Tenants are quitting tenancies early believing the Renters’ Rights Bill is already law
12 months ago | 4 comments
Contract where Renters’ Rights Bill will not apply?
12:01 AM, 17th June 2025, 10 months ago
15
The Renters’ Rights Bill (RRB) only applies to assured and assured shorthold ASTs. If the contract type is not one of these, it won’t apply.
Of the list of tenancy agreements types that are not assured or assured shortholds is for example, one where rent is less than £250 per year (£1000 in Central London)
The Tenant Fees Act does not apply to this tenancy type either and any possession follows the Notice to Quit procedure.
Example Property rental value £800 pcm. Total per annum = £9600.
Couldn’t the landlord in this scenario:
Offer a tenancy agreement where the rent is stipulated at £250 per annum. (9666- 250=9350)
then either ask:
A. Each month, ask for a non-refundable rolling payment of £779 (9350/12) to secure the property for the month ahead
OR
B. Ask for one lump sum payment of £9350 to secure the property for a minimum of 12 months going forward.
The reason I ask is I am being approached by tenants willing to pay 6 /12 months in advance now, and I can see this happening more often after the RRB. Is this a viable way whereby the landlord could offer a tenancy to a tenant on this basis?
Benefits to tenants – they get to secure a tenancy (not possible in some circumstances under RRB rules) and they only have to give one month’s notice, rather than two in RRB.
NB also has implications on properties in selective licensing (SL) areas – non assured tenancies/non shorthold are also exempt from SL requirements.
Good for landlord and also good for tenants (who don’t pay more in rent for this)
What does the Property118 community think?
Thanks,
Reluctant landlord
Tags:
Assured Shorthold Tenancy, non-assured tenancy, renters rights bill, Selective Licensing, Tenant Fees Act
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Related Articles
Landlords need more clarity over the Renters’ Rights Bill
11 months ago | 2 comments
Renters’ Rights Bill will leave students worse off warns industry expert
11 months ago | 5 comments
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1168
12:11 PM, 20th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 20/06/2025 – 10:05
S8 is part of the Assured Tenancy regime so could not be used for non assured tenancies.
Common Law tenancies are still possible and as has already been mentioned, a tenancy with an annual rent of less than £250 or more than £100,000 cannot be assured. Other conditions include it not being the tenants main home. This means that holiday lets and shorter lets to some contract workers often fall outside the scope of the Housing Act 1988. Likewise tenancies where the tenant doesnt have exclusive possession, such as serviced accommodation with in-bedroom cleaning is non-assured. Resident landlords also mean that the lodger is either a licensee or if they have self contained accommodation in the same converted building, a common law tenant.
One option that has recently surfaced for student rentals is that their parents become the tenants but grant their student children permission to occupy. The parents won’t live there so the tenancy isn’t assured. It’s not clear at the moment whether this workaround will survive the process of amendments to the RRB.
Member Since September 2021 - Comments: 104
10:59 PM, 23rd June 2025, About 10 months ago
This prompts the other permutations such as what if the property is a shop so is a commercial property with a commercial letting contract for the shop that just so happens to have a flat above the shop that is also included in the let?
They can’t call it residential, its commercial, so AST does not apply, neither does a rolling AT apply, so therefore the RRB does not apply.
Can somebody clarify this for me?
Even the banks will not provide a residential mortgage on such a commercial property like this one. You need a commercial mortgage from a specialist commercial mortgage provider.
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1168
9:50 AM, 24th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Frank Jennings at 23/06/2025 – 22:59
That’s true as long as the shop leaseholder lives there. If he lets it to a tenant it would be an AST.
Member Since March 2023 - Comments: 1506
8:26 AM, 27th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Good try, but it won’t work – bit like when VAT came in and the chip shop charged 1p for salt and vinegar and nothing for the chips.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2197 - Articles: 2
1:25 PM, 27th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 27/06/2025 – 08:26
Nothing for the chips – gourmet heaven!