Renters’ Rights Act will push up rents as regulation tightens
5 months ago | 17 comments
Housing Minister admits government has not assessed impact of 12-month re-letting ban
8:19 AM, 6th November 2025, 5 months ago
29
Categories:
The Housing Minister has admitted the government has not carried out an assessment of the impact of banning landlords from re-letting homes if a sale falls through.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, landlords who evict tenants in order to sell a property, but whose sale then collapses, must wait 12 months before re-letting it.
In a written parliamentary question, the Conservatives asked whether the government had conducted an assessment of the impact this rule could have on the number of empty homes.
My Department has made no such assessment
Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly asked: “To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of provisions in the Renters’ Rights Bill on the number of empty homes, in the context of the ban on re-renting homes after a home has been vacated for sale.”
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook admitted the government have not carried out an assessment.
He said: “My Department has made no such assessment. Landlords making use of new mandatory possession ground 1A (sale of dwelling-house) will be expected to sell their property with vacant possession as intended.
“To prevent abuse of this ground, landlords will not be able to market or re-let their property for twelve months after using the selling ground. This will remove the financial incentive to landlords from misusing the grounds and evicting a tenant with the intention to re-let at a higher rent.”
Despite a last-minute attempt in the House of Lords to reduce the period from twelve months to six months, the amendment ultimately failed.
The Renters’ Rights Act has since gained Royal Assent and will now become law. However, the government has not yet confirmed an exact timeline for its implementation.
What responsible landlords should know
The Renters’ Rights Act now prevents landlords from re-letting a property for twelve months after evicting tenants under Ground 1A, where the stated intention was to sell. The absence of a government impact assessment leaves uncertainty over how this will affect vacant stock levels and cash flow for those whose sales collapse. Responsible landlords will need to prepare for longer void periods and demonstrate genuine sales activity should their plans change.
What this means for you
A property repossessed for sale but not sold cannot be re-let for twelve months, even if the transaction falls through.
Lenders and insurers may request confirmation that the property is genuinely being marketed for sale before approving related decisions.
The Act’s enforcement approach remains to be detailed, so record-keeping and evidence of sales intent will be essential.
Practical steps (do now)
Keep dated marketing materials, sales correspondence, and conveyancer records showing genuine efforts to sell.
Review mortgage terms to confirm whether extended vacancy periods affect your lending conditions or insurance cover.
Update your financial projections to include potential twelve-month voids in worst-case scenarios.
Discuss with your agent whether to adjust your marketing strategy to minimise time on the market.
Keep copies of all tenancy termination notices and any advice received from solicitors or letting agents.
Good practice that reduces stress
Maintaining a clear audit trail protects credibility with regulators, lenders, and tenants alike. Landlords who can show their commercial reasoning and proper documentation will navigate the new rule with fewer disputes and greater confidence in their compliance.
Tags:
12-month re-letting rule, empty homes, Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, re-letting ban, Renters’ Rights Act, Tenant eviction
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
or
Related Articles
Renters’ Rights Bill receives Royal Assent but Section 21 end date still to be announced
5 months ago | 3 comments
Landlord organisation warns Renters’ Rights Bill is flawed and anti-tenant
5 months ago | 5 comments
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
11:50 AM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 06/11/2025 – 10:55
…even more interesting if the tenant themselves got the months rent in advance and deposit paid by the Council….
I foresee some Councill’s perhaps having to agree not to enforce any breach of this with a LL, if the LL can’t sell and suggests to the Council that they would be open to letting to someone on their housing list for TA purposes….
Could a T stuck in TA pose a legal challenge if the Council was offered a property by a LL for TA purposes yet the council refused to secure this?
Could a taxpayer pose a legal challenge if the Council was offered a property to use for TA yet the Council refused to secure it?
Ohh the fallout is going to be interesting….
Member Since December 2015 - Comments: 292
12:21 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 06/11/2025 – 10:25
Something else to beat us with!
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
1:04 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by A Reader at 06/11/2025 – 09:35
The government didn’t reveal the results of the Justice Impact Test for the RRB either:
https://www.property118.com/government-refuses-to-reveal-renters-rights-bill-court-impact-assessment/
They decided to cover that up: Hardly the act of an open and honest government.
Although the rental reform bill started out as a reasonable idea…something that would involve reciprocal rights and responsibilities for both tenant and landlord…a majority left-wing government got hold of this bill and turned it into something else: They didn’t think it through properly because they had a big majority and they didn’t have to.
