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

In Wales, where this legislation came in over 2 years ago, it caused landlords to sell up en masse, leading to a huge reduction of rental properties available and this leading to a huge hike in rental prices. Think about University towns and cities- there were reports of students at Cardiff University travelling every day from their home in Bristol because they couldn't get student accommodation in Cardiff.
I rent out a flat in Bedfordshire with 4 more years on the mortgage. The rental income pays the mortgage but of course there are many, many other costs and I am losing out every year. For various reasons I can't sell it until the mortgage is paid off and I will sell at my very first opportunity.
I am very worried about having a tenant who trashes my property and now it'll take me months to get them out.
The gvmt hasn't thought this through . The RRAct is bad news for private landlords.

Schools? Another thing for teachers to manage - anti social parents and their ASBO kids’ housing issues.
How about mentors from the community - would you like to volunteer?

Please take advise on this urgently. The new section 24, in force now, means that tax is payable on the entire amount of rent, not just the profit after the mortgage has been paid. This was one of the major factors in BTL landlords selling, before this RR bill.

I think it's good for tenants who have bad landlords, but like a lot of things, it's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Im not sure whether there is any provision for people who only want to let out their property for a short time and live in it again, like if they work abroad for a year or something like that.

Not necessarily
When there are a few people on the Tenancy Agreement then 1 could give 2 months notice and move out leaving the others to pay the full rent.
This is not exclusive to students of course but its more likely to happen than when its a family or couple living together

Social housing tenants can be problematic, my experience is they generate rubbish, leave dog poo outside, that attract vermin, because they dont pay for housing it comes from benefits. There are no consequences for them, as social housing will have to rehouse them especially if it’s a family.

Shes right though, the schools do get involved if there is some level of children's social services involvement.

I've been in meetings with some astonishingly amazing teachers, who really go the extra mile for students. Sometimes, those teachers are the only person that the young person feels comfortable opening up to.

Teachers are woefully undervalued and underpaid in my opinion.

That’s a huge exaggeration. There’s many good things about the RRB, including the abolition of section 21. It was appalling that landlords can kick out tenants from their homes for any reason they wanted.

That maybe so, but the good will of teachers is shrinking. Give us the time, pay and support sure. But there are other people who can (and should) also shoulder this responsibility and I for one am not getting into supporting parents who should know better and perpetually model crap behaviour (and they know it).

There are no consequences for them, as social housing will have to rehouse them especially if it’s a family.

Isn't that the problem. Private renting tenants pay (and pay more) and are accountable and social housing tenants are given an easy ride. This needs to change.

Yes Social housing tenants need a home but if they behave badly why do they deserve a tax payer funded home?

This is true. There is always a reason. Sometimes the reason is that they want to sell, and the new law does not stop this.
Usually it's because the tenants are bad tenants in some way but not bad enough to evict using a fault ground. Owe some arrears, pay late, bought some big smelly dogs, are subletting etc, etc.

Yep
I imagine some tenants will be very good at keeping just below the threshold for a S8. LL's often use a S21 to get bad Tenants out, especially since as it gives them a better chance of getting another Rental.

Eek, yes @Thebrink look into the section 24 changes. https://www.axa.co.uk/landlord-insurance/guide-to-section-24-tax-changes/

I'm not sure they are given an "easy ride", and most social housing tenants are working and paying a proportion if not all of their rent.

The only way "bad" tenants get helped if evicted, is if they have kids and its purely to prevent children being homeless. That help is often a Travelodge hotel room, for a long time though, let's be honest.

Antisocial behaviour enforcement for housing is a complex beast and massively misunderstood by most, except those who work in the sector.

But, please dont assume they are all "bad" or taking from tax payers as that really isn't the truth.

There is also the new local authority licensing scheme to contend with.

I know the industry well having been a professional landlord for over 14 years. We provide good quality housing at below market rents and have had experience of over a 100 tenants in that time.
The end of no fault eviction (section 21) is not a worry for us since we have never needed to use it but the end of fixed tenancies is going to be a big problem.

Up until now we have always considered and given a chance to tenants who had perhaps less than a glowing credit/employment history but we felt needed a chance. We felt we could do this since our risk was always known, basically on a six month assured short term tenancy (which would become a periodic tenancy if both landlord and tenant are happy to continue after six months) the tenant would pay us a damage deposit of one months rent plus one months rent in advance....this meant that even if they didn't pay us another penny our loss would be limited to four months rent (plus any damage to the property). We have had two tenants which have been less than ideal over the years but our losses were limited by this fact.

Now landlords will have not such 'break clause', when they sign up a new tenant that is it....if they are bad and refuse to pay or leave you will be looking at months of legal expense and hoop jumping just to get your property back.

The net result of this is that we will now only take 'gold plated' tenants with guarantors...and so are nearly all of the other landlords I know, so that is going to leave a lot of other quite possibly 'good', but not 'good' on paper tenants unable to rent.

We also do student lets and that is also a 'dogs dinner' but I will leave that for another post!

@LakesDad so all of your tennants have guarantors? That's not the norm is it? The worse Tennant we have ever had was a nurse who had kids. She then moved her unhinged partner in who was arrested for attempted murder.

She got back with him and straight into another rental no problems after not paying our rent for three months and trashing the place. I think it's a risk whoever you take on whatever the checks you do.

Landlords will and are selling up.
They dont want the hassle and this is the last straw.
The government havent got any right to tell people they must allow pets and children in their homes.
Its a private house.

Renting will become even more expensive when there are less properties

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.

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.

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

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

I was agreeing with you.

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

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….