Renters rights bill - 1 May 2026 good or disaster?

[Rosie8880]

So the renters rights bill has now been confirmed. From May 1 next year all tenancies will become rolling/ periodic and section 21 no fault evictions will end. Reading some blogs some landlords feel this is the end of private landlords. I don’t feel it is. Housing is a serious thing obvs and for many decades it’s been seen as a financial wealth building instrument, first, and a home second. I think tenants will stay in properties for longer now which will onto benefit local communities, and minimise people having to move around all the time. Will there be a shortage of housing now - I don’t feel there will be. As less people hopefully will need to move all the time. There will be less need. Plus the homes that do get out on market will help lower asking price as more homes are made available. But let me know your thoughts

I don’t really understand the management of antisocial behaviour within the state/housing association section. When these people are evicted where do they go? Presumably the local authority then has to rehouse them somewhere else(especially if there are children which there likely will be, it’s often children who are a big part of the problem) ?
Then they carry on as before and become someone else’s problem.

I realise it’s difficult, there are limited sanctions that can be imposed and these types of people don’t really care about any new rules eg they would likely ignore a curfew or whatever. But there needs to be some sort of system, multi agency involving social workers and school to try to manage antisocial behaviour.

It looks like it, there is no reason NOT to go to Tribunal and the system for reviews has not yet been set up properly, the fear is that there will be a long wait for the review, possibly up to 6 months.
And as for people saying Landlords will sell up and there will not be enough Rentals that is happening already.
There has been a proliferation of "Build to Rent" buildings as well, especially in The Cities. They are mostly flats and not really family friendly plus the rents are higher. This is the area the large corporates are interested in not families.

Yes that makes sense.

Likely o/s corporations building too for private renters who can pay more.

Ending non-fault eviction is no bad thing, but why did they also have to make it harder to evict bad tenants? Now the tenant has to be in 4 months of rent arrears before you can evict them, it used to be 2. How on earth is that fair? Already we have tenants who carefully stay a few pence under 2 months of arrears so that there aren't mandatory grounds to evict. What's the rationale behind handing them another couple of free months?
Also rental prices will go up. Now rental bidding is ending, landlords will list properties at the absolute top of market rate.

Loving all these "accidental" landllords,.there is no such thing. No one wakes up one day and siddently finds a tenant in their property. Own your decisions.

It’s bad if you’re a decent, smallish landlord. The good ones don’t randomly evict tenants for no reason, they don’t overinflate rents. With all the rules, regs and costs of being a landlord, there’s not enough in it to lose control of their own property, and the financial risk of that. A lot of these landlords will just sell up.

At the end of the day we have a well-document housing shortage already, plus a lot of people coming in who wouldn’t get in with a pickier private landlord - ultimately I think this bill is being brought in to push individual private landlords out and help the government (or big companies who will work with them) to take control of housing stock.

Thanks for the financial advice

That’s not true for rental income. We make no profit and still pay tax on our rental income because of the restriction on interest deductibility.

Oh come on, you know it’s a coined term for someone who didn’t buy their property with the intention to ever let it.

In my case, I bought a flat, lived in it for 5 years, wanted/needed a bigger house closer to the city where I was now working 2 hours away, tried to market the flat and it was valued at £0 for mortgage purposes as it didn’t have the right paperwork for the cladding post Grenfell. Now it’s worth 50% less than we bought it for because of stagnating sales of flats in the intervening period and I can’t sell it as I don’t have the lump sum to pay off the negative equity if I do.

So yes I rent it out in an attempt to recoup my costs, I make a loss and pay tax on this money. I only use the term accidental landlord on here as it is a term with a meaning, but in reality I rent it out to stop being bankrupted and would sell it tomorrow if someone offered me the outstanding mortgage amount which is about half of what I bought it for 15 years ago. So yes I chose to let it, but out of necessity if I had wanted to get the promotion I got and increase my earnings to pay more tax and manage a cost of living crisis.

Yes but you are not an accidental landlord are you? You made a business decision to rent out a property, albeit one you would rather not make.

There is a huge rise in big corporate Landlords. I rented 3 houses when young and dealt directly with the landlords who were delighted they had a good tenant. The last rental when DH and I bought our house let us off the last 2 weeks rent as on inspection when vacating he didn’t need to pay for a professional clean as we did such a good job. There will be no negotiation or flexibility with large corporates.

@ShamedBySiri They do just become someone else’s problem.

I’m sure all the tenants would love to be evicted.

I recently received an email notifying me of new investment properties. New homes reserved for investors only. No opportunity for first time buyers.

I suppose it’s part of government plan to reduce state provision of homes and pass it on to the private sector.

In some ways I think having large corporations plugging the gap may be a good thing - it’s more or less how it’s done in other countries. They will have the money to maintain the properties to a certain standard presumably and rent prices may stabilise over time.

However it’s a huge shame to exclude private/first time buyers making home ownership so much more difficult.