The overall effect of the RRA is less accommodation and an increase in the proportion of people without a home who will now be too risky to house in the PRS. Houses will have to be left empty for longer periods. This doesn’t help anybody.
But that’s what happens when people who live in ivory towers make decisions that affect real peoples’ lives. A reduction in choice, a reduction in freedom. Housing that is only going to be available for rent to the better off people in society, if it is available at all.
Member Since March 2024 - Comments: 281
1:31 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Wonder if Reeves can grasp that houses mandated to remain empty because they fail to sell and those looking to move temporarily to take up employment opportunities and career advancement will no longer be able to let their home for the period (and likely then end up paying second home double council tax on it as a second home as well as the mortgage if it was left empty and furnished) will find it impossible to take up the employment opportunity for a combination of reduced supply and this inability to let their present home – directly contributing to reduced growth in the economy. The exact opposite of her one stated aim to get the economy growing that had a glimmer of sense about it.
Mobility in the workforce is essential for a healthy economy but government policy seems hell bent on preventing it.
Member Since November 2025 - Comments: 1
1:33 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
The Making Tax Digital is going to illuminate this situation
Sale falls through no CGT payable to taxman.
Forced void period of a year thereafter: landlords income will drop to zero for twelve months. Tax on such income will be lost. Possibly National Insurance as well.
No CGT throughout the void period also
Also landlords building insurers will be very unhappy about this situation. They may even void the insurance policy..
Member Since February 2018 - Comments: 627
1:46 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Property owned and let by, say, the wife, evicts tenant, sale falls through with the reletting ban in effect, convey property to husband, no CGT, no Stamp Duty, no consideration, I’ve done it myself albeit for other reasons, new landlord?
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
2:53 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Rosita at 06/11/2025 – 13:33
The Making Tax Digital proposals are to extend MTD to sole traders (i.e. the self-employed) and to landlords earning a total of £20k or more from both areas combined. The labour government did choose to publish the impact test of this change, even though it chose not to publish the justice impact test of the Renters Rights Bill. The impact test for MTD found, unsurprisingly, that it had a disproportionate impact on small landlords and sole-traders.
This government isn’t after the rich…many of them have already left the UK or moved assets offshore, thereby contributing to the predictable decline in tax receipts that accompanies a government pursuing traditional labour dogma. In the meantime there is another predictable effect of this labour dogma which is that the ‘hidden’ market in the UK is growing. Of course, the ‘hidden’ market doesn’t submit returns to Making Tax Digital and is going to make a lot more than £20K per person per annum if this government stays in power.
But labour governments don’t go after the rich or wrong-doers because they aren’t ever competent to do it. In the end they only ever manage to attack middle-income earners, because they are an easy target. And they use lies to cover up their incompetence, “…we all have to contribute, we are all in this together.” All in it together that is unless you have a generous, gilt-edged public sector pension, like the one that Keir Starmer benefits from and which he lifted out of the tax net.
Faced with a property that must remain empty for 12 months one possible solution (possibly the only one if you aren’t going to move family members back in) is a ‘hidden’ tenant…the sort of tenant that you might have had if you bought your council home under the Right to Buy scheme and then couldn’t rent it out legally for example.
Together with suppression of the truth and outrageous hypocrisy, a healthy and growing black market is one of the signs of a repressive left-wing government. Even totalitarian, repressive communist regimes like Vietnam and Cuba have had to realise and accept (since losing financial backing from China and Russia), that this kind of repressive control-freakery isn’t sustainable because people are the source of wealth and if you punish your people you make everyone poor.
Properties aren’t going to remain empty for 12 months: There just isn’t going to be a record of who is in there paying rent….as with many former council homes bought under the right to buy scheme for example.
Stupid and ignorant people produce stupid and incoherent policy.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
3:17 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 06/11/2025 – 13:46
hmmm interesting!
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
3:20 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 06/11/2025 – 15:17
Careful: Even with transfers between husband and wife SDLT may still be payable on the outstanding mortgage debt.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
3:28 PM, 6th November 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 06/11/2025 – 14:53
You can still allow a family member/other to live in the property for the banned period for free while you are trying to sell….. especially useful if they are full time student as they are exempt from CT if they live there alone…
Also means a SL is not needed either if this expires within the banned period because there is no tenant in situ…
Like you say all the RRB and whatever the Fudget brings, is going to do is increase the amount of people to look at other inventive ways of clawing back what they feel is being wrongly taken away from them.