Government issues examples of rent in advance breaches under new rules

Reply to the comment left by Markella Mikkelsen at 12:19
There is a new web page on this on gov.uk and it says that a landlord cannot ACCEPT more than one months payment of rent in advance:
https://housinghub.campaign.gov.uk/renting-is-changing/
I..e even if the tenant OFFERS it, the landlord cannot ACCEPT it.
Requiring large amounts of rent in advance has been banned. The relevant bit on this link says:
– you can only require up to one months rent in the period between all parties signing the tenancy and the tenancy starting
– you cannot ACCEPT any payment of rent before this period
– once the tenancys begun, you cannot REQUIRE any payment of rent before it is due
So that new bit of information answers one of my questions: Once the tenancy has BEGUN the tenant may make payment of rent in advance, you just cannot REQUIRE them to do it.
The section below this is entitled Removing Barriers to Renting but this new requirement will be a barrier to tenants who have cash but low income and cannot pass credit referencing, e.g. some retired people.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 12/05/2026 – 13:26
PS: The guidance on gov.uk says:

Rental bidding has been banned:

you must include a specific price on any written property advertisement

you aren’t allowed to ask for, encourage, or accept an offer that’s higher

So what that means is that IF you advertise a property you have to include a price.

What this means in turn is that you will have to advertise the price of any new let at the highest possible price, i.e. as a consequence of the Renters Rights Act either you or your agent have to maximise rents.

Under the Removing Barriers to Renting section in the new guidance on gov.uk it says:

Discrimination against renters who have children or receive benefits is now illegal:

you cannot do anything to make a tenant less likely to rent a property (or prevent them from renting it) because they have children or receive benefits

this includes withholding information about a property (including its availability), preventing them from viewing it, or refusing to grant a tenancy

And again, what this means in turn is that in order to avoid discrimination, IF you advertise, either you or your agent will have to subject all tenants to credit-referencing.

It looks as though if you weren’t advertising your property but relying on an agent then if your agent withheld information about the availability of your property they could be breaching the new guidance, although whether that would breach the letter of the law, i.e. the wording of the act itself, I don’t know. Anybody know?

Reply to the comment left by Markella Mikkelsen at 12/05/2026 – 12:19
“It’s a very fine line and open to fines.” Nice one Markella!

Reply to the comment left by Richard Dean at 12/05/2026 – 16:20
It is a fine line because some of the legislation as drafted was ambiguous. For example, the last time I read it (on this site) I do remember the wording of the legislation saying that you would not be able to take more than the advertised rent. But I don’t remember a bit of the primary legislation that specifically said you HAD to include the amount of rent in an advert; i.e. I don’t remember the primary legislation specifically saying that if you were advertising a three-bed semi in an approximate location you had to include the price.

Anyone know whether that’s in the primary legislation itself?

Whether it is in the primary legislation or not the new government guidance at the link above says that any advert MUST include a price.

And the guidance says that you can’t discriminate against renters on benefits or renters with children.

So reflecting on the government guidance on the Renters Rights Act, the bottom line is:

(1) IF you are advertising, on first advertising a property either you or your agent need to advertise as high as you can.

(2) In order not to discriminate against ANYBODY, either you or your agent need to be applying stringent credit-referencing checks for EVERYBODY.

So, if previously you were advertising a three bed semi for £3,000 PCM you’d be better off now advertising it at first letting for £3,500 PCM providing contact details and making it clear that there will be credit-referencing checks; if only one tenant then offers you £3,300 PCM and can pass the credit-referencing checks you take that tenant in preference to the other 10 applying for the property (the other 10-20 having dropped out because they know they will fail the credit-referencing checks).

The Renters Rights Act is a gift for agents. I actually use one and I intend to keep using one because using an agent will help screen out the least desirable tenants.

PS: You can’t discriminate against tenants on the basis of whether they have children or not, but in my experience, children do far more damage to a rental property than pets. Because you can’t discriminate against them and you are probably going to experience more damage and more expense you probably want to have a second look at market rent and if market rent could be £3,600 rather than £3,500 PCM for that advertisement on first letting, that’s where you need to be.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 12/05/2026 – 11:46
the devil is in the detail. This wording assumes the tenancy is already in place. ie Tenant started in May 2026 and after the first month rent is paid in June the tenant says he wants to pay 6 months ahead. The landlord can accept as the tenant made the offer.

Reply to the comment left by Steve Rose at 12/05/2026 – 12:34
Handing over a valuable asset without being permitted to check that payment has been received goes against millennia of business practice, and surely won’t survive a court challenge.

this is a mash up. Rent cant be accepted until both parties have signed but lamdlord can refuse to provide keys until tenant pays. theyve got this all wrong. if both parties have signed but then the tenanrs dont pay the move in money does the landlord have to go to court to end the tenancy on the grounds of nonnpayment of rent? half baked concept poorly conceived

Reply to the comment left by Contango at 07:25
It is yet to be tested in court but it should be possible to cater for this. It will mean having a delay of at least a day between signing the tenancy and the tenant being given access. The tenancy can provide that the tenant must pay the first instalment of rent before moving in and that if the tenant fails to do so, the landlord may refuse to allow access and may cancel the contract forthwith.
This is clunky and a completely unnecessary obstacle. It wasn’t in the Tories’ Bill but was added by Labour. I suspect it has been designed to catch out a lot of landlords who will continue the normal, prudent business practice of getting money upfront.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 13/05/2026 – 10:30
There’s a link about this here:

https://www.gov.uk/assured-tenancy-agreements-a-guide-for-landlords/rent-in-advance-and-deposits

The gov.uk guidance says:

Rent in advance and deposits
You or your letting agent must not accept, ask for or encourage tenants to pay rent before you both sign the tenancy agreement. This is called asking for ‘rent in advance’.

Your tenant can make a complaint if they are asked to pay rent in advance.

You can only ask for rent in advance during the ‘pre-tenancy period’. This is after you and your tenant have signed the tenancy agreement and before the date the tenancy starts. You can usually only ask for either one month or 28 days’ worth of rent before the tenancy starts.

So basically you should sign but make it clear that the keys won’t be handed over until the money has cleared and ask for either one month or 28 days worth of rent before the tenancy starts: No rent cleared in your bank account or your agent’s bank account = no keys handed over.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 13/05/2026 – 10:47
Once the lease has been signed, you can’t withhold the keys, or prevent access, for non-payment of the first rent.