The Renters’ Rights Bill will bring the biggest shake-up to private renting in a generation after it received Royal Assent today.
The Bill, the first major legislation introduced in the private renting since the Housing Act 1988, passed through Parliament last week and now becomes law.
Ben Beadle, chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA), said: “After years of debate and uncertainty, today marks an important milestone for the private rented sector. With the Renters’ Rights Act on the statute book, the sector needs certainty about the way forward.
“This is the most significant shake-up of the rental market in almost 40 years, and it is imperative that the new systems work for both tenants and responsible landlords. The NRLA stands ready to work with the government to ensure the reforms are implemented in a way that is fair, proportionate and deliverable.
“The government now needs to engage meaningfully with those providing the homes so desperately needed, to ensure implementation of the Bill is realistic and aligns with the practicalities of the market – not least the need for clarity well in advance of the next academic year for student housing.”
The housing minister Matthew Pennycook has not yet set out a timeline for when the reforms would take effect, despite pressure from shadow housing secretary James Cleverly to set out a schedule.
Beadle continued: “At a minimum, the sector needs six months’ notice before implementation to ensure a smooth and seamless transition, and the Government must provide certainty on this as soon as possible.
“The government must also recognise the vital importance of a thriving private rented sector not only to meet tenant demand but to the national economy. It is essential that the Government’s reforms do not worsen the supply crisis by discouraging long term investment in the homes to rent that so many rely on.
“As the changes bed in, the government should commit to ongoing monitoring of their impact and ensure its findings are published.”
Beverley Kennard, head of lettings operations at Knight Frank, commented, “With the Renters’ Rights Bill now granted Royal Assent, this marks a significant milestone in reforms that have been on the horizon for some time. While we await clarity on implementation – expected to take effect within the next six months – it’s worth remembering that the Bill is designed to tackle rogue practices, not penalise responsible landlords.
“Although the transition period may bring some adjustment, the core elements of the Bill remain largely the same: the abolition of Section 21, changes to notice periods, and a 12-month restriction on re-letting where a landlord has given notice to sell.
“It’s also important to view the Renters’ Rights Bill within the wider context of the market. Tax policy, energy efficiency requirements, and interest rates all continue to shape landlord confidence and investment decisions. We’ll be working closely with our landlords to help them understand the practical implications of these reforms, manage any perceived risks, and plan with confidence for the months ahead.
“For landlords, property remains a sound long-term investment. The fundamentals of the sector remain strong, and the keys to successfully letting a property are unchanged – thorough tenant referencing, good landlord-tenant relationships, professional management, and trusted advice. In short, this is not cause for alarm: with the right preparation and advice, the private rented sector will continue to be a stable and worthwhile place to invest.”
Morgan Vine, director of policy and influencing at Independent Age, is among those who welcomes the Renters’ Rights Bill gaining Royal Assent.
Vine said: “The rising number of older private renters, around a third of which are in poverty, desperately need a safe and secure home. Thankfully, today we are one step closer to this.
“For years, at Independent Age we have been calling for a better deal for older renters, and it’s good to see parliamentarians taking action. Many of the older private renters we have spoken to live in a constant state of anxiety, worried about eviction and asking their landlord for repairs. Now, we need to see swift implementation of the Bill, including the end of No Fault evictions and a limit to upfront payments.
“What the Bill won’t address, is the quality and affordability of rented homes. We need to see the UK Government commit to uprating Local Housing Allowance – the mechanism that decides how much Housing Benefit is paid – in the upcoming Budget, and every year in the future. With two-thirds of older private renters who receive Housing Benefit not getting enough to cover their rent, this is squeezing personal budgets to an unsustainable level. This must change.”
Catherine Williams, real estate partner at international law firm Addleshaw Goddard, has provided a summary on what the Act means for the sector:
Risk of rising rents
“I think there is a very real risk that these controls might end up pushing rents up for existing properties as supply continues to be restricted.”
Institutional landlords overlooked
“The Act overlooks the important distinction between individual private landlords and large-scale institutional operators. The Act’s changes to how rent reviews are implemented and challenged introduces uncertainty for institutional landlords, who rely on predictable annual rent increases to support long-term investment models. By limiting rent reviews and enabling tenant challenges which could drag on for months—many of which may be speculative or lack merit—the legislation disrupts financial planning for professionally managed rental portfolios and risks undermining the viability of much needed new BTR schemes during a housing crisis.”
