Latest News

Details

Published: 18 September 2025

Hits: 387

The Renters’ Rights Bill is scheduled to return to the House of Lords on 14 October, marking the final stage before it can become law.

As anticipated, the government has postponed further progress on the bill until after the main party conference season. It will now enter the ‘ping pong’ phase – a process in which the Lords and Commons exchange the bill back and forth to resolve any remaining disagreements on amendments.

While peers may put forward further changes, expectations are that no major amendments will be adopted at this stage, especially after the government previously rejected all proposed revisions from the Lords.

If no significant delays arise, Royal Assent – the formal step required for the bill to become law – is likely to be granted by the end of next month.

Allison Thompson, national lettings managing director at LRG, said: “The government’s rejection of key Lords amendments sends a clear message. They are holding firm on the core structure of the Renters’ Rights Bill but are unwilling to make concessions that would have brought much-needed clarity and balance. Proposals to widen the student exemption, allow a higher deposit for pet-related damage, or shorten the 12-month re-let restriction were all dismissed, despite being proportionate and carefully considered.

“These were not attempts to weaken tenant protections. They were pragmatic solutions that reflected the day-to-day realities faced by landlords and agents. Instead, the Bill now moves forward with some unresolved tensions, particularly around the practical enforcement of new tenancy terms, the viability of keeping pets, and the risks of re-letting delays after a failed sale. As always, it will be agents on the ground who are left to navigate these challenges and support landlords through the transition.”

While unsurprised by government’s decision to reject the amendments, Greg Tsuman, MD for lettings at Martyn Gerrard Estate Agents, think that the proposals were a “rare injections of common sense” – and their removal highlights a fundamental government misreading of the Private Rented Sector.

He commented: “As expected, the amendments that were not government-backed have not been passed – over 300 of them. This is unfortunate, as they were some injections of common sense into the Bill, which as it stands reveals the government’s fundamental misunderstanding of the Private Rented Sector. A more consultative approach would have yielded a much better piece of legislation.”

Ahead of final debate, Lucy Jones, chief operating officer at Lomond, has recapped what landlords and agents ‘need to know’ about the rejected amendments:

The Bill is still going ahead and will soon become law

The Bill is well on its way to Royal Assent, currently in its ‘ping pong stage’. It is highly anticipated it may become law ahead of Party Conference season.

The Bill is structured so that most reforms will come into force immediately such as abolition of S21, introduction of new possession grounds, end of fixed term tenancies and rent-in-advance restrictions – whilst the landlord database and potentially  the Ombudsman requirement will follow later, after a transition period to allow the sector to adjust and infrastructure to be put in place.

It is expected that the final Bill will become the Renters’ Rights Act this Autumn, meaning landlords have only a matter of weeks to make their final preparations ahead of the significant changes.

No requirement for separate pet deposit 

One of the suggested changes would have let landlords request a separate pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent, on top of the usual deposit cap, but that idea was turned down. The Government said the current five-week limit already covers potential damage, and adding more would make things harder for tenants financially.

No requirement for pet insurance

Requiring tenants take out pet insurance was also rejected, with Government noting that the insurance industry is not yet ready to offer suitable products at scale. Whilst pet owners can take pet insurance out if they wish, it won’t be something landlords can enforce.

 No change to the 12-month re-letting restriction after a failed sale

Another change that didn’t make it through was a plan to shorten the timeframe a landlord has to wait before re-letting a property after asking a tenant to leave in order to sell. The House of Lords suggested reducing it from 12 months to six, but this was also rejected. The Government asserted the full year is important to stop landlords from abusing the grounds of repossession.

No extension of student possession grounds to smaller properties

Allowing landlords to use the student housing ground for possession for smaller properties, like one- or two-bedroom flats and not just HMO’s, was also rejected. The Government said that the current rules already strike a fair balance and help protect students who don’t fit the typical mould, like postgrads and students with dependents.

Whilst the finer details are still to be solidified, the industry is anticipating the imminent passing of the Bill and is eager to establish the final version of the legislation in order to prepare.

Details

Published: 12 September 2025

Hits: 406

Investors looking to buy properties to be used as Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Sefton in Merseyside may need to seek planning permission in the future. Sefton Council is proposing to implement a borough-wide Article 4 Direction to give local people more influence over properties used for HMOs.

It comes a couple of months after a similar order was issued for Aintree, with the council now seeking to apply it to the whole borough as residents have continued to raise concerns about HMOs. The council has also called for a nationwide directive to be enforced.

Councillor Marion Atkinson, leader of Sefton Council, says the action follows calls from other residents for it to apply where they live. “Since taking action across the borough, and more latterly in Aintree, we have seen a huge number of people come forward in support of what we have done. Residents in other parts of the borough are now calling for similar action, which is why we have decided to take this unusual step.”

She says the council isn’t against HMOs but wants locals to be happy. “HMOs do play a role in our community, and this move would not prevent an HMO from being created, instead it puts an extra check and balance in place by requiring planning permission so local people can have a say on any plans that are put forward.”

Calling for national action

She continues: “The key thing is that local people should have an input into what’s happening in their community, and we think this is something that should be tackled nationally, but, for the time being, this would be us as a council doing all what we can to listen to our residents.”

Article 4 Directions already apply in certain parts of Sefton, including Southport, Bootle, Seaforth, Litherland and Waterloo, and have done for some time. 

To put the order in place, evidence must demonstrate why it is required. In this case, it is felt that there is sufficient evidence, including:

• Impact on the character of the borough and quality of life for residents 
• The quality of the HMOs in areas of the borough
• The pressure concentrated numbers of HMOs may put on public services such as doctors, dentists and congestion on the roads.

