Several proposed changes to the Renters’ Rights Bill have been rejected by the government, sparking debate among landlords, agents, and tenant groups over the future direction of the legislation.
One of the most contentious rejections concerned student housing. The House of Lords had recommended that Ground 4A — which allows landlords to reclaim possession of a property for student lettings – be extended to cover all student tenancies. This would have enabled landlords to regain possession in time for the next academic year.
However, the government declined the amendment, confirming that Ground 4A will apply only to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) with three or more bedrooms.
A second proposed change, aimed at easing restrictions on landlords selling their properties, was also dismissed. The amendment would have allowed landlords to re-let a property just six months after evicting a tenant for the purpose of sale. Instead, the current requirement to wait 12 months before re-letting will remain in place.
The government further rejected calls to permit landlords to request an additional three weeks’ rent as a deposit from tenants wishing to keep pets – a move that many in the sector had hoped would mitigate potential damage or cleaning costs.
One amendment that was approved relates to agricultural tenancies. Landlords will be allowed to reclaim possession of a property in order to house employees or individuals involved in farming operations, addressing a specific concern within the rural rental market.
In another development, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook confirmed the introduction of a delegated power allowing rent increases to be backdated in cases where tenants have challenged the rise at a tribunal — a technical adjustment designed to ensure fairness in rent-setting processes.
In total, 20 non-government amendments were rejected, signalling the government’s firm stance on maintaining the structure and intent of the Bill as it moves toward royal assent, which is expected later this month.
The legislation is now set to proceed through its final ‘ping-pong’ stage before receiving Royal Assent, with all of its major measures intact including the abolition of Section 21, the introduction of a Decent Homes Standard, and the end of Assured Shorthold Tenancies.
Industry reactions:
Nathan Emerson, CEO at Propertymark:
“The Renters’ Rights Bill represents one of the biggest evolutions of housing legislation across England in over thirty years. Implementing such a wide-ranging overhaul of law must prove dynamic by design to help deliver a fair and workable balance between tenants and landlords.
“Housing fundamentally affects everyone, and there is an immense pressure on this new legislation to deliver tangible results. There is an essential ongoing need for new sustainable housing stock across all regions, and for this to efficiently happen, there must be long term investment within the private rented sector, especially as population growth continues to move at pace.”
Sam Humphries, head of M&A at Dwelly:
“Even before this Bill has been implemented we’re already seeing a rise in landlord repossessions, driven by a lack of trust in the court system and a desire to regain control of their portfolios before these changes come into effect.
“With only minor amendments made to the Bill and the abolition of Section 21 evictions set to go ahead, this trend is only likely to intensify, putting even greater strain on the courts and leaving many more tenants without a roof over their head.
“It underlines the unintended consequences of pushing through sweeping reforms without properly considering the realities of the rental market.”
Marc von Grundherr, director of Benham and Reeves:
“Matthew Pennycook has justified rejecting the majority of Lords’ amendments by suggesting that landlords would exploit any concessions to behave poorly. This narrative is both unfair and inaccurate.
“The vast majority of landlords are honest, hard-working individuals who operate in an ethically sound manner and provide a vital service to millions of tenants.
“Demonising them is not only misleading, it risks further destabilising the rental market at a time when supply is already critically short – so it’s extremely disappointing to see landlords used as a scapegoat to prevent the necessary changes required to balance the Bill.”
Sián Hemming-Metcalfe, Operations Director at Inventory Base
“This Bill cannot be allowed to drift endlessly between the Commons and Lords. Minor amendments are no substitute for real direction, and the reality is stark: only one in six landlords are ready for the RRB. Unless Parliament delivers clarity now, uncertainty will harden into paralysis across the rental sector.”
Scott Clay, director at Together:
“Ahead of the Renters’ Rights Bill getting its much-anticipated royal assent, discussion of the last few elements are vital – especially as some landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios, could be at risk of being caught unawares.
“The potential end of AST agreements and clampdown on surging rent pricing – while possibly contentious for individual, private landlords, should hopefully create a more balanced and fair system. The allowance of pets and inclusion of prospective tenants on benefits – provided there are watertight financial agreements and clear and honest communications from all parties should help this too.
