Renters rights bill - 1 May 2026 good or disaster?

If may affect owner occupiers of flats as well if landlords cannot get problematic tenants out? For example, in certain mansion blocks the reason certain types of tenants are not allowed by the head lease is to keep building insurance costs down. A certain profile is just not a risk insurance/lenders etc are willing to take on without upping the cost significantly. And if there is a way round it via a head lease structure then surely all block owners including landlords will enter into agreements to exclude a certain profile of tenant anyway?

Will late payment fees be allowed with the new law? I don’t think so.

And the company can have the best legal in the world behind them, but they still have to follow the law and use a legitimate reason to evict a tenant, which will take months from start to end, as it does now.

Landlords have been hit by many many things that have made them sell over the last few years, this is just the latest

thats the sort of attitude that gets landlords giving up .

Daft move by the government IMO. I am an “accidental landlord” and I have one house which I used to live in, but have been renting out for 20+ years. I have always charged a fair rent. The current tenant has been there a few years and pays below market rate and I’m a good landlord ie get things fixed immediately. In recent years the amount of tax I’ve had to pay on rental income (ie can’t deduct mortgage costs) has started to irk me, and now with this new bill, if/ when he gives his notice, I will sell the property as it’s just too much hassle. I may even evict him and sell. I can’t see how reducing the rental housing stock - given that many people say the same as me- is a good thing.

Very bad for students and their landlords, both of which want one year contracts as they move around. Also bad for tenants like doctors who need to move around every august for their rotas. I'm a student landlord and this could leave me with problems if one party if a group refuses to move out preventing a new group from moving
in.

My understanding is that the Head Lease still over rules everything else so a no pets building stays no pets. This isn't London specific, lots of places have these

It’s an odd term but one that I’ve used to mean it wasn’t a case of buying to let and using it as an income stream. It was a side effect of another choice.

These are the people who will remove a good chunk of stock from the rental market. Renters are then free to buy those houses if they want? Rental is a choice for some people to get a better property than they could buy.

A lot of larger London buildings have head leases stating no pets/no students/no benefit claimants/no rentals to tenants making a noise or the freeholder can revoke a leaseholders (flat owners) long term lease. So what happens to those head leases? They were signed years ago.

I don’t mind about pets, I have always allowed them as a dog lover myself.
I believe you will still be able to do credit checks / affordability checks. You cannot discriminate against people with protected characteristics but I don’t think this includes students, you can choose not to rent to them.

Any rental increase can be challenged, however small. The tribunals are going to be very busy so long backlogs, and no possibility of putting the rent up until you get to tribunal and even then it can’t be backdated. So it’s in tenants’ interests to challenge any increase.

Because I have a fairly small one bed flat my tenants will typically be single people who would not be entitled to social housing. Some have been intending to buy eventually, or working in the area on contract for a couple of years. My current tenant is elderly and doesn't want the bother of owning his own property.
One of my concerns is that in future landlords may not be allowed to turn down potential tenants - personally I don't want students as I have seen the mess that they can make of a property. I also want just one person with good financial references and without pets. I'm sure that other landlords feel the same.

The bit I do not understand about the State’s take on this - no landlords were paying themselves a wage were they? Most just did the actual work part (their own time) for free? So how can corporations reasonably provide the landlord service so much cheaper?

It’s clearly bad for Landlords , not having flexibility with your own property can never be a good thing . There is no profit at all in being a one / two BTL owner and with all the extra costs being introduced there is no profit . This will be bad for tenants because they’ll be no money in the pot for repairs etc and if Landlords end up subsidising costs out their own money there’s no point having a BTL . If they then sell the property to vast conglomerates that’s also bad for tenants as they’ll lose the ‘ personal ‘ aspect eg if a tenant is late with the rent because of a change in jobs for example a small landlord can agree it . A large conglomerate will add late payment fees and have a whole legal army behind them to evict if necessary . Be careful what you wish for . As an aside I think this government is beyond stupid to introduce this at a time when there are no houses , where are people going to live if private landlords give up .

Landlords always seem to get the bad press. Rents will go up as there are less Landlords now. Many sold up in advance of this legislation. That wont impact house prices.
Private Landlords provide a service that local authorities cant. There is no such thing as affordable housing so people will always be looking to rent. Landlords might become even more fussy about who they agree to rent to. Ultimately still bad for tenants.

Landlords have had their rights eroded over the last few years. Landlords with one or two properties will give up, and their properties will be bought by big corporations who care nothing for tenants, and will charge enormous rents.
Those big corporations have skilled lawyers who will find reasons to evict whoever they want.
It's almost like the government wanted their mates to profit isn't it?

So no, it's not good. It ends small time landlords, takes away competition in the market, and rents will rise to compensate for loss of control.

Id love to kick one of our tenants out. She's caused so much hassle over the years, and other people in the block of flats keep complaining. But - the rent is paid on time - and flat is reasonably well kept, so the only option i have is to keep increasing the rent each year until hopefully she will decide too expensive. Only other option woild be to report her to housing benefits, as its a 2 bed flst and she no longer has custody of her daughter.

I'm also a landlord with just one small flat. Most of our tenants stay for some years and seem happy. It's managed by a good agent and we've only put the rent up once, slightly, in the last 12 years. However some of the more stringent rules and regulations mean that we will probably have to sell the flat - it's in a beautiful listed building where very limited changes are allowed and the insulation levels can't be raised to give us the EPC level required for letting. Our current tenant is an elderly man who rents because he doesn't want to buy and I hope very much that we won't be forced to evict him when he's been living there happily for more than five years.
As@whirlyheadposted earlier, our flat has also hardly gone up in value at all over the time we've owned it, and though we charge a reasonable rent we probably get a return lower than we would in a savings account.

The accidental landlords that used to live in their properties will be the ones making sure the property is always well maintained and looked after with long term happy tenants. Probably using estate agents to manage for them as easier though more expensive. They will be selling in droves leaving the landlords running a business and less interested in happy tenants.

If renting I’d know which I prefer….

I work for a local authority landlord. I think rental properties should be mortgage free as a basic model. The interest rates should not affect rental properties. The private rental sector is a disgrace

I was agreeing with you.

Who are the government to say who you should have in your house. Its your house, not theirs.

The pets and children part is ridiculous. Lots of properties are not suitable for them.

I've never liked the contracts where you are stuck for 12 months. Where I am from, tenant can give 1 months notice and landlord 6 month notice. If you don't complete 12months tenancy (unless otherwise agreed) you just pay extra month as a fine but you can leave.

There are some positives in this change but also some negatives. Depends on what you value and what is your role.

I wonder if landlords will be even more selective with tenants. We almost didn't get a flat. My previous tenancies were in a different country and they wouldn't accept references from foreign landlord. My bf owned a house so he hadn't rented for years. So no references. They required a guarantor. Mine and my partners parents are retired and pensioners were not accepted. My brother lives in a foreign county so he wasn't accepted. We had enough money to pay rent for a full year in advance but they said they can't accept any increased deposit. Retrospectively we should have gotten a guarantor service, but we didn't know at the time. In the end the landlord accepted that if my bf has had a house for 20 years, we might be tolerable tenants.

Currently only our student tenants have guarantors. After implementation of the renters rights bill we will be hard pushed to give many of the people we have previously 'taken a chance' on without now having a solid guarantor behind them...which I suspect many wouldn't be able to provide..

I agree it's always a risk whoever you take on but the ending of fixed term contracts hugely increases that risk.