Impact on professional investment
“These institutional landlords — such as pension funds, insurers and professional developers — are subject to rigorous compliance, sustainability and governance standards. They deliver well-managed, high-quality rental housing and play a vital role in addressing housing demand. Treating them the same as so-called cowboy landlords risks undermining investor confidence and penalising those contributing positively to the sector.”
Delivery targets at risk
“With this and the Building Safety Regulator delays, Steve Reed is going to be lucky to have 750,000 homes in this Parliament, let alone 1.5 million. The legislative programme simply does not facilitate the rhetoric of ‘backing the builders not the blockers.'”
Rent review provisions create systematic risk
“The transition to a mandatory statutory rent review process only (via Section 13) removes the ability for a Landlord to agree a regular index linked rent review. If a rent review is challenged, the inability of the First Tier Tribunal to increase rents beyond the landlord’s proposed amount introduces systemic risk, disrupting the financial models underpinning long-term institutional investment.”
Potential for legal challenge
“If signs of overload emerge and no corrective action is taken, it’s entirely reasonable to expect the legislation could face legal challenge.”
Restrictions on deposits and upfront payments
“Capping deposits and upfront rent payments is intended to enhance affordability but simultaneously reduces flexibility. Tenants who choose or need to pay rent in advance, often as a mitigating strategy against credit risk, may find their options constrained, ironically reducing housing accessibility.”
Support for tenant protections
“I support many of the measures aimed at protecting tenants; there’s no question that poor landlord practices have caused real harm — not just to individuals, but to the market itself, fuelling a distorted public perception of landlords and undermining trust in the sector.”
Call for balanced policy
“The Act assumes landlords are bad and tenants are good. But the private rented sector isn’t binary. There are as many good landlords dealing with problem tenants as rogue landlords abusing the system. If we keep legislating on that basis, we’ll drive out good landlords and further shrink supply — and that is bad news for renters and the housing crisis.”
Extending National Insurance to landlords’ rental income would hit individuals, comprising 81% of market.
That’s the warning from the Intermediary Mortgage Lenders Association (IMLA) which says the move – suggested as a possible Budget policy to be announced next month – would have serious unintended consequences for smaller personal landlords operating in their own names.
The association says such a move would not apply to incorporated landlords, creating a two-tier system that would widen the gulf between individual and corporate property owners. For many smaller landlords, already squeezed by recent tax and regulatory changes, the impact could be devastating.
The proposal, floated as part of pre-Budget speculation, could push many landlords’ effective tax rates to unsustainable levels. IMLA’s research shows that 58% of higher-rate taxpayers letting properties in their own name would face total tax and NI bills exceeding their entire rental profit and would be paying more than 100% back to the Treasury.
Landlords have already been hit by the loss of mortgage interest relief, higher capital gains tax bills, a stamp duty surcharge and an increasingly demanding regulatory environment. Imposing NI on top could further reduce the number of buy-to-let properties, which has already fallen by more than 110,000 since 2022, and drive up rents as supply continues to contract.
IMLA’s analysis concludes that while extending NI to landlords might raise around £2.2 billion annually, the damage to rental supply, market confidence and tenant affordability would far outweigh the benefit.
At a time when the government is seeking growth and stability, IMLA argues that penalising smaller landlords risks undermining both, by reducing investment, shrinking housing choice and increasing upward pressure on rents.
Kate Davies, executive director of IMLA, says: “Extending National Insurance to landlords’ rental income may appear an easy way to raise money, but in practice it would hit exactly the wrong people. It would punish smaller, often part-time landlords who provide homes for more than four million UK households, while leaving larger incorporated operators untouched. That is both unfair and economically counterproductive.
“This would be a short-sighted and self-defeating move. Fewer rental homes mean higher rents, less mobility, and more pressure on public housing. At a time when the UK needs more investment in property, not less, this proposal risks driving it away.”
As MPs waved the Renters’ Rights Bill through Parliament this week, landlord compliance expert Des Taylor of Landlord Licensing & Defence has warned that the legislation is being mis-sold to the public as tenant protection when it is designed to increase local authority income and control over the private rented sector.
He said: “The Renters’ Rights Bill isn’t about protecting tenants – it’s about protecting council budgets.
“Behind the headlines of ‘fairness’ and ‘balance’ lies a different reality: More powers. More penalties. Longer voids. Less control.
“Landlords are being boxed in with restrictions that benefit only one group – and it’s not the renters. This Bill isn’t what they’re telling you.”
