The latest on the Renters’ Rights Act

This blog post sets out the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill, now the Renters’ Rights Act, through parliament. It cleared parliament on 22 October 2025, and received Royal Assent on 27 October, becoming the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.

On 13 November, the government confirmed that the tenancy reforms will come into effect on 1 May 2026, with the Database and Ombudsman following “from late 2026”, but with the actual launch later.

We are now in the implementation phase, which I explain in my post Renters’ Rights Act implementation: What happens when?

Last updated: 15 November 2025

Where are we with the Renters’ Rights Act?

The Renters’ Rights Bill completed its long passage through parliament on 22 October when the remaining amendments were approved by the House of Commons without a vote.

Royal Assent was on 27 October, and the first big wave of implementation will be on 1 May 2026 when the new tenancy system will come into force.

>> Related Post: Renters’ Rights Implementation: What happens when?

The support you need is here!

Join The Independent Landlord Hub for the tools and support you need to take the Renters’ Rights Act in your stride:

🔹 Structured step-by-step courses
🔹 Practical checklists and downloadable templates
🔹 Twice‑monthly live Q&As with me
🔹 A thriving and supportive community
🔹 Independent – no sponsored content or ads

Annual membership with a 30-day money-back guarantee.

Find out more here

What has happened during ping-pong?

Ping pong concluded on 22 October, which is when the House of Commons considered the House of Lord’s message. It went through without a vote as there were no remaining areas of disagreement between the Commons and the Lords.

House of Lords’ consideration of of Commons amendments and / or reasons on 14 October 2025

In what was a very packed House of Lords on 14 October, the government managed to see off all of the amendments it didn’t already support.

Specifically this means:

• Ground 1A: The length of the period for the relet ban after a landlord serves a Ground 1A notice because they wish to sell up will stay at 12 months, and will not be reduced to 6 months. This was a close vote which the government won by 11 votes.
• Ground 4A will remain limited to full time students in HMOs, and will not apply to full time students in smaller flats and houses.
• Pet deposits – the amendment to have a pet deposit of up to 3 weeks’ rent was defeated. However, Baroness Taylor reminded the House of Lords, “the Government have existing powers under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 which will allow Parliament to require a larger deposit where a landlord has consented to the tenant having a pet. We will continue to keep this position under review following Royal Assent. If there is clear evidence that pet damage is exceeding normal tenancy deposits, we have the Tenant Fees Act power, which would allow us to remedy this.”
• The burden of proof for councils bringing a claim against a landlord for rental discrimination or rental bidding will remain “on the balance of probabilities”. However, Baroness Taylor reassured the House: “the Government will include in the relevant statutory guidance to local authorities advice that a local authority exercises a quasi-judicial function when imposing a civil penalty, and should therefore be satisfied by credible, reliable and sufficient documentary or other evidence on the balance of probabilities that a person has breached a relevant requirement before imposing a penalty.”

The Bill will now return to the House of Commons for approval on some government-backed amendments that won’t affect private landlords. Then it will be onto Royal Assent.

House of Commons’ consideration of Lords amendments on 8 September.

On 8 September, the House of Commons rejected all the amendments made by the House of Lords, other than ones originally proposed by the government and an expanded ground for possession for agricultural workers.

The Bill will now go back to the House of Lords, who will consider the Commons’ amendments. This can happen a few times, hence the nickname “ping pong”.

Here is the a link to the official document Commons disagreement, reasons and amendments in lieu, which provides short reasons why the House of Commons rejected the Lords’ amendments.

Here’s my version, summarising the fate of the 8 non-government amendments from the House of Lords:

1. Ground 4A – student ground for eviction: 
   • Ground 4A was originally restricted to HMOs (3 or more tenants from 2 or more households) with full-time students, but the Conservatives managed to get an amendment passed in the House of Lords that would allow landlords who let smaller properties to full-time students to use this ground, eg one or two sharers.
   • The government opposed this amendment, with Matthew Pennycook saying: “removing the restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area being evicted more regularly”.
2. Ground 5A – accommodation for agricultural workers: 
   • This amendment expanded the ground of eviction so that it can be used for agricultural workers who are self-employed, rather than only direct employees of the landlord.
   • This is the only amendment that the government agreed to accept, albeit with their own wording. It has limited application to the private rented sector.
   • Matthew Pennycook said that this would “support the Government’s clear intention of ensuring that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising wider security of tenure”.
3. Accommodation for landlords’ carers: 
   • This was an amendment from the Crossbench hereditary peer Lord de Clifford which would give landlords a new ground for eviction where the property is needed to house a carer of the landlord or of a member of the landlord’s family.
   • The government rejected this amendment, with Matthew Pennycook saying: “there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this practice is sufficiently widespread to justify the insertion into the Bill at this late stage of a dedicated possession ground to cater specifically for it. […] the definition of “carer” in the amendment—namely, anyone providing any form of care in a voluntary or contractual arrangement, is so broad that the scope for abuse, in our view, is substantial”.
4. Pet damage deposit: 
   • This is another amendment from Lord de Clifford, and would have enabled landlords to ask tenants to provide an extra deposit of up to three weeks’ rent to cover damage caused by their pets.
   • The government opposed this, with Mathew Pennycook saying “Such sums would be unaffordable for many tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300”. However, he reminded the House that the government already has the delegated powers necessary, under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets, should evidence come forward to show that five weeks’ deposit is insufficient to cover pet damage.
   • As an aside, the government also refused to reinstate the right for landlords to ask tenants to take out or pay for insurance against pet damage.
5. Ground 1A restricted period: 
   • An amendment from the Crossbench hereditary peer Lord Cromwell reduced the restricted period during which landlords cannot re-let a property after using the new “selling up” ground” from 12 months to 6 months where it is unsold.
   • As expected, the government opposed this amendment: “we are not prepared to weaken the strong safeguard against abuse provided by the 12-month no-let provision. It is essential to prevent landlords misusing ground 1A and evicting tenants who are not at fault, whether that be because they have made a legitimate complaint or simply because the landlord wants to re-let at a higher rate”.
6. Shared leaseholders: 
   • A Conservative amendment which would have enabled landlords with shared leases to re-let the property if the sale falls through.
   • The government opposed this amendment, with Matthew Pennycook saying: “I cannot accept Lords amendment 19 at this time, purely because the Government remain of the view that it could undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happen to rent a sublet home from a shared owner.”
7. Standard of proof for penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding: 
   • A Conservative amendment which would have increased the burden of proof from “a balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt” for rental discrimination and rental bidding, so it would be the same as for the other financial penalties.
   • The government rejected this amendment on the grounds that “requiring local authorities to meet the more stringent criminal standard of proof […] would make local authority enforcement extremely challenging, and would be prohibitively resource-intensive”.
8. Service family accommodation: A Liberal Democrat amendment which would extend the Decent Homes Standard to service family accommodation. The government opposed this.

