The Renters’ Rights Bill had its first reading in Parliament yesterday. It included the abolition of Section 21, the no-fault eviction that was promised, but not enacted, by the previous administration.
The bill is set to bring substantial changes to the property rental sector, with many landlords and key figures in the industry expressing concerns about its potential impact.
Despite the opposition from parts of the industry, the swift progression of the bill should not come as a surprise. It is now clear that the government is determined to push the legislation through, although there is considerable frustration that Section 21 may be abolished before critical issues, such as the delays in the court system, are properly addressed. Landlords and letting agents worry that without an efficient legal process in place to handle disputes, the removal of Section 21 could leave them vulnerable to long, drawn-out legal battles.
Importantly, the bill also contains provisions to ensure that tenants cannot be unfairly evicted by rent hikes. Rent increases will be limited to once per year, and landlords will need to give tenants two months’ notice before any rent rise takes effect.
This may offer tenants more stability, but it could also present challenges for landlords in keeping up with rising costs.
The industry has long advocated for a more balanced approach, one that protects both tenants and landlords. However, the government appears set on moving forward at pace.
When Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner stated there would be “no more dither and delay,” she made it clear that the concerns of responsible landlords and letting agents might not be given the attention many hoped for.
For them, the focus on reforming the sector without addressing the underlying issues could exacerbate the current challenges, including rising demand and limited availability of rental properties.
While the bill’s objectives—such as the enactment of Awaab’s Law, extending the Decent Homes Standard to the private sector, and the creation of a national landlord register—are broadly considered positive steps, questions remain about enforcement. Local authorities, already under considerable pressure, will be tasked with overseeing compliance, and many doubt whether they will have the resources to do so effectively.
Additional measures, such as the ban on rental bidding wars, the right for tenants to have pets, and the prohibition on blanket bans against benefit claimants, have also sparked debate.
Some landlords see these changes as an overreach, restricting their ability to manage their properties according to their preferences and leaving them without sufficient safeguards in place.
This highlights a key issue with the bill: landlords are being asked to relinquish certain rights and control over their properties, yet there has been no corresponding assurance of swift legal recourse if problems arise. It’s no wonder that many responsible landlords, disheartened by the growing regulatory burden, are choosing to leave the market altogether. This could, in turn, exacerbate the very problem the government is trying to solve—making it even harder for tenants to find secure, affordable housing.
The Government is pushing ahead with its overhaul of the property rental sector and its plans to protect those who rent. Unfortunately, pleas that they also protect the rights of those who let property seem to be falling on deaf ears.
