Gransnet forums

News & politics

Labour Brings in excellent Renter's Rights - long overdue.

(212 Posts)
Wyllow3 Tue 28-Apr-26 13:50:28

The Renters’ Rights Act, effective from May 1, 2026, brings significant changes to private renting in England (with similar changes following in Scotland and Wales), abolishing Section 21 "no-fault" evictions and fixed-term contracts.

Tenants can now leave on a rolling basis with two months' notice, while landlords must provide valid, legal reasons for eviction, with rent increases limited to once a year.

Key changes in the new legislation include:
Abolition of Section 21 and Fixed Terms: All tenancies convert to rolling, periodic agreements. Fixed-term contracts are no longer allowed.
Eviction Restrictions: Landlords cannot evict without cause (Section 8) and cannot sell or move in during the first 12 months. Notice periods for eviction are generally increased to four months.
Rent Controls: Rent can only be increased once per year, and it must align with market rates.
Ban on Bidding Wars: It is illegal for landlords to accept or encourage offers above the advertised rent.
Pets and Children: Tenants have the right to request a pet, which cannot be unreasonably refused. It is illegal to refuse tenants with children or those receiving benefits.
Increased Protection for Tenants: Landlords must follow strict new guidelines on repairs and the standard of homes, with local authorities enforcing fines up to £40,000.

Existing tenancies as of 1 May 2026 will automatically shift to this new system, with landlords required to provide a mandatory information sheet explaining these changes to tenants by 31 May 2026.

This is an AI summary, cross check if you wish by googling
"new laws for renters rights"

Good for you, Labour, at last, and long, long, overdue. So many of our grandchildren now reply on rented flats.

BBC news lunchtime showed both positive and negative comments from renters.

But in fact in Europe, where there are far more rented properties, these sort of laws have long been in force, and simply accepted by Landlords

Tenko Wed 29-Apr-26 15:47:57

I’m an ex LL , we had a rental property for 12 years and had 2 lovely tenants who really looked after the house . Then we had the tenants from hell. Fine for the first year and then they stopped the dd . The dh was SE and wasn’t working . We agreed they could pay in instalments, and gave them a lot of leeway as they had young children and we felt sorry for them. Giving them time invalidated our insurance. Eventually they agreed to leave.
The house and garden was a total mess and they left loads of stuff . we spent 2 weeks clearing out their stuff and had to get a skip. By then we’d had enough and decided to sell. And sold to first time buyers . So yes one less rental property but one couple now on the property ladder .
We gave our AC money for a deposit from the equity . Both were renting in London where rents are crazy high , and had been renting for 12-15 years .
DS bought last year and DD is looking .
So I can see both sides of the situation. And I’m very interested in how it’s going to pan out .

Doodledog Wed 29-Apr-26 15:49:32

fancythat

A big if.

Everything is a 'big if' though. The government said in the manifesto that they would protect tenants, and there is no reason (that I know of) to assume that they won't continue to do so. I hope they do, which is not the same as hoping that LLs are not treated fairly too.

twaddle Wed 29-Apr-26 15:51:28

LemonJam, A professional landlord, who knows what he or she is doing would have factored all of that into the cost when they buy leasehold flats. Sometimes they can pick up real bargains. The problem is that when people see these bargains and don't really understand the market and why they're so cheap.

Oreo Wed 29-Apr-26 15:52:47

There are lots of measures which taken by theirselves sound very good but you have to consider all the outcomes first.
This particular one could well have the knock on effect of all the reasonable LL’s who own one or two houses thinking it’s not worth their while and selling up, leaving only LL’s who have huge rental portfolios and slum LL’s in the market.
As in all businesses if demand outstrips supply then prices will go up and there will be too many people chasing after too few rentals.

twaddle Wed 29-Apr-26 15:53:30

ArthurAskey

It’s terrible news for renters. Landlords will sell up in record numbers reducing the supply of properties.

Who do you think will buy the properties?

twaddle Wed 29-Apr-26 16:01:20

Oreo

There are lots of measures which taken by theirselves sound very good but you have to consider all the outcomes first.
This particular one could well have the knock on effect of all the reasonable LL’s who own one or two houses thinking it’s not worth their while and selling up, leaving only LL’s who have huge rental portfolios and slum LL’s in the market.
As in all businesses if demand outstrips supply then prices will go up and there will be too many people chasing after too few rentals.

For one reason or other, I don't have an issue with huge rental portfolios in themselves (as long as they're not slum landlords and pay their taxes). Many of the huge rental portfolios in the UK are actually housing associations (former council departments), operating as non-profits. Owners of rental portfolios tend to know the law and keep their properties in a decent condition with all the statutory checks. Small landlords can be variable. I know somebody who has an absolute gem of a landlord - she repays that by keeping the property in immaculate condition. On the other hand, I've known some landlords who treat their tenants like scum and try to cut every corner going by not carrying out checks and thinking that worn out carpets are fine and delaying doing repairs. They don't treat the rental as a business, so don't think long term and are just interested in collecting their rent.

