Risks of Unregulated Legal Advice for Landlords

Residential landlords and letting agents are reminded of the risks posed by unregulated advice following the sentencing of Sasha Charles, former director of Landlord Advice UK (Commercial) Ltd, for conducting litigation without authorisation. The conviction, handed down at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 22 May 2025, underscores the importance of using qualified legal professionals when pursuing possession claims or other court proceedings. (Source: Nearly Legal).

Case background

Between April 2017 and April 2023, Mr Charles was accused of carrying on “reserved legal activity” – specifically, conducting housing litigation – without the proper authorisation under section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007 LSA 2007. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) prosecuted both Mr Charles and Landlord Advice UK (LAUK), on the basis that the conduct of litigation is a regulated activity and requires a qualified solicitor or an alternative, authorised provider to ensure professional indemnity cover and an independent complaints route (SRA statement).

“The public needs confidence in the legal profession and the defendant’s actions had significant impact on that. This elevated the seriousness of the case overall,” the Chief Magistrate noted at sentencing.

Earlier concerns about Landlord Advice UK’s activities date back to 2019, when the company was found to be offering litigation services without the necessary regulation, nearly compromising a client’s case and reproducing unauthorised excerpts from third-party legal blogs Nearly Legal, 2019.

Sentencing details

On 16 April 2025, Mr Charles pleaded guilty to multiple counts of unauthorised litigation. At the sentencing hearing on 22 May 2025, the following penalties were imposed:

Defendant	Penalty
Sasha Charles (personal)	4 months’ imprisonment (suspended for 2 years); 15 days’ rehabilitation activities; 100 hours’ unpaid work; Victim surcharge £122; Costs £3,000 (SRA release)
Landlord Advice UK (LAUK)	Fine £12,000 (reduced from £20,000 for mitigation and early plea); Victim surcharge £181; Costs covered by Mr Charles’s order

The Chief Magistrate assessed Mr Charles’s culpability as “high” given the deliberate planning and persistence of the offences, although overall harm was classified as “low” due to the absence of evidence of financial losses by individual tenants. The fine on LAUK was applied concurrently across all charges.

Implications for landlords and agents

This case highlights several risks for landlords and letting agents who use unregulated advice services:

1. Lack of professional indemnity: Without proper authorisation, providers are unlikely to have the necessary insurance, leaving clients exposed to potential liability for errors.
2. No independent complaints process: Tenants and landlords have limited recourse if advice is incorrect or if procedural errors occur, undermining confidence in possession proceedings.
3. Regulatory breaches: Engaging unauthorised individuals risks violating the LSA 2007, potentially invalidating court applications or resulting in sanctions against the landlord.

The Guild of Residential Landlords advises members to verify the credentials of any legal provider. Only solicitors regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority or firms authorised by the Legal Services Board should handle litigation on behalf of landlords.

Maintaining professional standards

“Conducting litigation in circumstances where you are not entitled to do so undermines the rule of law and landlord confidence,” commented a senior SRA officer.

Landlords should request sight of a provider’s practising certificate and confirm that they hold adequate professional indemnity insurance. Agents must remain vigilant when recommending eviction or possession services, ensuring compliance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Civil Procedure Rules.

By relying on qualified professionals, landlords protect both their interests and those of their tenants, preserving the integrity of the residential lettings sector. The sentencing of Mr Charles serves as a cautionary tale: shortcuts in legal processes can lead to significant reputational, financial, and procedural repercussions.