Once the Bill has been agreed by both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, it can proceed to Royal Assent, which is when it will become the Renters’ Rights Act.

What happened at the Third Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill?

The Third Reading was a bit of an anti-climax. A couple of typos were corrected, and the Bill passed, without a division for a vote.

With the words “The Contents have it” from the Deputy Speaker, Baroness Fookes, the six month passage of the Bill through the House of Lords ended.

Next stop “ping pong” from 8 September, when the House of Commons will consider the Lords’ amendments.

What happened in the Report Stage of the House of Lords for the Renters’ Rights Bill?

As expected, the greater numbers of Opposition and Cross-bench peers in the House of Lords secured some Conservative and Cross-bench amendments to the Bill, and the government was defeated on 7 amendments.

However, landlords should take this all with a pinch of salt until we see the final version of the Renters’ Rights Act that receives Royal Assent. Unless the government gives way, the House of Commons can vote down the amendments when they go back to the House of Commons during the “ping pong” stage, after the summer recess on 8 September.

Here is a summary of the 7 votes that the government lost during the Report Stage:

1. Amendment 87 – burden of proof for rental discrimination and rental bidding

This Conservative amendment raises the burden of proof for civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding from “a balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is the standard for the other breaches in the Bill.

Baroness Taylor justified the different treatment by saying: “This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct persists. Breaches of the rental bidding and rental discrimination requirements cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a civil penalty of up to £40,000, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 maximum penalty”. 

The government lost by 14 votes.

>> Related Post: Renters’ Rights: Landlord fines and penalties explained

2. Amendment 53A – New pet damage deposit

The amendment proposed by crossbencher and hereditary peer Miles Russell, 28th Baron de Clifford to allow a landlord to ask for a “pet deposit” of up to three weeks’ rent by 206 votes to 198.

The government’s amendment to remove the reference to pet insurance from the Bill was passed without a vote.

3. Amendment 58 – Ground 1A – reduction of period during which landlord cannot relet

The amendment proposed by crossbench hereditary peer Godfrey Bewicke-Copley, 7th Baron Cromwell was passed by a narrow margin of 213 votes to 209.

This amendment concerns the new Ground 1A which permits landlords to obtain possession if they intend to sell up. If it stays in the Bill, it would reduce the restricted period during which landlords cannot relet the property from 12 months to 6 months after the tenant moves out, with some protections to stop landlords “gaming” this ground, and ensure that sale attempts are genuine.

4. Amendment 59 – Ground 1A – exemption for shared ownership leaseholders

Conservative life peer Lord Young’s amendment would enable holders of shared ownership leases to relet their property if sale fell through. It was passed by 274 votes to 154.

5. Amendment 5 – Ground 4A – all student lets

This Conservative amendment proposed deleting the words “the dwelling-house is in an HMO or is an HMO” from Ground 4A, so that landlords of all student properties, regardless of whether they are HMOs, would be able to use Ground 4A to bring a tenancy to an end between June and September.

The government was defeated, and the Conservative’s amendment was voted onto the Bill by a vote of 221 to 196.

6. Amendment 8 – Ground 5A – wider ground for agricultural workers

An amendment in the name of Conservative hereditary peer Rupert Carington, 7th Baron Carrington, proposed adding “seasonal or permanent employee, worker or self-employed” to the agricultural workers’ Ground for Possession.

The government opposed this amendment and was defeated and the amendment was voted onto the Bill by a vote of 253 to 150.

7. Amendment 21 – new Ground 8A – new ground for carers

An amendment in the name of Cross-bench hereditary peer Miles Edward Southwell Russell, 28th Baron de Clifford, supported by a LibDem and a Conservative peer, was proposed to add a new ground for possession for when a property is required for a carer for the landlord or landlord’s family.

The government opposed this amendment and was defeated by a vote of 230 to 137.