“We know this is really important for residents, so we will use our urgency powers to take this to our next cabinet meeting in October,” says Councillor Atkinson. “This would very much be a pre-emptive move given the concerns of residents and I hope it reassures them we are looking to act in their best interests.”

Details

Published: 12 September 2025

Hits: 376

The Government has been urged to keep its plans for a Decent Homes Standard simple.

Industry accreditation scheme safeagent, has revealed its response to the Decent Homes Standard consultation, which closed on 10 September.

In its response, safeagent expressed its desire to work with the Government to develop a Decent Homes Standard that is fit for purpose and supports a culture of continuous improvement in the private rented sector (PRS).

While many of the building blocks are already in place, such as the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards MEES) – safagent urged the Government to publish the HHSRS Review that completed in 2022, which it said would bring clarity and certainty for the lettings industry about what these changes mean on a practical level when assessing hazards.

Isobel Thomson, chief executive of safeagent, said: “The way to drive up decent homes compliance in the private rented sector is not new layers of regulation. 

“The key issue is under-resourcing of local authority housing enforcement and trading standards teams that are tasked with tackling the worst and most prolific offenders. Unless we succeed in tackling under-resourcing, a new Decent Homes Standard could have minimal impact.”

As part of its response, safeagent also encouraged the Government to rethink the overly complex and disjointed nature of DHS Criterion C (facilities, etc) which has led to some oddities.

Thomson added: “For example, under the proposals every private rented house must be fitted with adequate external noise insulation, but the same does not apply to every private rented flat, and with no indication of how adequacy would be assessed.”

Regarding the scourge of damp and mould, while safeagent said it is entirely right to place a spotlight on this following the tragic death of Awaab Ishak, the group questioned whether the Government has got the regulatory balance right.

Thomson said: “Any damp and mould issue can already be enforced under HHSRS, while any disrepair to the structure of the building or deficiencies with the heating and ventilation will be captured by DHS Criterion B. With the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and Awaab’s Law soon to be rolled out to the PRS, safeagent sees no need to add another layer of damp and mould regulation under proposed DHS Criterion E. This would impose another discretionary power for councils to intervene, duplicating the HHRS and adding no meaningful value.”

Similarly, safeagent said it sees no need to develop a new home security standard for the private rented sector as every property is different, making an appropriate common standard difficult to achieve.

Thomson added: “Overall, there’s a pressing need to simplify and streamline the housing regulatory model, which will benefit all interested parties including landlords, agents, tenants and local authority enforcement officers.”

Details

Published: 19 August 2025

Hits: 685

Widespread concern is building around reports that Labour is considering a major overhaul of the housing tax system, including the introduction of a new levy on higher-value homes.

According to The Guardian, Whitehall officials are exploring plans for a national property tax that could replace stamp duty on owner-occupied homes. One proposal under discussion includes imposing a new tax on properties valued over £500,000, raising fears of a broader shift in how property is taxed across the country.

The potential reforms are seen as part of a wider effort to modernise the current system, which many argue is outdated and inefficient. However, industry voices warn that any move perceived as targeting homeowners – particularly in areas with high property values – could be politically and economically risky.

Paula Higgins, founder and CEO of the HomeOwners Alliance, said: “Stamp duty is unfair, outdated and stalls the housing market. Our research shows that nearly half of homeowners considering a move say Stamp Duty puts them off, and it particularly penalises growing families and downsizers. Tinkering won’t fix it. The only solution is to scrap stamp duty completely.

“On the suggestion of introducing a new property tax there shouldn’t be a money grab by treasury at the expense of homeowners. It’s an attack on homeowners and history shows that introducing a new tax is never followed by the removal of older taxes.

“In the interim the government needs to tread carefully. Uncertainty around property taxes causes paralysis in the housing market. We’ve just seen how damaging this uncertainty can be: in April this year, when Stamp Duty thresholds changed, transactions collapsed by 64% in a single month – the sharpest fall on record. Homeowners can’t afford a repeat.”

In short, he welcomes the end of stamp duty but is concerned that the new taxes could be onerous and may lead to asking prices soaring on properties above £500,000 sellers offset losses. He is particularly concerned what the move might mean for those starting a family in London, where property prices are significantly higher than the average.

Gerrard said: “The existing stamp duty regime is unfit for purpose and has had a chilling effect on the housing market, which is why I’ve long campaigned to reform it. It’s good to see that the Government has understood some of the issues and is taking action to end the broken system. Adding further costs to purchasing a home has only reduced transactions, stifled upward mobility and prevented the efficient functioning of the housing market. This new tax would be paid by the seller, rather than the buyer which means that it won’t be the same tax on aspiration that Stamp Duty currently is.

“However, it’s clear that the government is motivated by a desire to raise revenues and I’m concerned that this new tax is going to be punishingly high. If that’s the case, you’re going to see a ceiling at the £500K threshold for that band of the market, as people avoid falling under the regime, and then a significant jump in values with nothing in between. Prices above £500K will skyrocket as sellers account for the losses caused by the tax, that used to be paid by the buyer.

“What most worries me is the effect on families in London. The housing market is far higher in London, which means any family home will be impacted by this new tax. If prices surge higher because of this new regime, how will anyone in the capital start a family? The government needs to think very carefully what the wider repercussions these changes might have and act carefully. So far many of its attempts at raising revenues through tax, such as the Stamp Duty changes earlier this year, have backfired.”