Taylor points to the abolition of Section 21 which will fundamentally change how landlords and tenants interact.
He says that with Section 21 evictions removed, landlords will be forced onto a much slower Section 8 process to regain possession.
That change, he argues, will push more landlords into lengthy legal battles while delaying property turnover for over a year in some cases.
He continued: “Landlords could be waiting 12 to 16 months to recover a property from a non-paying tenant.
“In that time, councils save money on emergency housing because tenants technically remain ‘housed’ – even if they’re months in arrears. It’s a cynical fix for a broken social housing system.”
Taylor points to another consequence hidden in plain sight: revenue generation.
He believes the Bill’s deeper purpose is to widen the enforcement net for local authorities, giving them broader discretion to levy civil penalties which rocket from £5,000 up to £25,000, for administrative mistakes and minor breaches.
Taylor commented: “Every new power comes with a price tag, and that price will be paid by landlords through fines and by tenants through higher rents.
“It’s being dressed up as tenant protection, but really it’s a mechanism for councils to collect income while claiming moral virtue.”
The Bill also risks increasing void periods and financial stress across the sector.
There will be longer possession timelines, more compliance demands and growing uncertainty over tenancy length which will make professional landlords think twice about investing further.
Taylor warns that this tightening web of regulation will have a ripple effect across the market.
He went on: “There will be less investment in local rental housing as smaller landlords exit, and the rising compliance costs will be passed on to tenants.
“There will also be worsening availability for vulnerable renters as councils rely on the PRS to plug social housing gaps.”
While the government insists the Bill will make renting fairer, Mr Taylor argues it will instead entrench inequality.
“Tenants in arrears may lose the most,” he said. “Once a landlord has to rely on Section 8, councils can claim the tenant made themselves intentionally homeless.
“That means no housing duty owed, no emergency accommodation and no help. It’s a quiet but devastating policy trick.”
Calling the Bill ‘politically driven’, Taylor urges agents, landlords and property professionals to stay vigilant.
He added: “This legislation changes the relationship between landlords, tenants and the state.
“We’re moving towards a system of revenue-focused enforcement, not fair regulation.
“Every landlord should read the fine print and prepare accordingly.”
Capital Gains Tax applied to profits made on main residences – a possible Budget measure next month – would make the vast majority of home owners less likely to put their properties on the market.
That’s the conclusion of a poll of 1,000 owners conducted for financial brokerage Boon Brokers.
Under the current UK tax system, main residences are exempt from Capital Gains Tax, which is instead only payable on profits from the sale of second homes, investment properties, shares, and other assets.
However, speculation ahead of the November 26 Budget suggests that the Treasury is considering CGT reform, with some analysts mooting the tax could even be applied to profits made from the sale of primary residences – although no details on thresholds, tax rates, and exemptions have been publicised.
In response to questions in the Boon Brokers study, 71% of respondents stated that the reforms would make them less likely to sell their main residence, indicating that, if implemented, a significant proportion of homeowners may choose to postpone selling in order to avoid additional taxation.
Details of the findings show that a reluctance to sell would be consistent across all age groups.
Among respondents aged 18-24, 76% said they would be less likely to sell their main residence if CGT were applied, compared with 63% of those aged 25-44, 68% of those aged 45-54, and more than 80% of respondents aged 55 and over.
Gerard Boon, managing director, comments: “Introducing Capital Gains Tax on main residences could have serious consequences for the housing market. When fewer homeowners are willing to sell, supply will naturally constrict, driving up competition and prices. This imbalance between supply and demand doesn’t just impact affordability, it would risk stagnating the market and placing greater pressure across all levels of the housing market.”
A further finding of the research was that, in response to the question “Do you believe it is fair for the government to apply Capital Gains Tax to main residences that were previously exempt?”, some 73% of respondents stated that applying CGT to main residences would be unfair. And 97% of respondents disagreed that applying CGT to primary homes is the fairest way to balance public spending, revealing a strong opposition across all demographics.
The commissioned survey also explored public opinion on how the proposed CGT changes might influence support for the current government. Respondents were asked: “How do you think this tax change will impact Labour’s chances of re-election in the next general election?”
The results found that the proposed CGT reform could also carry political repercussions, with 78% of respondents believing it would reduce Labour’s chances of re-election. Of these, 45% stated it would significantly reduce Labour’s chances, while 33% said it would slightly reduce the party’s chances at the next general election.