The government amendments for Report Stage in the House of Lords

The government published 6 sets of amendments ahead of the Report Stage from 1 to 15 July:

1. Transition arrangements for rent in advance.
   • Existing agreements in place before the commencement date with rent payable in advance, eg payment at six monthly intervals, will not need to be amended to change the payment pattern to monthly.
   • This will be welcomed by letting agents and landlords with tenants who aren’t on the soon to be compulsory pattern of rent payments at intervals of no longer than one month, as it avoids a lot of work to amend the agreements, and means what was originally agreed regarding the frequency of rent payments can stand.
2. Pet insurance.
   • Surprisingly, the government has removed the ability of landlords to insist that tenants either take out pet insurance themselves, or pay the landlord to take it out.
   • Whilst I had concerns about how this would work in practice (see paragraphs 25-28 of my Written Submission to the House of Commons Bill Committee dated 22 October 2024), there is now nothing that landlords can do to mitigate the undoubted additional wear and tear of pets, other than charge a “pet rent”, provided that doesn’t take the overall rent above the market rent.
   • It is worth pointing out what the government’s own guidance dated 16 January 2025 said in favour or pet insurance: “This will provide landlords with reassurance that any damage caused by a pet can be taken care of, and that the responsibility for preventing and resolving damage caused by a pet will fall to the tenant”.
   • Landlords cannot ask for a larger deposit as it is capped at 5 weeks’ rent under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
3. Date of rent increase after Section 13 referral to First-tier Tribunal
   • The Renters’ Rights Bill contains wording that effectively encourages tenants to appeal rent increases at the FTT as it will delay the start of any rent increase until after the tribunal decision, even if it is a reasonable increase.
   • Clearly this is going to lead to an increase in the number of rent increase appeals, and will ineviably lead to backlogs at the FTT.
   • The government amendment does not change this as such, but it gives the Secretary of State the power to change the effective date of the rent increase by regulation, and not an act of parliament, so that it can come into force on the original date in the section 13 notice.
4. Notice to quit for joint tenancies
   • A couple of sensible amendments that require the consent of all joint tenants to have a shorter notice to quit period or to withdraw a notice to quit.
5. Student accommodation
   • Providers of student accommodation are potentially outside of the Bill as a tenancy to students will not be an assured tenancy if the management is a member of a specified housing management code of practice such as Unipol or ANUK.
   • Specialist solicitor David Smith explains the implications of this “potential bonanza” in this LinkedIn post.
6. Increased rights of entry for councils to enter suspected residential tenancies
   • The amendment gives councils the power to enter suspected residential tenancies without providing prior notice to the owner if they supect a breach of the Database rules, harrassment of occupier or unlawful eviction.
   • This is likely to help councils investigate “sham licences” or attempted illegal evictions.

Can the House of Lords insist on changes to the Renters’ Rights Bill?

It is possible for minor changes to be made at the Report Stage and Third Reading, but as the abolition of Section 21 was a manifesto commitment, in a battle of wills between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Commons would prevail. This is because the Salisbury Doctrine dictates that the Lords don’t vote down or pass wrecking amendments to a “manifesto Bill”.

Consequently, unless the government supports a particular amendment, the House of Lords will lose in the end. Therefore, to effect change to the Bill, peers need to persuade the government of the merits of their arguments. Soft skills, rather than brute force.

What happened in the House of Lords Committee Stage for the Renters’ Rights Bill?

After a pause of 2 1/2 months following the Second Reading, the Committee Stage in the House of Lords started on 22 April 2025 and finished on 15 May.

Unlike the Committee in the House of Commons on which a limited number of MPs sat, this is a Committee of the whole House of Lords.

They are working through the clauses in order, starting at the front of the Bill from the front of the Bill, considering over 100 pages of amendments to the wording, including proposals for new clauses. 

However, as we saw, peers did not press their amendments to a vote. It is worth noting that if an amendment is defeated in Committee, it cannot be re-introduced at Report Stage.

See Erskine May, which states: “Amendments identical (or of identical effect) to amendments pressed to a vote by the mover and defeated in committee may not be re-tabled on report. However, an issue which has been debated and voted on in committee can be re-opened, provided that the relevant amendment is more than cosmetically different from that moved in committee. An amendment agreed to on a vote in committee may not be reversed on report except with the unanimous agreement of the House”.

According to the Hansard Society, peers often table amendments at the Committee Stage to prompt discussion or to probe the Government’s position, rather than to change the Bill.

Highlights from the Committee Stage

The House of Lords Committee debated each clause thoroughly and completed its scrutiny of the Bill on 15 May.

None of the opposition amendments were put to a vote, as was expected (see above).

This is what we have learned about the government’s position on different topics during the Committee Stage, but the short version is that there have been no government U-Turns:

• Fixed term tenancies. It is very clear that the government is not going to back down about the abolition of fixed term tenancies. Here is a flavour of the many different ways Baroness Taylor has confirmed this:
  • “The Government will not support any amendment that seeks to lock tenants in for any period of time. Tenants must have the flexibility to end tenancies when they need to”.
  • “The Government do not support the retention of fixed-term assured tenancies under any circumstances. The move to fully periodic tenancies is critical to strengthening tenants’ rights and enabling them to hold landlords to account”.
  • “We do not expect that removing fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market”.
  • “Allowing the option of fixed terms only creates the illusion of choice for tenants. In an oversubscribed market, tenants often feel they must sign what is required of them by landlords”.
  • “The Government believe tenants should not have reduced flexibility and greater financial obligation because of their personal circumstances”.
• Student tenancies – no U-turns from the government are on the horizon either. Baroness Taylor said:
  • “We do not expect that removing fixed terms will have a destabilising effect on the student rental market. New possession ground 4A will give landlords confidence that they will be able to regain their property to move in other students in line with the academic year. If tenants leave a tenancy early, the landlords will be able to find new tenants to take their place”.
  • In response to the Conservative’s Amendment 7, which would keep fixed terms for students: “Students who drop out of university could be required to pay rent for the rest of the fixed term, which could potentially reach thousands of pounds. All renters, including students, should have access to the benefits provided by the Bill.”
  • “Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs are, so, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants.”
  • On why purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) is different: “Students do not move into their accommodation expecting long-term residence, and it is right to ensure that this accommodation is available to new cohorts of students each year”.
• Changes to grounds for possession.
  • The government rejected an amendment backed by Shelter that would make all Section 8 grounds discretionary, with Baroness Taylor saying: “We want landlords to have robust grounds for possession where there is good reason to take their property back. It is right that landlords have more certainty in some circumstances, for example, where a tenant owes more than three months’ rent or a serious criminal offence has been committed. Having more certainty of outcome with mandatory grounds for possession will give landlords greater confidence in the market. Without this certainty, we have to be realistic that many landlords will simply not wish to stay in the private rented sector. We must get the balance right between giving tenants more security and ensuring that the sector remains viable for landlords to remain in.”
  • Baroness Taylor rejected another amendment that would require landlords to pay compensation of the last month’s rent if the landlord wished to move in or sell up (Grounds 1 and 1A), saying: ” However, it would not be right to go further and require a landlord to effectively pay the tenant compensation. A landlord who needs to sell or move into a property may be in financial difficulty themselves and requiring them to forgo the last month’s rent from the tenant would be an undue burden.”
  • Baroness Taylor resisted calls to shorten the restricted period during which a property cannot be re-list after serving a Ground 1 or 1A notice from 12 months to 6 months, on the basis that “the current 12-month restriction on re-letting is the right one to prevent abuse of those possession grounds”. However, she agreed to discuss the matter further with Conservative peers.
• Delays to eviction proceedings.
  • Baroness Taylor was urged by peers from across the House, including Cross-benchers (independent members) to delay the abolition of Section 21 until the courts were ready.
  • The Earl of Kinnoull (Cross-bencher) said that “IT build” of the much anticipated digitisation was at least two years away, let alone the roll-out.
  • Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrats) quoted to a briefing from Generation Rent that “only a tiny minority of tenancies ever get anywhere near a court – currently, about 0.3% end in repossession in the court”.
  • Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrats) asked for the government for “hard answers” and to give “their commitment to resourcing the courts and to have hard evidence about case volume, how many cases, and how long they are taking”, but did not wish to delay the abolition of Section 21.
  • Baroness Taylor said: “We have no intention of delaying these urgent reforms while we wait for an unnecessary assessment of the existing possession process. […] we are fully focused on making sure that the justice system is prepared for the changes to court caseload and procedures which will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to that effect. This includes investing in additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated. […] in the longer term we expect the reforms we are introducing to reduce the volume of possession claims”. 
• Rent controls.
  • Baroness Taylor reiterated the government’s position on rent controls: “Our Government do not support rent controls. We have considered rent regulation within the broader context of the private rented sector, and we do not believe that limiting rents in this way leads to positive outcomes. Evidence suggests that so-called first- and second-generation rent controls may disadvantage tenants as well as landlords. They can have a long-term negative impact on housing supply and discourage investment in the sector, leading to declining property standards. Subtler forms of rent control—second- or third-generation rent controls—have differential impacts on different groups, typically benefiting settled and better-off tenants more than those looking for a home or needing to move.
• Rent in advance.
  • Many peers raised concerns about the impact the prohibition on rent in advance may have on the “vulnerable” and (to use Baroness Thornhill’s expression), “risky renters”.
  • Baroness Taylor justified the rules by saying “We are clear that landlords are free to undertake the referencing and affordability checks necessary to give both the landlord and the tenant the confidence that a tenancy is sustainable. […] If landlords are not satisfied with the outcome of pre-tenancy checks, there remain a number of options available, including requiring a tenant to provide a guarantor or the use of professional guarantor products.”
  • However, Baroness Taylor added “We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group. […] The introduction of the power therefore provides the Government, or any future Government, with the ability to make sure rent in advance measures continue to apply as intended in the face of any changes within the private rented sector”. 
• Timing of implementation.
  • Baroness Taylor confirmed a “campaign” and transition period: “the Government are committed to raising awareness of the whole package of renters’ rights reforms with stakeholders from across the sector. We will ensure that landlords, letting agents and tenants understand how the rent in advance policy will affect them as a crucial part of that programme. Officials are already working with stakeholder groups to design and test the campaign, which will start after the Bill achieves Royal Assent. It will be sequenced to give landlords and letting agents sufficient time to make any changes to their business, while ensuring that tenants understand what the reforms mean for them. We will also build in evaluation points.”
  • In the debate on 6 May, Baroness Taylor added: “To help landlords and tenants, we will be providing a full suite of guidance, so these groups know exactly what the changes mean for them”.
• Pets.
  • Baroness Taylor a confirmed that landlords will not be able to withdraw consent for a pet, once given, could not be withdrawn. However, she advised that there are other steps that landlords will be able to take: “Landlords can seek to evict anti-social tenants for a broad range of anti-social behaviours under ground 14, which could include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets. Landlords can also contact their local council’s anti-social behaviour team and the police if behaviour persists, which can culminate in anti-social behaviour injunctions being granted by the courts. In that instance, that could then ban the tenant in question from keeping a pet”. 
• Civil penalties.
  • Baroness Taylor confirmed that the civil penalties of £7,000 and £40,000 are “maximum levels: they will not be the normal penalty level. Local authorities will need to look at the particular circumstances of each instance of non-compliance. They will need to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors and arrive at the final penalty in line with their policy”. 
  • Baroness Taylor said the government “will be issuing revised guidance on setting financial penalties to provide a national framework for local housing authorities. That will help to ensure the consistent approach which takes account of the seriousness of the offence and harm caused to the tenant and will help reduce the likelihood of reductions on appeal”.
• Enforcement.
  • Baroness Taylor clarified in the context of a landlord “knowingly or recklessly” misusing a possession ground that “recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk, and landlords should not take an unjustified risk when their action may result in someone losing their home. It is, of course, the case that the offence is committed only if the tenant actually surrenders possession”.
• Guarantors.
  • Baroness Taylor pointed out that “landlords will continue to be able to offer tenants who cannot provide a UK-based guarantor with the alternative of purchasing rent guarantor insurance”. 
• Training and qualifications of letting agents managing properties.
  • Lord Best proposed an amendment that would require letting agents to have a qualification or be working towards one: “The Renters’ Rights Bill presents an important opportunity to take a first step towards creating a proper regulatory framework for the property agency sector. This Bill is concerned with the deal faced by renters and letting agents, who are involved with half the properties in the PRS. This is a chance to raise standards, and a timely one. […] At present, anyone can set up a property agency business overnight with no experience of property matters.”
  • The amendment had support from across the house, including Baroness Grender (Libdem): “If the Bill is about raising the standard in the private rented sector, rooting out the bad guys and making a once-in-a-generation shift in private renting, this is such an important part of the equation. The Government must grasp it, grasp it soon and get on with it. At the end of the day, it is not just about bricks and mortar, but people’s homes and livelihoods. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, where and when?”
  • Baroness Taylor left the door open by saying “The Government are committed to ensuring that landlords and those living in the rented and leasehold sectors are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. […]We are continuing to consider this issue carefully and have already announced our intention to introduce minimum qualifications for property managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates, and to consult on this issue this year. We will set out our full position on the regulation of letting, managing and estate agents in due course”.
• Landlord Database
  • Baroness Taylor did not confirm the timings of the roll-out of the Database, but said the following: “The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure that it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right, testing with the sector and local authorities and developing guidance for users.”
  • Baroness Taylor confirmed that their preference was for the Housing Ombudsman, an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body, to run the Database, although a final decision had not been made. “Private bodies may be involved with the running of the database through entering into contracts with the database operator, but we do not intend to appoint a commercial entity as the database operator”.
• Licensing schemes
  • Baroness Taylor rejected an amendment to increase the duration of licensing schemes from 5 to 10 years: “We think it is right that local authorities have greater autonomy to implement schemes provided that they meet the statutory criteria. However, we also recognise licensing schemes do, as noble Lords have said, place additional burdens on landlords. It is therefore important that local authorities monitor any schemes to make sure that they are proportionate and are continuing to achieve their aims. A maximum scheme duration of five years strikes the right balance in giving local authorities time to make this assessment, while also ensuring that landlords are not by default subject to increased regulation for prolonged periods”.

