Landlords’ liability for tenants’ criminal activity: Risks, recent developments and practical steps

Landlords’ liability for tenants’ criminal activity: Legal risks for landlords

A landlord won’t ordinarily be liable simply because a tenant commits criminal offences from leased premises. However, the position may differ where a landlord becomes aware that criminal activity is taking place and fails to take appropriate action.

The courts and enforcement agencies can, and have shown willingness to, pursue landlords who knowingly allow criminal activity to continue at their premises. That’s particularly the case where landlords may be said, through the receipt of rent, to benefit financially.

Similarly, local authorities, Trading Standards, and the police have a growing range of powers aimed at disrupting criminal activity through action against premises and landowners, rather than just against offenders/occupiers.

This article explains the circumstances in which landlords may face liability arising from tenants’ conduct, and highlights the enforcement powers available to public authorities where criminal activity is suspected or ongoing.

The Viscomi case: Turning a blind eye can result in criminal liability

The leading example remains the prosecution of landlord Leonardo Viscomi in 2019. Trading Standards had, over several years, repeatedly informed Mr Viscomi that his premises were being used for the sale of illicit tobacco and alcohol. Despite those warnings, he continued to accept rent from the tenants operating the business.

Mr Viscomi was prosecuted and received an eight-month suspended prison sentence. Confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) then resulted in an order requiring repayment of more than £52,000 in rental income.

The case provides a model for enforcement at premises where conventional action against occupying offenders fails to stop unlawful trading/activity.

Can tenants’ activities result in civil action against landlords?

The High Court’s decision in Fouladi v Darout Ltd (2018) reaffirmed the long-established principle that a landlord isn’t generally liable for a tenant’s nuisance simply because it owns the property. However, civil liability can arise where the landlord has authorised, participated in or adopted the wrongful conduct.

If a landlord has knowledge of, and legal or practical control to address, a tenant’s criminal or anti-social activity on site and fails to do so, it could face civil enforcement action.

In practice, relevant considerations may include:

• whether the landlord consented to the activity complained of
• whether the landlord exercised control over relevant works or use
• whether lease provisions required the landlord’s approval
• whether the landlord actively encouraged or facilitated the conduct.

And, where a landlord owes obligations to others, such as other occupiers under leases/licences, or neighbouring landowners under covenants, for example, failure to counteract criminal or anti-socials activity on site may result in action against the landlord for breach of contractual and/or tortious duties.

Landlord’s statutory duties?

If a landlord is served with any form of statutory notice or requirement by any regulatory or public enforcement body (as to which, see below), it may then become under a proactive legal duty to take action against its tenants. Failing that, the landlord could be pursued for breach of statutory duty.

Powers available to Trading Standards and other authorities

We mentioned above that Trading Standards and other authorities may be able to take enforcement action against premises and landlords, rather than only against occupying offenders. These powers (non-exhaustively) include:

• Closure notices and closure orders (under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014). Where a local authority or the police reasonably believe that the use of premises has resulted, or is likely to result, in nuisance, disorder or criminal behaviour, they may issue a closure notice. A closure notice can restrict access to premises for a short period while an application is made to the magistrates’ court. The court may then grant a closure order, which can prohibit access to the premises for up to three months, with further extensions available in certain circumstances. Importantly, these powers can be exercised regardless of whether the landlord is involved in the offending. Landlords are typically notified and given an opportunity to participate in the process, but the focus is on preventing ongoing criminality and protecting the public. Closure orders can have obvious implications for rental income, tenant relationships and asset value.

• Civil injunctions. Local authorities, police and certain housing providers can apply for civil injunctions to prevent anti-social behaviour. They can prohibit specified conduct and may also require landlords to take positive steps. 

• Community Protection Notices provide another mechanism for addressing persistent conduct that has a detrimental effect on the local community’s quality of life. 

• POCA powers. POCA enables enforcement authorities to seek confiscation or civil recovery of property connected with unlawful conduct. These powers can be used where rental income, property interests or other assets are alleged to derive from criminal activity.

The growing focus on landlords’ property management obligations

A key development since the Fouladi and Viscomi cases is a greater focus by enforcement agencies on landlords’ knowledge and conduct. A prudent landlord should:

• investigate complaints promptly
• maintain written records of enquiries and decisions
• engage constructively with enforcement agencies
• consider exercising any contractual remedies that may be available
• assess whether forfeiture, termination or other enforcement action should be pursued
• obtain legal advice at an early stage.

Authorities increasingly expect landlords to act proactively where concerns arise. Landlords are almost under a ‘quasi-duty’ to address tenants’ criminal activity at their premises, if they are to avoid allegations or commission of offences themselves.

A related issue

A common corollary to the issue of tenants’ criminal activity on sites, is the issue of trespassers (sometimes protestors) causing nuisance or damage, or engaging in criminal, anti-social and/or fly-tipping activities. Where the land involved is private, rather than publicly accessible land, there may also be complicating factors for landowners/landlords, as certain public-facing legislation and common law may not assist as effectively as in other cases [1]. For further information and advice on dealing with trespassers on site, see here.

Key takeaways for landlords

The law continues to distinguish between a landlord who’s genuinely unaware of criminal conduct and one who knowingly chooses not to act.

A landlord won’t generally be liable simply because criminal activity occurs at its premises. However, liability risks increase substantially where the landlord:

• knows of the offending
• receives financial benefit from/tainted by it
• facilitates or authorises the conduct
• ignores repeated warnings from authorities.

Landlords who become aware of suspected criminal activity should engage with the issue immediately, seek specialist legal advice, and take active steps to investigate and address the problem.

For further information or advice, please contact David Manda.

[1] McCafferty [2026] UKSC 20 – press summary link here