Government claim landlords still have a choice over who they rent to

A private landlord in this current one sided rental era has to protect their investment the best way they feel fit. The RRA has given private landlords rights away completely. It’s all now one sided for the tenant, so the tenant has to be fully referenced and have a solid guarantor. Making a wrong decision can be years of misery and unpaid rent which is not common sense or good business practice. Definitely not recommended for your personal mental state of mind.

For those who did not follow the passage of the Bill through Parliament, or have forgotten, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage is the Government steamroller in the Lords, who was used to suppress any useful amendments to the RRA which would have addressed common sense concerns.

AI tells me:
The Renters’ Rights Act received Royal Assent on October 27, 2025. While the House of Lords agreed to 45 amendments during their report stage, the House of Commons rejected almost all substantive, non-government amendments during the final “ping-pong” stages in Autumn 2025. Only government-approved technical amendments were accepted.

Here is the breakdown of the key substantive Lords amendments that were ultimately rejected by the Commons:
-Pet Damage Deposit: An amendment to allow landlords to charge a separate pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent to cover potential damage.
-Student Accommodation: Expanding mandatory Ground 4A to allow landlords to evict tenants in smaller student properties (e.g., 1 or 2 sharers).
-Agricultural Workers: Expanding eviction ground 5A to include self-employed agricultural workers, not just direct employees.
-Service Family Accommodation: A proposal to extend the Decent Homes Standard to armed forces family accommodation.
-Landlord Carers: A new ground allowing landlords to evict tenants if they needed the property to house a carer for themselves or a family member.

What Was Accepted:The final Act contains the agreed minor, technical, and government-drafted changes. All key provisions, such as the abolition of Section 21 “no-fault” evictions and fixed-term tenancies, were retained as originally intended.

That’s a long winded way of saying that the Government forced through a dogmatic piece of legislation which lacks detail in many areas and will clog up the courts where they will struggle to make it work for tenants and landlords.

Well isn’t that big of them. Having more than doubled our risk through the new governments ‘level playing field’ of:
Initial 12 month fixed term (for tenants), two months for us.
Tribunals which can’t backdate price rise claims leading to a positive feedback loop of delays.
Extra wear from pets which can’t be allocated to an extra deposit or insurance.
Restrictions on payments up front and guarantors.
Situations where the overpayment of benefits are taken from the landlord.
They will now be surprised when the most problematic tenants don’t get offered anything within the private sector.

Labour refused to publish the results of its justice impact test on the courts. Labour has said that it will fix the courts but it hasn’t done it yet.

As a consequence of the Labour Renters Rights Act renting property out has become higher risk. Other than increasing your rent to market rent it is hard to see how you can reduce your risk unless you include in your standard screening process (including right-to-rent checks for tenants): last two years of tax returns, last two years of SA302 (self-employment tax returns), evidence of savings in a UK account, evidence of all other income e.g. benefits, character reference and credit reference check, two forms of photo ID, current mobile phone contract and number with address (not a burner phone).

I believe Panorama may be covering the problem of drug dealers taking over rental properties so you should probably also include a CRB check on your tenants. You need to increase your rents to cover the costs of all the above.

This website talks about the problem of drugs in properties:

http://www.drugsandhousing.co.uk/tacklingdruguseinrentedhousing.pdf

Their recommendation on page 24-25 is:

“Tenants should be made aware that anti-social behaviour perpetrated by those who live with them and those who visit could also constitute a breach of their tenancy agreement. This also relates to subletting of tenancies. Much of the supply of drugs occurs in properties sublet by proper tenants to other people, who may in turn sublet to suppliers or supply others themselves. Careful attention to subletting may be particularly useful in controlling supply.”

There’s a bigger risk of anti-social behaviour with social housing tenants.

So, best advice is, since the Labour Renters Rights Act came in, introduce all of the tenant-screening criteria above including credit checks and CRB checks and don’t permit any sub-letting and increase rents year on year to market rent, even if you weren’t doing it before.

Of course, we used to have no fault evictions.

Can’t really see many landlords housing many benefits tenants since the introduction of the Labour Renters Rights Act.

As Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves give up their grace and favour apartments, will they be testing the new S8 grounds to recover their homes?
Maybe they are included in Burnham’s homeless strategy?