Highlights from the House of Lords Second Reading debate

The Second Reading is usually a bit of a talking shop, and this Second Reading was no exception. No vote takes place at Second Reading, and peers took the opportunity to give their thoughts on the state of the private rented sector.

It was a lively debate with 37 speakers, which largely fell into party lines, with the added dimension of 6 speeches from cross-benchers such as Lord Best which were more nuanced and balanced. The key landlord arguments were that overregulation could backfire with unintended consequences, deterring landlords and ironically worsening conditions for renters. Among the arguments that the Bill does not go far enough, were calls for rent controls and restricting the landlord’s ability to request a guarantor.

In listening closely to what Baroness Taylor, the Housing Minister, said in the debate, it was clear the government remains committed to retaining fixed term tenancies, and will not make an exception for students other than the new Ground 4A for Student HMOs.

Baroness Taylor gave no details about the timing for implementation, other than that they would “work with all to ensure a smooth transition to the news system” and that they would provide “sufficient notice ahead of implementation”. Whatever that means.

The prize for the most amusing quip comes from Baroness Taylor in her summing up when referencing the debate about pets: “I felt a bit like Doctor Dolittle, as the debates ranged from fleas, to parrots, to packs of Alsatians”.

However, she repeated the government’s factually incorrect line that “landlords and tenants will benefit from a simpler system” under the Renters’ Rights Bill. It’s not simpler. It places another layer of unnecessarily complex regulation on top of what is already complex, for instance the new regime of “prohibited pre-tenancy payments” (see New rules ban rent in advance in Renters’ Rights Bill).

What happened in House of Commons Report Stage of Renters’ Rights Bill?

Matthew Pennycook, the Housing Minister, put the government amendments to the House, all of which were passed, and I go through the key amendments below. Angela Rayner didn’t speak in the debate.

He claimed the Bill will bring “simpler regulation” for landlords, which is simply wrong. But this website is not politically aligned, so I’ll focus on what the amendments mean for landlords.

