Government admits no impact assessment of Renters’ Rights Act on supply
The government admits it has not carried out an impact assessment on how the abolition of fixed-term tenancies will affect rental supply.
In a written question, Liberal Democrat MP Dr Roz Savage asked what assessment had been made of removing fixed-term tenancies under the Renters’ Rights Act, including the impact on certainty for landlords seeking to sell or recover possession and the potential effect on rental supply.
However, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook claimed no such assessment has been carried out.
Abolition of fixed-term tenancies will cause chaos
Mr Pennycook pointed to the Renters’ Rights Act impact assessment, which claims the abolition of fixed-term tenancies and replacing them with periodic tenancies will “result in fewer voluntary household moves as tenants will no longer need to plan to move at the end of a fixed term period.”
The assessment looks at the English Housing Survey, which says approximately 6.3% of tenants who moved in the previous 12 months listed the end of the fixed term as the sole reason for moving.
The assessment claims: “These are voluntary moves from tenants that are solely due to the existence of fixed terms, this may be in situations where tenants are unable to commit to another term of at least 12 months.”
However, as previously reported by Property118, many industry experts have warned the abolition of fixed-term tenancies will cause chaos, particularly for the student rental market.
ARLA Propertymark regional executive for Cornwall, Sophie Lang, told Property118: “The student rental market runs in a very set cycle. We know when the term times are and when the year ends. It was very easy to have a fixed-term tenancy, which gave everyone peace of mind that they had their housing sorted.
“Removing fixed-term tenancies will cause uncertainty for landlords and tenants because it means that fixed-term tenancies are no longer there as a protection.”
A survey by agency software firm Alto reveals more than a third (34%) of agents predict the end of fixed-term contracts could devastate the student letting system.
Landlords selling
Dr Savage also asked whether the Renters’ Rights Act could affect the frequency of tenant displacement caused by landlords selling properties, and trends in repeated forced moves for compliant tenants.
Mr Pennycook again confirmed that no assessment had been carried out on this.
The Renters’ Rights Act impact assessment claims the reforms are expected to result in only a small number of landlords exiting the market.
The assessment said: “There is a risk that costs from the legislation may result in some landlords leaving the sector. This is difficult to estimate precisely, though we would expect it to be substantially mitigated by the additional cost per rented property being a very small fraction of average annual rent and asset value.
“The available evidence to date does not suggest that similar reforms to abolish section 21 in Scotland have negatively impacted supply, nor changes introduced by the 2019 Tenant Fees Act, despite concerns they would.”
However, a study by the Scottish Association of Landlords shows a reduction of 22,000 rental properties in Scotland in just one year due to government policies and anti-landlord rhetoric.
A survey by the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) found that 41% of landlords plan to sell properties within the next 12 months, compared to only 6% who intend to buy.
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
Member Since May 2021 - Comments: 392
7:06 PM, 27th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 27/02/2026 – 14:06
I bet Rachel from accounts knows, I mean..she’s on top of all regulations concerning the PRS.
Member Since August 2025 - Comments: 44
10:31 PM, 27th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Little adjustment to section21 was all that needed.The idea of big corporate companies will dictate rental sector even more harder where the renting generations voice will not be heard instead they will be made to live as they told and if these big organisations are penalised to update accommodation they will simply fold up with billions of pounds of losses. Who will have compensate for the loss ,? We think it will the ruling party whoever that may be . One thing is simple no profit no business and this RRBill plus making companies to secure employment rights has only encouraged small businesses to shut,Bringing in the big corporate companies will also have a bigger say in the selection of ruling government ,it will be bit like communist rule to general public to do as told. What will happen to these few renting moaners and the charities whom have lobbied to remove section 21. We cannot understand why no one in authority has objected and thought of the long term consequences. Anyone can see why there are so many properties put up for sale ,? Once this is done we cannot see PRs coming back because the investors would have invested some where else and all these moaners instead of try to look after landlords whome provided the roof over over thier head have painted the picture that all landlords are nasty. It can be seen that there is no mention to penalise renters who destroy the nicely provided accommodation and with no fixed term these renters will go on destroying then move on to next property the same senario will apply to large corporate companies, who will survive the continuous losses yet have to be seen. There are serious questions to people in. Authority to also amend rules to bad tenants to make them responsibile to establish law and order for the sake of public at large.
JOE
Member Since January 2023 - Comments: 145
1:54 PM, 28th February 2026, About 2 months ago
We have served notice on all tenants we believe to be dodgy. Ie unauthorised sub tenants particularly
Member Since May 2016 - Comments: 1580 - Articles: 16
3:37 PM, 28th February 2026, About 2 months ago
I believe the Politicians were thinking the Big Build to rent companies would ‘ride into Town’ and provide extra accommodation, Of course the type of accommodation they would provide would be ‘High-end’ and not help those on benefits. Oops, John Lewis seemed to have thrown a spanner in govt’s works this week.
Member Since January 2023 - Comments: 145
6:26 PM, 28th February 2026, About 2 months ago
Quite right Chris. The Build to rent mob were catering to Yuppies with gyms and bars on site. They were not competing with trasitional landlords offering attractively located family houses. for rent in areas that are mixed owner occupoers and rentals. My own view is that what the Government might have done more sensibly is offered a lower CGT rate if a property being sold had been let to the same tenant for an extended period.
Member Since October 2024 - Comments: 198
10:25 PM, 27th April 2026, About 20 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Fed-up Landlord at 27/02/2026 – 18:54
Providing you sell all or most of them to the owner occupiers.
I have sold 2 out of 3 to owner occupiers.
I have 3 more to sell this year. I have given S21 notices. One of the family of 3, has refused to leave on 4th May. They only told me 4 days ago and today they said they will leave at the end of August. I wish to sell it empty now.
I hope they pay rent until 4th September, or leave earlier like 4th August.