Chancellor Rachel Reeves is facing a political storm over her failure to obtain a required rental licence for her south London home, a controversy that has drawn sharp criticism from the opposition and sparked debate about ministerial responsibility and standards in public office. The issue, which surfaced just as Reeves was preparing to deliver a crucial Budget, has threatened to overshadow the government’s agenda and raised uncomfortable questions about the Labour Party’s handling of its own ethical standards.
The saga began in July 2024, when Reeves and her husband, Nicholas Joicey, put their four-bedroom Dulwich property up for rent after she moved into 11 Downing Street following Labour’s general election victory. According to BBC News, the property is located in an area where Southwark Council requires landlords to obtain a “selective licence” at a cost of £945—a policy Reeves herself has publicly supported in other regions. The requirement aims to ensure rental properties are safe and well-maintained, with enforcement actions reserved for those who ignore warning letters or have unsafe properties.
Reeves’s oversight only came to light on October 29, 2025, when she was contacted by the Daily Mail for comment. She immediately informed Prime Minister Keir Starmer, admitting in a letter that she had failed to secure the necessary licence before renting out her home. “As soon as it was brought to my attention, we took immediate action and have applied for the licence,” Reeves wrote, describing the omission as an “inadvertent error” and offering a “sincere” apology. She added, “I accept full responsibility for it.”
Further scrutiny revealed a tangled web of miscommunication and administrative mishaps. Email correspondence published by Reeves and her husband showed that their letting agent, Harvey & Wheeler, had offered to apply for the licence on their behalf. However, as The Guardian reported, the agency’s property manager resigned abruptly on the Friday before the new tenancy was due to start, and the application was never made. The agency’s owner, Gareth Martin, explained in a statement: “We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
The emails, dated between July 17 and August 13, 2024, confirmed that Harvey & Wheeler had agreed to handle the licence application once the new tenant moved in, with the cost split into two payments—£640 initially, followed by £260 after processing. But the sudden staff departure meant the process stalled, and the oversight went unnoticed until the media inquiry months later. Reeves, in a second letter to Starmer on October 30, acknowledged her failure to uncover this correspondence sooner and reiterated her acceptance of responsibility: “I also take responsibility for not finding this information yesterday and bringing it to your attention. As I said to you today, I am sorry about this matter and accept full responsibility for it.”
Prime Minister Starmer, after consulting his independent ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus, concluded that the breach was an “unfortunate but inadvertent error” and that no further investigation was necessary. Magnus found “no evidence of bad faith,” and Starmer said he had “full confidence” in Reeves, though he noted that “it would clearly have been better if you and your husband had conducted a full trawl through all email correspondence with the estate agency before writing to me yesterday.” Downing Street maintained that Reeves would continue her work on the upcoming Budget, despite the controversy.
The Conservatives, however, were quick to seize on the incident, calling for a formal investigation and even suggesting Reeves should be sacked if found to have broken the law. Party leader Kemi Badenoch, speaking on LBC, argued, “What Rachel Reeves looks like she has done is a criminal offence. They spent five years pretending they were the most perfect people and now they had resignation after scandal after resignation, so let the ethics advisor investigate.” She added, “Keir Starmer said law makers shouldn’t be lawbreakers, and he was very happy to chase every fixed penalty notice that occurred under the Conservatives. I’m only holding them to their standards.”
For Reeves, the timing could hardly have been worse. The chancellor has faced previous questions about her judgement, including criticism for accepting free concert tickets and donations for clothing, as well as a high-profile reversal on winter fuel allowance cuts. Errors in her CV have also been highlighted by critics. Now, as she prepares to deliver a Budget amid speculation about potential tax changes, her personal conduct is under the spotlight once more.
According to BBC News, Reeves or her letting agent could face an unlimited fine if Southwark Council chooses to prosecute, though the council typically issues warning letters and only fines landlords who ignore them or whose properties are unsafe. A spokesperson for the council stated, “Selective licences are acquired by sending applications to the council, which we then assess and approve subject to conditions. When we become aware of an unlicensed property, we issue a warning letter advising the landlord that they have 21 days to apply for a licence—enforcement action such as fines are reserved for those who do not apply within that time or where a property is found to be in an unsafe condition.” The council declined to comment directly on Reeves’s case.
Some Labour supporters have argued that the episode is a minor administrative slip, blown out of proportion by political opponents eager to score points. They note that Reeves acted swiftly once informed and that the agency’s own systems contributed to the error. However, others—including some within Labour’s own ranks—worry that the incident undermines the party’s claim to higher ethical standards, especially after years of holding the Conservatives to account for similar breaches.
Reeves’s support for selective licensing schemes in other parts of the country has also been thrown into sharp relief. Less than two weeks before the revelations, she praised Leeds City Council’s expansion of its landlord licensing policy, stating, “While many private landlords operate in the right way, we know that lots of private tenants in Armley face problems with poorly maintained housing.” The irony has not been lost on her critics.
As of now, the government appears determined to draw a line under the episode, with Starmer and his ethics adviser satisfied that Reeves’s error was accidental and promptly addressed. Yet, the controversy has already become another entry in the growing list of challenges facing the Labour front bench, and it remains to be seen whether it will fade from the headlines or continue to dog the chancellor as she seeks to steer the nation’s finances through a turbulent period.
For now, Rachel Reeves remains in her post, her apology on record, and the government’s attention shifting—at least officially—back to the business of governing. But in Westminster, memories are long, and the opposition’s appetite for accountability shows no sign of waning.