It’s also the case that there is a need for more flexible arrangements - people like a PP wanting to rent their property whilst working abroad and feel safe that they have a home to return to and lots of other reasons for so called “accidental” landlords. Equally private renters have reasons for wanting to rent for a relatively short time 6-12 months say, when relocating jobs or in order to sell their home and be chain free when buying their next home for instance.
These sorts of scenarios won’t really be catered for by the corporate land lords. It will be much more difficult for people in these situations.

Why didn’t the government factor this in? I just find it baffling that they can’t see it is going to make an existing housing crisis so much worse :(

Its typical Labour, trying to do the right thing and making things worse.
These changes will hit the people who already struggle to get a rental the worst.

Being a landlord is of course about making money first - creating wealth - sorry to break it you OP - no one decides to run a business for little or no return - be it a small landlord or a landlord with 100 properties - they are all in it to create wealth - that's how the world works. If the plan was to change the incentives of being a landlord I'm afraid that's not going to work - unless the landlord is a not for profit housing association - profit is the main driver.

This will change the rental sector - it's likely to reduce rental properties available and increase costs. It'll probably be fine for those who already have a rental - they'll have increased housing security, which is great from their perspective. Those wanting to get a rental property will face a more challenging problem with reduced supply.

It will interesting to see what the fallout is and whether it will be an overall positive affect - the benefit if there is one will not be evenly spread amongst renters.

Only good until the tenant devalues your property. Tenanted properties kitchens last 5 yrs, bathrooms same, carpets and other flooring trashed after 3 years. Pets cause horrible smells that n sink into walls, floors and doors. Gardens are not maintained & deteriorate. So on average it costs a landlord approx 10 - 15k to put a property right after a 5 year tenancy or leave the place rough and rent

I'm not sure how the changes are going to impact student rentals. The fixed term contract works for them, although I know many complain about paying rent over the summer when not necessarily living there. Under the new system I think they will be able to give notice so they can end the contract for the summer. But no student will want to move in over the summer so landlords will have no income for 3 months of the year, so presumably will stop renting to students?

Well yes. Unless you are naive like me. I’ve lost money and can’t sell the damn place. I’ve come to loath it. It will need fixing up again soon and I’ve no money to do it. I’ve remortgaged it but my rent income is still less than the mortgage- go figure. I’m stuck paying for something I wish I’d never touched. My one Hope is dcs change their mind and want to live there. It was meant to be inheritance investment till they were old enough to live there. Now off travelling and living abroad. Maybe in a couple of years 🙏

Students seem to lose out both ways. DD1 was in Edinburgh where rentals typically end around June/July so landlords cash in on Airbnb over the festival period. DD worked the festival and had a great time for three summers, managed to bunk in with friends but it’s not easy. Conversely DD2 had to pay rent on an empty property over summer holidays, I think it was about three or four months the year she graduated which was really painful. We seriously considered subletting Airbnb over the period as it was a good house in a central area of a city popular with tourists but there just seemed to be so many risks if it all went horribly wrong, plus a lot of work back and forth to clean between keys etc and obviously it was against the lease agreement.

I also object to the way letting agencies ramp up pressure on the students to secure somewhere months before they need to, often in their first term while they are still making friends, thinking who they might want to share with and grappling with adult responsibilities for the first time. DD2 secured her last house with six girls writing a letter about how they all like staying in and cooking together and studying….🤭😉 the groups of rugby playing party boys didn’t get a look in though I suppose they all found somewhere eventually.

“Clean between lets” I meant.

What do the banks think about this who lend buy to let mortgages? If they think it is OK and price neutral, then fine. But if they do not, buy to let mortgages go up and costs passed to tenants.

Well as a landlord I wouldn't have any issue knowing what to do with cash when I sell up. Pay the mortgage on that house and pay capital gains tax. Or as I still need a house ( as we also rent) I'd keep it in property a but not one id rent out. I'd move out from rental and live in it ( wasn't a possibility when we bought it).

I'm glad we bought the house. It's doubled in value since we bought it so there's no regrets. But it's not a market for small landlords with one property any more. I do think it will push rents up as I don't need to charity a high rent. My risk is small. But if you own multiple rentals run as business you need a wage level return and % on top to see you through 1-2 years of court process. I'd absolutely love to sell up and stop being a much hated landlord that charges under £1000 pm for a house you get a train to London in under a hour walking and train.

But to do hat I have to evict my tennants. They have no where to go. Otherwise I'd have sold up ten years ago.

I have read multiple threads in Mumsnet saying social housing tenants are not problematic and in fact make better neighbours than non social housing. If anyone disagrees everyone is up and arms and claims the person is not telling the truth.

Is antisocial behaviour the same in social housing as private? Is it that bad that most people are affected whatever their circumstances and wherever they live?

I think they are more fussy on lending criteria. The rate is already high. Ours is 8.5%, and I don't want to fix it as I was waiting for this bill to decide if we should sell up. You needed something like 150% return, so if the mortgage is £1000 pm, you need to charge £1500 rent. So I guess it might stop some new applicants. But once you have one, the bank has no idea if your return still balances out. It just comes down to does the rent cover the mortgage and cover your expenses. We only make about £2000 a year profit in rent, but that's OK with us as we wanted capital returns when we sell.