“Indeed, these new measures may be an easier pill to swallow than the removal of Section 21 or ‘no fault’ evictions. This could see unjust cases overlooked or ignored – causing costly and time draining situations for legitimate landlords. For example, landlords can evict tenants to sell their property, but this cannot be re-let for up to a year if the sale falls through. This could mean houses are left empty for months on end, worsening rather than improving our housing crisis.
“The bill is under immense pressure to positively deliver from both sides – hopes are it properly addresses the concerns of landlords and tenants equally. We shall see.”
Vann Vogstad, CEO of Coho:
“HMOs will be hit first and hardest by this legislation. These properties are already subject to a huge amount of regulation, yet they play a crucial role in providing affordable, flexible accommodation across the UK. Any further pressure risks reducing availability in this vital part of the sector, ultimately to the detriment of the very tenants the government claims to be protecting.”
Housing minister vows ‘smooth transition’ to help industry prepare for Renters’ Rights Bill
What an absolute shambles. Once again, our so-called government and lawmakers have shown themselves to be complete fools. Instead of listening to reason and adopting sensible amendments, they’ve dug their heels in pushing through a half-baked Bill that will only create chaos for landlords, tenants, and the housing sector as a whole. Ignoring practical fixes around student lettings, sales flexibility, and pet deposits just proves they’re more interested in political posturing than real solutions. It’s incompetence dressed up as progress, and the people who’ll suffer most are the very renters they claim to protect.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
For generations, many landlords have gone above and beyond simply providing housing. They’ve built genuine relationships with tenants, offering support during difficult times and fostering trust that turns a tenancy into more than just a business arrangement.
That approach is now under threat. Mr. Pennycook’s belief that the proposed bill will strengthen tenant protections is, unfortunately, misplaced. In practice, the legislation risks delivering the opposite outcome.
The landlords who already act responsibly and play by the rules will be forced to adopt a rigid, transactional approach. The friendly, personal relationships that have long benefitted tenants will be replaced with strict business terms dictated by regulation. Meanwhile, those who ignore the rules—the rogue landlords who care little for conditions or compliance—will continue undeterred.
The danger is clear. With an already limited supply of rental housing, tenants may find themselves in a far more precarious position. Many could be pushed into the hands of unscrupulous landlords operating outside the system, where poor standards go unreported because tenants fear that speaking up could leave them homeless.
Instead of strengthening protections, this bill risks eroding trust, reducing supply, and making life harder for the very people it aims to protect. If we want to build a fairer rental market, we need legislation that tackles rogue landlords head-on without driving out the good ones.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Strangely once the deposit has been paid and the tenancy signed that’s it the keys must be handed before the rent in advance, and oddly no body can take more than one month’s rent.
So any one who’s been bad in the past or foreign tenant will not be allowed to pay more than a month.
So no property owning guarantor will render them unacceptable for any insurance company.
Civil unrest maybe just around the corner…..well done state sponsored Shelter.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Dear Propertymark – The Industries Go To Defender – your lobbying is clearly very poor and yet another reason for not paying such ridiculous fees for nothing….”There is an essential ongoing need for new sustainable housing stock across all regions, and for this to efficiently happen, there must be long term investment within the private rented” . How do you possibly see new sustainable stock, when these types of changes simply push more and more Private Landlords away from the sector……once again you have no idea what really is happening out in the market place.
As for Together ““The potential end of AST agreements and clampdown on surging rent pricing – while possibly contentious for individual, private landlords, should hopefully create a more balanced and fair system” – Why would removing a way the majority of good landlords could gain possession, allowing pets with no financial security for damage, completely ******** the overseas tenant market who many have no credit history and pay in advance from savings (gone) – how could this possibly be contentious for Private Landlords…..
You’ve screwed the industry once again…….well done.
Scrap Section 24
Allow 6 month in advance rents
Reduce capital gains on 2nd homes
Min EPC = E
Then you will see landlords coming back, greater level of stock across the country, in better condition as they have money to spend,………..= lower rents. Supply and demand.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register