New amendments to Renters’ Rights Bill added at Report Stage

The House of Commons passed a number of new government amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill. None of the amendments proposed by other parties, and other Labour MPs, were passed,

These new clauses mostly close “loopholes” for landlords, ie they tighten the wording in the Bill. There were no “pro-landlord” amendments.

Here are the key amendments that will affect private landlords.

New prohibition of payment of rent in advance (Gov NC

The previous iteration of the Bill did not include clear wording to prohibit the payment of rent in advance. There are now two new clauses into the Bill which prohibit the payment of rent in advance other than the initial period.

Matthew Pennycook said during the Committee Stage of the Bill “The practice of landlords demanding large amounts of rent in advance must be prohibited”. The clauses go further than that as they ban all rent in advance other than for the initial rent period.

>> Related Post: Initial rent payments and prohibition of rent in advance in Renters’ Rights Bill

Summary of the new clauses that ban the payment of rent in advance

The new clauses mean that landlords won’t be able to ask for advance rent in cases where the tenant doesn’t have a UK credit history (eg foreign students), or where a local authority wishes to pay rent up front when rehousing people in temporary accommodation.

It also changes the way in which landlords handle the payment of the first month’s rent.

Here is a summary of the two new clauses on the prohibition of rent in advance:

• Prohibition of rent in advance after lease entered into (except initial rent) – Gov NC13
  • Any terms in a tenancy agreement that state that rent is “due before the rent period for which it is payable” will not be payable.
  • The payable amount is linked to the rent period, and rent period cannot be more than one calendar month.
  • There is an exception for rent for the first rent period, or “a subsequent rent period ending within the first 28 days of the tenancy, and is due between the tenancy being entered into and the term of the tenancy beginning”, presumably for rent paid weekly or for that first period to be a shorter length to align (say) with the pay day of the tenant. At present it is usual to add the extra days to the first month, so that the tenant pays more in the first month (this is how OpenRent do it).
• Prohibition of pre-tenancy payment of rent – Gov NC14
  • The payment of rent in advance before a tenancy agreement is entered into will be a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (TFA).
  • Echoing the wording of the banning of rental bidding, landlords and letting agents will not be able to invite, encourage or accept a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent.
  • Not only will any term in a tenancy not be enforceable, but the local authority will be able to impose a civil penalty.

For more detail on these new rules, see this blog post: Initial rent payments and prohibition of rent in advance in Renters’ Rights Bill.

Impact of changes on rent guarantor products

David Smith of JMW points out new clause 14 will also block the use of some rent guarantor products whereby a tenant pays for an insurance policy where they are unable to provide a rent guarantor.

He explains this as follows: “It is prohibited under the TFA to require a tenant to take out an insurance policy or enter into any form of contract with a third-party. But this is allowed where it is as an alternative to something that is permitted by the TFA. […] Obviously, if the TFA has banned all forms of rent in advance then that is not a valid choice, so it will be really difficult for these third-party products to operate at all”.

Ground 4A for student HMOs only available if tenancy signed less than 6 months before start date (Gov 18)

Currently it is common for tenancies for students to be signed well in advance of the start date, often as early as the previous October.

The Bill includes a new ground for possession under Section 8 (Ground 4A) which will enable landlords of HMOs let to full-time students to serve a Section 8 notice to expire from 1 June to 30 September, provided certain conditions are met. (For more information see How the new Section 8 Grounds for Possession will work in Renters’ Rights Bill).

The government amendment states that Ground 4A will not be available if the tenancy of the student accommodation is granted more than 6 months before it begins.

Whilst the clause doesn’t ban the practice of signing up students a long time in advance, the new wording will be a strong disincentive for landlords do to it,.

This means that if landlords sign up tenants in October for a tenancy starting the following September, they won’t be able to use Ground 4A to recover possession.

Removal of defence for unlicensed HMO landlords (Gov 51)

The government is removing the ability of landlords to rely on a term in the tenancy agreement as a defence against to the offence of failing to obtain a licence under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004.

This might arise where, for example, a landlord lets a two bedroom property to two tenants in an area with additional licensing, who both move in partners, which would make it a licensable HMO. The landlord will not be able to rely on a clause in the tenancy agreement that says they must not allow a third party to move into the property.

Consequently, the risks of landlords unwittingly having an unlicensed HMO will increase, showing the importance of regular inspections.

>> Related post: What property investors need to know about HMO properties

Exclusion of long leases increased from 7 to 21 years (Gov 34)

Clause 30 of the Bill previously excluded leases in excess of 7 years from the new tenancy regime. The new government increases this to 21 years.

This clause 30 was originally introduced to the Bill to remove long term leases from the regime of the so-called “AST Trap” which gives freeholders the power to evict leaseholders who do not pay ground rent in certain circumstances under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 for non-payment of rent.

Guarantor not liable for rent payable after tenant’s death (Gov NC15)

This new clause states that a guarantor will no longer be liable to pay a tenant’s portion of the rent if the tenant dies. Any wording to this effect will be null and void.

What happened in the Committee Stage of the Renters’ Rights Bill?

The Public Bill Committee for the Renters’ Rights Bill started proceedings on 22 October and completed on 5 November.

The Committee certainly looked and “felt” very different from that of the Renters (Reform) Bill, where 10 of the 18 members were Conservative.

Of the 17 members of the Committee for the Renters’ Rights Bill, 11 were Labour MPs (including the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook), and only 3 were Conservative. The rest were LibDems and the Green Party. The Labour members struggled to squeeze onto their side of the table (see the left side in the image above)!

