, we could finally give tenants real power to demand safe, decent homes – and penalise landlords who fail in their basic responsibilities.

    False Claims Made Against Deposit

    When a tenancy ends, the Tenancy Deposit Protection (TDP) Schemes, set up under the Housing Act 2004 – require:
    • Landlords and agents to make genuine, evidence-based claims for any deductions from the deposit.
    • Any disputes to be decided based on proof through the scheme’s adjudication process or, failing that, through the courts.
    There is no specific law that directly addresses fraudulent or fabricated claims against a tenant’s deposit.While technically such conduct could amount to fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, in practice:
    • Police and Trading Standards rarely investigate deposit-related fraud.
    • Tenants must dispute claims through the scheme’s internal process, which focuses on resolving the deposit, not punishing false claims.
    In some cases, a landlord or agent found to have acted dishonestly could be removed from membership of a deposit protection scheme, but this is extremely rare.
    Deposits often represent hundreds or even thousands of pounds of a tenant’s money.

    False claims can leave tenants out of pocket, trapped in months-long disputes, or even forced to give up because they cannot easily contest fraudulent deductions.

    It creates a deep sense of injustice: tenants are already moving house, dealing with financial strain, and then face a system where lying about damages or cleaning often carries no penalty at all for the landlord or agent.

    The stress, financial loss, and delay in getting deposits returned can cause real hardship, especially for tenants with limited savings or facing high moving costs.
    • Tenants can dispute deductions through the TDP scheme’s adjudication process.
    • If unhappy with the adjudicator’s decision, tenants must pursue a civil court claim for recovery.
    • In theory, tenants could report dishonest claims to Trading Standards or the police under the Fraud Act 2006 – but in reality, these cases are almost never taken up.
    • No meaningful consequence for landlords or agents who fabricate claims.
    • Deposit scheme adjudicators focus on dividing the money – they don’t impose penalties for dishonesty.
    • Police and Trading Standards do not treat false deposit claims as a priority, even though technically they could be fraud offences.
    • Civil claims are risky and expensive for tenants, especially when the sums involved are relatively small compared to court costs.
    • Bad actors learn they can make false claims with impunity, knowing most tenants will not have the energy, knowledge, or resources to challenge them.
    In practice, the system rewards dishonesty rather than deterring it.
    • A clear statutory penalty for making false or dishonest claims against a tenant’s deposit would deter abuse.
    • Tenants could bring a Part 8 civil claim for a set financial penalty if they can show a knowingly false or fabricated claim was made.
    • Legal costs could be recoverable, meaning tenants could afford to pursue claims without huge financial risk.
    • This would shift the risk onto landlords and agents, where it belongs – forcing them to think twice before making dishonest claims.
    By closing this loophole, we could restore fairness and trust to the deposit system – and protect tenants from exploitation at a vulnerable time.

    Harassed by Landlord or Agent

    Under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, it is a criminal offence for a landlord or agent to:
    • Harass a tenant with the intention of causing them to leave the property or give up their rights.
    • Act in a way that interferes with the peace and comfort of the tenant, or their ability to use and enjoy the property.
    Harassment can include:
    • Repeated unannounced visits
    • Threats
    • Cutting off services like gas or electricity
    • Intimidation, abuse, or pressure to leave without proper legal process
    It is illegal whether or not the landlord actually succeeds in forcing the tenant out.
    Harassment strikes at the very heart of a tenant’s safety, security, and mental wellbeing.

    Tenants facing harassment often experience anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and a profound sense of fear in their own homes.

    For some, it results in forced moves, loss of belongings, homelessness, or even mental health crises. It disproportionately affects vulnerable tenants who are less able to defend themselves.

    Living under threat in your own home is not just stressful – it’s life-changing harm.
    • Tenants can report harassment to the local council, which can prosecute the landlord for a criminal offence.
    • Tenants can also seek an injunction through the civil courts to stop harassment.
    • They may claim damages for breach of quiet enjoyment or under the Protection from Eviction Act.
    • Prosecutions are rare – councils often lack resources or willingness to bring cases forward.
    • Civil remedies are expensive and complicated – claiming damages or seeking injunctions usually requires legal advice tenants cannot afford.
    • Burden of proof is high – tenants are expected to gather evidence while already living under stress and fear.
    • Retaliation risk – tenants who stand up to harassment often fear eviction or further abuse.
    • Even when successful, penalties for landlords are low compared to the harm caused.
    In practice, harassment is one of the most serious and damaging breaches, but tenants are left largely unprotected.
    • A statutory penalty would apply if harassment is proved on the balance of probabilities – making it easier for tenants to bring a case without needing a full criminal prosecution.
    • Tenants could pursue a simple civil claim under Part 8, supported by the ability to recover legal costs.
    • This would create a real financial disincentive for landlords and agents to engage in harassment tactics.
    • Tenants would be empowered to stand up to intimidation knowing they have a real, enforceable route to justice.
    By introducing this claim model, which is already used for deposit protection cases, we could turn harassment from a risk-free tactic into one that costs landlords dearly if they try it.

