Government vows to tackle rental discrimination in PRS

As we “look forward” to our 3rd Housing Secretary in 2 years (keeping pace with the Tories) will the Minister manage to cling on to his role when the new broom is applied?

Yes, the RRA has brought discrimination – positive discrimination on behalf of the tenant.

Where are the improvements we were promised to the court process and the digitalisation? Let’s not mention the fun and games of landlords having to sort out the dogs breakfast of the RRA, where all sage advice and amendments were discarded in order to short cut the path of a piece of dogma based legislation which will impact tenants for years.

Don’t talk to me about mould and damp when you want me to hermetically seal a property which has breathed naturally for 170 years. The new EPC requirements are just like the Defence Investment Plan – over consulted, publication much promised and, when finally released, will be out of date, addressing yesterday’s issues instead of tomorrows. I’m sure that this week tenants will be celebrating well insulted flats designed to keep the heat in. Where are the plans for climate resilience, especially excess heat (fire and flood will merely be biblical).

Hoping King Burnham will stimulate the housing market so I can get sold up. In the meantime where is the incentive to relet my property when the reward is 12 months before I can sell and qualifying for selective licensing.

Never mind, I hear Rachel might be grateful for something she has first hand experience of if we do get a new Housing Minister.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 10:28
I am sorry you got caught out. It is particularly galling when left wing MPs and lobbyists say that landlords should see Council-paid income as secure. It is the least secure income imaginable and landlords should say so if ever the point is raised. That the Council can recover “public money” from the landlord is an utter disgrace: landlords are not in a position to assess whether a tenant is over-claiming or has not told the Council about a change of circumstances. Landlords are wholly innocent in such cases. They have given value for money and yet are left with a probably worthless debt claim against a tenant.

… and this is only the very, very beginning of the hurricane being unleashed.

The industry is being dismantled and pressed into service for the consumer. No longer will landlords win or lose in a market economy, where providing a good service at a market price is what makes a business successful and ensures tenants receive that service at a fair price. Instead, the market will operate at the behest of civil servant pen-pushers, designing a housing system around their idealistic worldview, harvesting votes from it, and then imposing it through taxes and regulations funded by the embedded capital in private assets — property.

“Market price” is being redefined by this administration to mean whatever the below-average person can afford in their failed economy. IT IS A POLITICAL MASTERSTROKE.

The question is whether landlords cut and run, or stick and hold.

My view is that, given the exit losses and costs many landlords would face — wiping out the value of years of work, gains and accumulated equity — the answer is to stick and hold, provided proper political pressure is brought to bear by the industry on politicians.

Property has always been a medium- to long-term investment. That means hunkering down for three years and taking what, if landlords stick and hold, may largely remain paper losses in order to capture the upturn when the economy is rebuilt. It has got to happen. It always has. But if landlords exit now, the exit costs, tax costs, transaction costs and future re-entry costs may inhibit any meaningful future exposure to the market just as the recovery begins.

That strategy, however, relies on the industry finally getting its act together and becoming a voice that politicians are forced to listen to. From what I can see, none of the present so-called industry representatives have demonstrated that ability.

Their claim seems to be that they have reported on the damage being done, without doing anything meaningful to prevent it.

If the train drivers’ union operated on the same basis, train drivers would be earning £25,000 a year instead of upwards of £70,000.

The objective must be to force meaningful reform under a new, business-friendly administration by 2029 at the latest. That means working with those parties between now and then. From what I can see, sadly, none of the so-called existing industry representatives are remotely up to the job and that’s what’s got to change first.

Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 24/06/2026 – 11:07
I was referring to new tenants, there is nothing you can do about existing tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 24/06/2026 – 08:54
… think again.

When the data-service harvesters now promoting their services to local authorities — currently for up to a 90% cut of the regulatory fines — start cross-referencing HMLR, council tax, electoral registers, EPC records, EICR records and every other database they can plug into, your “relatives” will be classified as tenants with the same rights as tenants.

The Tribunals will clarify the position. Even if they do not pay money rent, they are providing something of value in lieu of rent. By occupying the property, maintaining a presence, deterring intruders, reducing vacancy risk and effectively providing a security service, they are giving value back to the owner in the same way any security firm would. That value will be treated as consideration.

That is the point most landlords and so-called paid-for industry representatives still seem to be missing. The legislation is designed to protect anyone who lives in a property they do not own. It is not limited to conventional landlord-and-tenant relationships where rent is paid by standing order every month.

Even if you own the property you live in, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and other regulatory frameworks still apply. The difference is that local authorities often do not enforce against owner-occupiers because they are not usually in the business of protecting people from self-inflicted damage to their own property.

But do not assume that position will last once private enforcement companies discover another money-making process to bolt onto council systems.

Under the current administration, expect an inspector on the doorstep soon enough — all wrapped in the political language of housing standards, tenant protection and net zero.

Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 24/06/2026 – 14:02
Whatever you do make sure that the ‘inspector’ stays firmly on the doorstep and never enters your home or garden. Ask them to leave immediately and if they do not call the police.

Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 24/06/2026 – 13:30
Obviously new tenants are referenced and credit checked. I know I have one who had a small CCJ when he first came to me 6 years ago and another one had a massive IVA when he came back to us about 18 years ago. He has been my husband’s lodger or tenant for well over 35 years off and on. Prior to the RRA it was a risk I would consider taking. In both those cases they have been either totally or relatively trouble free for a very long time. One has paid his rent on time every month for 18 years. The other has a complicated pay schedule and tends to pay in installments. With the loss of Section 21 it is unlikely I would take the risk today.

Reply to the comment left by Cathie at 24/06/2026 – 10:12
Because the impact is already decided. You don’t need past data for that.