Government issues examples of rent in advance breaches under new rules

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at https://www.property118.com/government-issues-examples-of-rent-in-advance-breaches-under-new-rules/comment-page-3/#comment-205089“
; rel=”ugc”>09:42
From memory, the initial rent isn’t overdue until the end of the first day, whereas the keys are due at the beginning of the first day, so if they claim they have paid, withholding the keys sounds very dodgy ground. Requesting cash, counted out onto the table by them, not picked up by you before both parties sign, sounds the safest way.
Besides, isn’t this effectively moot? For me the issue had always been “will I receive the second month’s rent?”. This legislation simply brings that forward to day one.
You may be right, but for over 20 years my belief has been “never be the test case, that way lies potential ruin”. This is why all our contracts now demand a home-owning guarantor. It’s so much simpler texting them and saying “would you mind chasing x, their rent is late again.” It has worked every time for me.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 13/05/2026 – 10:30
Ian, my understanding is that the term “entered into the tenancy” used in the RRA means more than just entering into a contract. The housing lawyer David Smith recently said “When I say that you have to enter into the agreement first that means that the agreement must be agreed such that neither party can withdraw from it. Usually that will mean signed by both parties and executed but it could be by an exchange of unequivocal emails. What you cannot do is agree to sign but stall that signature until the rent turns up. So the risk that landlords will run going forward is that a tenant will say they are going to pay the rent, sign the agreement, fail to pay and then the landlord will have to let them move in anyway alreadv in arrears.”

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 17:00
The point is that the tenancy has been signed but in advance of the contractual term of the tenancy starting. The tenant is not entitled to occupy until the contractual term commences. The landlord has the right to cancel if the initial rent is not paid. The tenant never becomes a residential occupier.
Look at it another way. Suppose the tenant objects to not being given access. The tenant will have to complain to the court and his claim will in effect be: “I have not paid the rent either before the move in date or after the landlord said I must pay the rent in order to get the keys. I have not offered to pay the rent. I expect to be allowed to occupy without paying rent and despite signing a contract that required me to pay before being given access. The landlord has done what the contract said he could do. This is grossly unfair to me and the landlord is a rogue whom this court should punish.”
I don’t think even the most tenant-friendly judge is going to be impressed by that.

The whole point in my original post was that many many landlords WILL fail to grip this. Please re read the example in the original article You , like many others, are going to get very large fines believing that you can refuse to hand over the keys if the tenant fails to pay up. Its so absurd that I understand why you would think so. The example expressly describes this very scenario.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/05/2026 – 10:58
“I expect to be allowed to occupy without paying rent”
The law effectively allowed this already, for every month except the first.
“The tenant will have to complain to the court”
Surely he would go to his local housing department and request to be housed because his landlord has refused to give him the keys because, although he has paid the rent (or claims to have done), it hasn’t yet cleared into the landlord’s account. The LA will then write to the landlord expressing that, according to their legal opinion, the landlord has broken the law and is now liable for a fine of up to £40,000.
Now, I’m almost certain that none of the people telling others to risk it will be offering to pay that fine, so I still don’t see why anyone is encouraging others to take that risk. Especially since, even if it were to go to court and the landlord were to win, Shelter and/or other housing charities will appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.
At the end of the day the government was asked to clarify this issue in the Act, then in the guidance, and the government, led by a human rights lawyer, has declined to do so.
If that doesn’t set anyone’s alarm bells ringing then perhaps being a landlord isn’t for them anyway.
It is probably also worth pointing out that if a tenant has been asked to pay a holding deposit, the RRA specifically states that this will be classed as rent. So in these cases, even if the full rent hasn’t been paid, some rent has (and presumably the deposit, which would cover the balance).
If contract law governed tenancies, we wouldn’t need any of the housing laws. Clearly it doesn’t.

Reply to the comment left by Paul at 15/05/2026 – 11:10
“The example expressly describes this very scenario”
While I fully agree with your general thrust, they’re arguing a slightly different example.
In your example the landlord has waited for funds to clear before signing (illegal), while they are arguing that you can sign it first, then ask for the funds (legal), but then tear up the tenancy agreement if the money doesn’t clear.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 10:58
I agree that this is how things have worked hitherto and Ive frequently suggested to tenants that being sued for breach of contract may be better than 12 months without rent whilst they evict. However, I am not sure how this will be viewed by the courts in future and how they will interpret the term “entered into” regarding a tenancy. Indeed whether Smith’s use of the phrase “signed by both and executed” suggests something more akin to a deed.
I sincerely hope that your interpretation is correct, but I suspect we may have to wait for the courts to rule on this one.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 15/05/2026 – 12:11
I can only repeat. The tenancy must be entered into before rent is demanded or accepted by the landlord. However, the tenant does not have the same rights on signing as he does on going into occupation.

I do not claim to speak for David Smith but I know him and have spoken with him. I think he is of similar opinion – that the landlord can cancel the tenancy if the rent is not paid before moving in and the tenancy requires it to be paid. This is subject to the caveat that we may need a test case.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/05/2026 – 15:35
Yes, I remember David Smith saying early on that he thought there may be scope to include something in the agreement to the effect that the tenancy, (possession) could only commence once the first month’s rent was paid. He hasn’t repeated this to my knowledge and is now recommending taking a holding deposit and the security deposit prior to signing, to help offset the risk. I guess we’ll find out whether prohibiting access for non-payers is an option in due course.