With such a large majority on the Committee, it was no surprise that the Bill will pass through the Committee unscathed, except for government-sanctioned amendments.

They started on 22 October by hearing oral evidence from experts including Ben Beadle of the NRLA, Tim Douglas from Propertymark, specialist lawyers (Justin Bates KC, Liz Davies KC and Giles Peaker), Ben Twomey from Generation Rent, Tom Darling from the Renters’ Reform Coalition and Taran Bhakda from Shelter.

The Committee moved onto a line-by-line analysis of the Bill on Tuesday 29 October and ended after three sessions. They made rapid progress and there were no hiccups in Committee.

Here are some of the highlights from the Committee:

Does the Renters’ Rights Bill specifically prohibit payment of rent in advance?

The situation is currently unclear.

The ambiguity about whether the Bill prohibits the payment of rent in advance was raised by many witnesses to the Committee, some arguing for and others against banning upfront rent payments. Justin Bates KC said categorically “the Bill does not prevent that [the payment of rent in advance]”, adding, “although I query whether it should”.

Matthew Pennycook acknowledged the ambiguity, saying to the Committee on 29 October: “Although it might be argued that the interaction of the new rent periods provided for by clause 1 and the existing provisions of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 relating to prohibited payments provide a measure of protection against requests for large amounts of advance rent”.

He added: “I accept that there is a strong case for putting the matter beyond doubt. […] we are looking at the matter carefully to ensure that we put the matter beyond doubt on the face of the Bill”.

The Liberal Democrats had tabled an amendment (Amendment NC6) which would remove the ambiguity by explicitly restricting rent in advance to one month, but they withdrew it when Matthew Pennycook said they were looking at putting the matter beyond doubt.

No government amendments have yet been tabled on the question of upfront rent payments.

Will the Government change its position on banning fixed term tenancies, even for students?

In a word, no.

Matthew Pennycook was emphatic in his position that fixed term contracts will not remain when speaking to the Committee on 29 October: “The Government have been clear that there is no place for fixed terms of any kind in the new tenancy regime that the Bill introduces. […] As a point of principle, the Government will not deny any type of tenant, including full-time students, the rights and protections afforded to them under the new tenancy system the Bill introduces”.

Will the Landlord Database replace Selective Licensing?

No. Matthew Pennycook has made it clear that the database will operate alongside selective licensing.

For instance, he informed the Committee on 29 October that “the database is not designed to replace selective licensing. Unlike the database, selective licensing schemes aim to target specific local issues in specific local geographies by enabling more intensive practical enforcement strategies. We believe that selective licensing is a valuable tool when used appropriately and combined with other measures. It enables local authorities to drive better outcomes for local residents, tenants and responsible landlords”.

Will the Government widen the scope of Ground 4A (Student HMOs)?

It is unlikely to do so.

In the Committee session on 22 October, Matthew Pennycook said that he did not think that students typically overstay, thereby implying there was no need to widen the scope of Ground 4A to include all student tenancies (as per the final version of the Renters (Reform) Bill.

Government amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill

The government published a set of amendments to the Bill on 23 October. Most of them are of minor nature, other than the amendment to Ground 6A (New ground for possession to allow compliance with enforcement action).

Amendment Gov 1 gives the court the power to award compensation to a tenant “for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as a result of the order for possession”. The court must take into account “the circumstances which led to Ground 6A being available as a ground for making an order for possession (including any conduct by the tenant
which caused or contributed to Ground 6A being available)”.

Will rent controls be added to the Renters’ Rights Bill?

Matthew Pennycook reiterated several times in the Committee session on 22 October that they do not want to bring in rent controls: “We do not want to do anything that could potentially make things much more difficult for tenants, which is why the Government are not advocating rent controls in the Bill. The Scottish experience is instructive of what can happen as an unintended consequence, and we think there would be an impact on supply, quality and standards, as evidence around the world shows”.

The Liberal Democrats unsuccessfully tabled an amendment to introduce rent controls (Amendment 76): “the rent may not be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate”.

Given the strong government majority and their stated opposition to rent controls, it is unsurprising that this LibDem amendment was not passed by the Committee.

When will the commencement date for the new tenancy reforms be?

In Committee, Matthew Pennycook gave no further indication about exactly when the commencement date will be, and just reiterated their intention for there to be one implementation date for new and existing tenancies.

Call for evidence for the Committee Stage

A call for evidence was launched on 14 October for those with relevant expertise and experience or a special interest in the Renters’ Rights Bill to submit their evidence to the committee that will examine the Bill.

You can find more information here: Renters’ Rights Bill: call for evidence.

The Committee has published the written evidence received to date on the webpage for the Committee. Scroll down to “Written Evidence”.

Here is a copy of the written evidence that I submitted to the Renters’ Rights Public Bill Committee on 22 October 2024, and which has now been published on the UK Parliament website.

What happened in the Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill?

As is usual with a Second Reading, the Secretary of State (Angela Rayner) opened the debate for the government, and the Shadow Secretary (Kemi Badenoch) replied, both giving way to numerous MPs. Further MPs made speeches about different aspects of the Bill, and some gave their maiden speech. Matthew Pennycook (Housing Minister) closed the debate on behalf of the government.

Echoing M&S “this is not just food” advertising, Angela Rayner reassured the House “this isn’t just a Renters (Reform) Bill, it’s a Renters’ Rights Bill”.

Kemi Badenoch scoffed that instead of building on first principles, “the Left is about looking to be tough on landlords and passing legislation with the right sounding title”.