    Illegally Evicted or Pressured to Leave

    Under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, it is a criminal offence for a landlord or agent to:
    • Evict a tenant without serving valid notice and obtaining a court possession order (unless the tenant has already lawfully surrendered the tenancy).
    • Use threats, intimidation, or pressure to force a tenant to leave voluntarily without following the legal eviction process.
    Even serving an invalid Section 21 or Section 8 notice, and pressuring a tenant to leave before any court process, is unlawful.

    Physical lockouts, changing locks, or removing belongings without a court order are criminal illegal evictions.
    The legal eviction process exists to protect tenants from being made homeless without warning.

    When landlords bypass it, tenants lose time to find new accommodation, risk losing their possessions, and often experience extreme stress, fear, and financial hardship.

    Even when no physical lockout occurs, pressure to leave based on invalid notices or threats creates the same fear and disruption as illegal eviction – with almost no meaningful protection available.

    It can result in tenants giving up their homes unnecessarily, and becoming sofa surfers, hidden homeless, or at serious risk of rough sleeping.
    Illegal eviction (e.g., changing locks) is a criminal offence that can be prosecuted by the council, and tenants may qualify for Legal Aid to bring a civil claim for damages.

    Pressured departures following invalid or unlawful notices are much harder to challenge:
    • No automatic penalty.
    • Difficult to prove coercion unless direct evidence exists (texts, recordings, etc.).
    • Civil remedies (injunctions, damages claims) are expensive and legally complex.
    • Council prosecutions are rare – even for clear-cut illegal evictions, enforcement is patchy and under-resourced.
    • Legal Aid is only available in cases of actual or imminent illegal eviction – not for pressured departures.
    • Invalid notices are common but carry no automatic penalty – a landlord can serve an invalid Section 21, pressure the tenant to leave anyway, and face no consequence if the tenant does leave.
    • Tenants often don’t realise their rights until it’s too late.
    • Evidence thresholds are high – proving “pressure” is difficult without clear, recorded proof.
    • Retaliation risk – tenants fear worse treatment or homelessness if they challenge the eviction process.
    In reality, tenants who are unlawfully pressured to leave are left with no realistic remedy, even when the law is technically on their side.
    • A statutory penalty would apply where a landlord evicts without lawful process, or where unlawful pressure causes the tenant to surrender the tenancy.
    • Tenants could pursue a simple Part 8 civil claim for a set penalty, with legal costs recoverable.
    • This would deter landlords from bypassing the courts and undermining tenants’ rights to due process.
    • It would allow tenants to assert their rights without needing to face massive legal bills or complicated injunction processes.
    Tenants would finally have real protection against both blatant illegal evictions and the quieter but equally damaging tactics of pressured departures.

    Charged Illegal Fees

    Under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, landlords and letting agents are prohibited from charging tenants any fees except for a limited list of permitted payments, such as:
    • Rent
    • Tenancy deposit (capped)
    • Holding deposit (capped)
    • Payments for loss of keys, late rent, or other narrowly defined breaches, but only if properly set out and reasonable
    It is illegal to charge tenants administration fees, check-in/check-out fees, inventory fees, cleaning charges (unless genuinely due for breach), or other additional sums outside the permitted payments.
    Tenants are often charged hundreds of pounds in illegal fees at the start or end of a tenancy, leaving them facing serious financial strain on top of the already high costs of moving.

    Illegal fees disproportionately affect lower-income tenants, students, and young renters – forcing many to borrow money, cut back on essentials, or abandon challenging unlawful charges altogether because they need the property urgently.