Sleepyhead52 Wed 29-Apr-26 16:04:42

Ilovecheese

How will it leadto a shortage of properties? The properties will still exist even if they are sold. They are not going tobe demolished

They will exist but they may not exist in the rental market.

Doodledog Wed 29-Apr-26 16:07:30

There are lots of posts saying that this will lead to a shortage of rental properties, but nobody has explained why landlords who are already doing the things in the act will sell up. What is so unreasonable about any of the things being brought into law?

Oreo Wed 29-Apr-26 16:08:42

There are plenty of nightmare tenants as well that have had so many chances and drive their good LL’s up the wall.The larger enterprises will be able to weather these kinds of renters and the slum LL’s will apply strong arm tactics to them but it’s the small LL’s who suffer.
If things go too much the way of renters then small LL’s won’t bother and will sell up, leading to property shortages.It’s all a delicate balance really.

Grantanow Wed 29-Apr-26 16:09:31

I read today in the DT that it took 201 days for a landlord to evict a nonpaying tenant through the courts beford the RRA and that after the RRA it would take 341 days. Is this fair?

Doodledog Wed 29-Apr-26 16:23:03

Grantanow

I read today in the DT that it took 201 days for a landlord to evict a nonpaying tenant through the courts beford the RRA and that after the RRA it would take 341 days. Is this fair?

No, of course not. There should also be legislation to protect LLS from bad tenants. But protecting tenants doesn't preclude that, and we have to start somewhere.

fancythat Wed 29-Apr-26 16:40:36

Sleepyhead52

Ilovecheese

How will it leadto a shortage of properties? The properties will still exist even if they are sold. They are not going tobe demolished

They will exist but they may not exist in the rental market.

Quite.

Which answers twaddle's question too.

fancythat Wed 29-Apr-26 16:44:23

From AI

UK landlords are selling properties at record levels, with 26% to 35% of landlords having sold or actively trying to sell, driven by high taxes, regulatory changes (Renters’ Rights Bill), and increased mortgage costs. Projections suggest over 220,000 rental properties could disappear in 2026, marking a significant, accelerated exodus from the market.
LandlordZONE
LandlordZONE
+4

fancythat Wed 29-Apr-26 16:46:43

I think irreversible damage has already been done.

I feel sorry for the good tenants who are now forced with higher rents.
And a lot less property choice.

Smileless2012 Wed 29-Apr-26 16:47:01

It was generally easier and quicker to evict a bad tenant using the No Fault section 21 than going through the often lengthy and costly process of going to court to evict them for being a bad tenant.

The removal of section 21 may well be why some LL's have or are considering selling their rental properties.

valdali Wed 29-Apr-26 17:03:05

Ilovecheese

How will it leadto a shortage of properties? The properties will still exist even if they are sold. They are not going tobe demolished

Absolutely. If all the private LLs decide to sell now, then the price of these types of property in high-rental areas will plummet, making them an attractive proposition for anyone looking to get into the buy-to-rent sector & happy to comply with the new rules.
And it might even be possible for couples to afford a mortgage on them (decreasing the rental pool, sure, but also decreasing the amount of people needing to rent).

TerriBull Wed 29-Apr-26 17:05:47

There's a lot of supposition on this thread. Particularly as to the automatic rise in property prices. We recently sold a flat we had owned since 2014 there wasn't really any rise to speak of. Flats, even here in the south east are not necessarily a great investment often due to ever increasing management fees. My perception, maybe wrong, that possibly the majority of lettings are in flats and there is a downturn in the desirability of that type of property.

The company managing the block where we owned a flat recently levied charges of a couple of thousand in consecutive years over and above their twice yearly standard charges. First for internal fire doors, which were told were mandatory, secondly a contingency fund for roof repairs, although they later stated that those were to be carried out sometime in the future. We'd paid out the money for the fire doors a couple of years ago, they still hadn't put them in by the time we sold, our money just left lying in their bank account. There's nothing much the owner can do about these companies, we know at times they're turning us over in they can't always substantiate some of the items in their accounts, which amounts to money for old rope. Unless owner occupiers have the ability to oust them and manage the property themselves then they are stuck with them. Managing a block of flats takes time and effort. Continual liaising with the other owners in the block as to having a consensus as to what contractors to use and obtaining the best estimates. Understandably not everyone wants to take that on.