Interestingly, Kemi Badenoch was “quite happy” to concede that the Renters (Reform) Bill had been “flawed”, even though she voted for it at every stage of its passage through the House of Commons (as Matthew Pennycook pointed out). She tabled a “reasoned amendment” to decline to give the Second Reading to the Bill because it failed to deliver on “respecting landlords’ property rights”.

This was an unusual move for a Second Reading, particularly given the Bill was an election manifesto commitment. Given the size of Labour’s majority, this amendment was never going to pass. The Conservatives lost the amendment with only 104 voting in favour of it, versus 424 against.

Putting the political sparring to one side, these are the points that I found interesting during the debate:

• Rent controls.
  • Angela Rayner was asked twice about rent controls, including by Jeremy Corbyn, and she made clear that she was not in favour of them: “Rent controls restrict housing supply, which does not help anyone, but our Bill takes practical measures to help renters by empowering tenants to tackle unreasonable rent hikes and prohibiting unfair rental bidding, and we will continue to assess potential action on sky-high rents”.
  • Matthew Pennycook added: “We believe they [rent controls] could make life more difficult for private renters, both in incentivising landlords to increase rents routinely up to a cap where they might otherwise not have done, and in pushing many landlords out of the market, thereby making it even harder for renters to find a home they can afford”.
• Advance rent payments.
  • One MP asked about “excessive deposits“, seemingly unaware that they are already capped at 5 weeks’ rent.
  • There has been some confusion over whether landlords will be unable to ask for advance payment of rent, and Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter, had been quoted in the media earlier that day that there was nothing in the Bill “to prevent landlords from demanding tenants either cough up huge sums of rent up front or hit the road”.
  • Angela Rayner said rather ambiguously: “This Bill will protect tenants from requests for large amounts of rent in advance, but we are in listening mode. We will keep this issue under review during the passage of the Bill, and we will take the necessary action. We think that we have done enough on that, but we are open to interventions, if people feel that they would help”.
  • It’s still not clear whether rent in advance is permitted in the Bill as drafted.
• Court reform.
  • Although court reform is not included in the Bill, as was the case with the final version of the Renters’ Reform Bill, Angela Rayner recognised the “huge pressures on the court system as a whole.”
  • She promised they will work with the Ministry of Justice to “digitise the county court possession process […] to create a modern, efficient service for our courts. We will also take steps to ensure that, wherever possible, disputes will be resolved at an early stage, and the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman service that the Bill introduces will play a vital supportive role”.
  • She did not reveal how much progress has been made, particularly bearing in mind that Michael Gove spoke about “end-to-end digitisation” in the Second Reading of the Renters (Reform) Bill on 23 October 2023.
  • However, the government will press ahead with the reforms, without waiting for court reform. Matthew Pennycook explained: “what we are not prepared to do […] is make the necessary and long-overdue transformation of the private rented sector contingent on an unspecified degree of future court improvements subjectively determined by Ministers, as the last Government proposed in their Bill. We are determined to move quickly to give renters the long-term security, rights and protections they deserve”.
• Fixed terms for students.
  • Angela Rayner would not be drawn into considering amendments for minimum terms for the “student rental market, where re-letting a property within the academic year can present a considerable difficulty”.
  • Instead, she said the Bill “accommodates the unique circumstances of students”, later referring to the new Ground for Possession for student HMOs.
• Fixed terms generally.
  • It is clear that fixed term tenancies are a key part of the Bill for the government. Matthew Pennycook said unequivocally: “it is the Government’s firm view that there is no place for fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system […] ending the injustice of tenants being trapped paying rent for substandard properties”.
  • Angela Rayner referred to it as a “modern tenancy system that removes fixed-term tenancies, meaning that tenants can stay in their home until they decide to end the tenancy”.
• Credit passport for tenants. There was an excellent suggestion of a “good credit passport” for tenants from a Labour MP, but Angela Rayner didn’t follow up on it, and replied on another point .
• Holding landlords to account.
  • Angela Rayner spoke of the important role that tenants will have in ensuring landlords comply with the rules. In fact, she wishes to “incentivise tenants to hold their landlords to account by strengthening rent repayment orders”.
  • She added the Bill will “empower tenants to take direct action against unscrupulous landlords, the Bill will add new rent payment order offences, double the maximum penalty for offences, and ensure that offenders will more often pay the maximum penalty. When landlords break the rules, tenants must have recourse to action”.
• Reassurance for “good landlords”.
  • No doubt the PRS will be relieved to hear Angela Rayner promise that “good landlords have nothing to fear from this Bill and the new database will help landlords to meet their legal duties”.
  • She added “The Bill is about fairness for landlords and tenants, and I think it strikes the right balance”.
• Acknowledgement about the challenges of transition. Matthew Pennycook acknowledged that it will “take time for the sector, including build to rent providers, to adjust to a significant change in regulation”. That is an understatement.

When will the Renters’ Rights Bill come into force?

In the government press released issued on 9 October 2024, Angela Rayner said: “I am determined to get this Bill in to law as soon as possible”. 

In the Second Reading debate, she added: “Unlike the previous Government, who put in place last-minute caveats, we will abolish no-fault evictions for new and existing tenancies at the same time, to give all tenants the same security immediately”.

While “immediately” can’t be taken literally, as the Bill still needs to go through parliament and regulations will need to be passed, this does indicate that it will make quick progress.

>> Related Post: Renters’ Rights Bill timetable: What happens when?