    It also creates an unfair, distorted market, where agents and landlords who obey the law are undercut by those who illegally extract extra money from tenants.
    • Tenants can report illegal fees to Trading Standards via the local council.
    • Trading Standards can impose civil penalties of up to £5,000 for a first breach, and potentially larger fines or banning orders for repeat offenders.
    • Tenants can reclaim unlawful fees through the small claims court if Trading Standards does not act.
    • Enforcement is patchy and inconsistent – many Trading Standards teams are underfunded and do not prioritise fee breaches.
    • No automatic investigation – tenants must make a report and push for action themselves.
    • No direct penalty to benefit the tenant – even if Trading Standards fines a landlord or agent, the tenant still has to take separate action to recover their own money.
    • Small claims are risky and intimidating – many tenants give up because of court fees, stress, and fear of retaliation.
    • Widespread non-compliance continues – landlords and agents know most tenants will never challenge the fees.
    In practice, illegal fees remain a common and lucrative abuse – despite the law theoretically banning them.
    • A statutory penalty would apply automatically if an illegal fee was charged – without needing Trading Standards involvement first.
    • Tenants could bring a simple Part 8 civil claim to recover not just the illegal fee, but an additional penalty.
    • Legal costs would be recoverable, allowing tenants to enforce their rights without risking out-of-pocket losses.
    • This would create a strong financial deterrent against charging banned fees and level the playing field between compliant and non-compliant landlords and agents.
    Introducing Part 8 claims and legal support for tenants to hold rogue landlords to account would finally deliver on the original promise of the Tenant Fees Act – and ensure tenants are not left to fight unlawful charges alone.

    Why The Current Legal System Fails Tenants

    Despite laws technically existing to protect tenants, the reality is that the current enforcement system is broken. Key flaws include: (click to expand)
    Tenants who report issues face serious risks retaliation, eviction, harassment – often with no meaningful benefit at the end.
    Even when enforcement happens, any fines imposed usually go to councils or the state – not to the tenant who suffered the breach.
    Agencies like local councils, Trading Standards, and the police are responsible for enforcement but are often overstretched, underfunded, and slow to act.
    Most cases fall under the small claims track, where tenants have no right to professional legal representation, cannot recover legal costs, and no legal precedent is set for future cases.
    Without automatic financial consequences, there is little incentive for tenants to pursue action – and even less incentive for landlords to comply.
    Enforcement usually depends on outside agencies, meaning tenants lose control over the process and often see no personal remedy.
    Landlords can often breach the law with little or no risk of consequence.
    Most enforcement options are realistically only available while the tenant still lives in the property, exposing them to further risks of harassment or eviction if they complain.
    In short: the current system leaves tenants carrying all the risk and almost none of the reward.

    Why Our Proposal Model Works For Tenants

    By adopting the successful model used for deposit protection claims, statutory penalties, simple civil claims, and costs recovery – we can finally build a system that works for tenants. Key benefits include: (click to expand)
    Claims would be made through the Part 8 procedure, allowing important legal principles to be established and strengthening tenant protections over time.
    Clear, automatic financial penalties would give landlords strong incentives to comply with the law.
    Tenants would have direct control over bringing claims without relying on councils or external bodies.
    A simple, predictable process would allow tenants to weigh the risks and benefits of action, encouraging engagement with the system.
    Recovery of legal costs would allow tenants to instruct solicitors, levelling the playing field.
    Many claims could be brought after tenants have moved out, allowing them to seek justice without fear of immediate retaliation.
    Rights on paper would finally become enforceable in practice.

    Share Your Experience

    Your experience matters – even if you never report it.

    Whether your landlord ignored a repair, made unfair deductions against your deposit, unlawfully entered your home, or simply made you feel unsafe, your voice can help expose patterns of abuse in private renting.

    The survey is 100% anonymous, takes just a few minutes, and helps us fight for real enforcement – not just empty rules.
    TAKE THE SURVEY
    VIEW THE RESULTS
    The Tenant Project - Renting

    The Project

    We’re building a national picture of what’s really happening in private renting.

    The Tenant Project is gathering anonymous experiences from renters across England and Wales to highlight the most common breaches of housing law.

    Our goal is simple: to show just how often the law is broken – and how rarely anyone is held accountable. By turning this data into a public report, local dashboards, and direct appeals to MPs, we aim to push councils, regulators, and the government to act.
    Read More

    Sign Up

    Join our mailing list to follow The Tenant Project as it grows.

    Be the first to see new data, campaign updates, and ways to get involved.

    Whether you’re a tenant, supporter, or just curious, this is the best way to stay in the loop as the project unfolds.
    Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
    Multiple Choice

    The Tenant Project by Tenant Angels

    TAKE THE SURVEY
    TAKE THE SURVEY
    Scroll to Top