Then there are the letting agents. Mine charged 12 and half percent plus VAT, for that they do very little. Drew up the contract, organised safety certificates, placed the tenant's deposit in an approved investment scheme, organised an inspection and inventory of the flat. Most of the first month's rent forfeited to these services. After that they inspect the property once or twice. They have a panel of maintenance people who charge top dollar. Their plumbing arm were particularly useless and obtuse with it. When we had to have a new pump installed in the bathroom, when I asked for the spec. they actually told me they weren't prepared to divulge that information to me. The person who was paying the bill ffs! I'd never been told that by any plumber before, but then again we'd never used cowboys. These were so bloody useless, they had to come back and do the same job twice. Eventually we were of the opinion that they were setting up issues on purpose. So we got rid of them and found our own plumbers. So of course that kind of makes the letting agent redundant, in that we were organising what they should be doing and they made it ultra difficult for us to liaise with our tenants, thus hindering some essential work. However, although the tenants wanted the work done, they in turn weren't cooperative in letting us sort out the matter. They were super cagey about who came to the flat because they had 4 other people living there un-be-known to us, thus breaking the terms of the lease.

So people ask, why did you want to sell up? Most of the articles in the financial press seem to suggest it isn't really worth it for the single property Landlord and it was certainly getting that way. A perfect storm of dealing with uncooperative agents, tenants, management companies, their fees and the prospective legislation coming down the line. I'm not saying we didn't make money from the letting. In the end the return didn't justify the aggro. We've spread the money between ISAS and other investments, less return but minus the headaches.

I'm sure Blackrock and large companies buying into great swathes of the buy to let market, won't give a stuff about their tenants, we always tried to play fair as I believe many Landlords do.

Doodledog Wed 29-Apr-26 17:14:49

Smileless2012

It was generally easier and quicker to evict a bad tenant using the No Fault section 21 than going through the often lengthy and costly process of going to court to evict them for being a bad tenant.

The removal of section 21 may well be why some LL's have or are considering selling their rental properties.

It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed.

I can understand a LL wanting to evict someone who is damaging their property, or is well behind with the rent, but living with the stress of having 'no fault' evictions hanging over you must be horrible when you have done everything right.

Finding a new home that is convenient for schools, work, social networks and so on must be very difficult - particularly with a young family - and to have to do so on the whim of a LL strikes me as very unreasonable.

Also, if increased mortgage costs are 'forcing' LLs to sell, that proves the point about rents paying others' mortgages and buying their assets.

When we started out (I married in 1980) it was much cheaper to rent than to buy, largely because of high interest rates on mortgages and the ready availability of council housing which made private rentals less prevalent than now, so rents were cheaper. Despite prices having rocketed in the 70s we managed to save a deposit in a couple of years, even in our early 20s at the start of our careers. We lived at home whilst saving, as was much more usual then, so didn't have rent coming out of our incomes before we married.

For my children the reverse has been true. Both paid very high rents, as their work meant they couldn't live at home, but as high deposits meant buying a house was further from reach than it was for our generation they had no choice but to do it into their 30s. Also, because there is almost no social housing left, the market for rented properties is a lot bigger than it used to be so LLs can charge what they like.

I repeat - I do think that LLs need protection too - but as has been repeated on this thread, they are running businesses and tenants are living in homes. Legislation has to take that difference into account, IMO.

sundowngirl Wed 29-Apr-26 17:50:06

Doodledog post at 12.43

We are excellent landlords. Please enlighten me how we will prosper under this new legislation

fancythat Wed 29-Apr-26 18:02:31

It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
And perhaps this is why so many LLs have sold up.

It is the Landlord's property!

twaddle Wed 29-Apr-26 18:14:16

fancythat

^It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed^

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
And perhaps this is why so many LLs have sold up.

It is the Landlord's property!

And the tenant's home!! The landlord's name is on the deeds, but it is still the tenant's home and he/she has the right to "quiet enjoyment" of the property for the duration of the tenancy. Unfortunately, some landlords forget that they are signing over certain rights to the property while a tenant lives there.

fancythat Wed 29-Apr-26 18:16:03

And there we have it.

The fundamentals.

And why I would never let out my property.

fancythat Wed 29-Apr-26 18:17:11

twaddle

fancythat

It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
And perhaps this is why so many LLs have sold up.

It is the Landlord's property!

And the tenant's home!! The landlord's name is on the deeds, but it is still the tenant's home and he/she has the right to "quiet enjoyment" of the property for the duration of the tenancy. Unfortunately, some landlords forget that they are signing over certain rights to the property while a tenant lives there.

But the Landlord is not expected to get their property back again!

fancythat Wed 29-Apr-26 18:17:32

The End. For me.

valdali Wed 29-Apr-26 18:22:29

fancythat

^It is under Section 21 that the poster on MN is going to evict a family with young children who have paid rent on time for 7 years so that her student niece can take their home. That seems very wrong to me, and (assuming the thread starter was telling the truth) could almost be an exemplar of why Section 21 needed to be repealed^

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
And perhaps this is why so many LLs have sold up.

It is the Landlord's property!

But it's also the family's home!