How the Renters’ Rights Act will strengthen – not squeeze – the landlord sector

Please can the author this piece share the evidence to support these observations relating to student lettings. I am particularly interested in any evidence relating to student tenants behaviour regarding termination of contracts and if and how private LL ate responding. My concern is about students terminating early after Easter because they do not need to be physically present at their university. Compliance, managing checkouts, communication higher standards is not going to change that impetus. Higher prices will only make things worse. All that good stuff may prevent students switching but that is not a concern for me. Like me student landlords are selling up or switching to residential or standard HMOs in their droves for a reason. Sadly students will lose out on choice and will be forced into paying PBSA premium prices.

https://www.property118.com/scotland-prs-growth-housing-policy/

TLDR; The size of PRS in Scotland has fallen and households in temporary accommodation has increased.

I agree with most of the article, but what it fails to mention is that the only practical way to achieve it is for the vast majority of the current private sector landlords to be replaced by incoming or expanding corporate operators. Ive no doubt that this will happen over time and this will be the biggest contributor to rent increases.

The author writes “Some argue that increased legislation could suppress rents over time. But in practice, the opposite dynamic has tended to play out. While costs have increased so have rising quality expectations, driving improvements in stock, and demand has remained resilient for well-managed homes. That aligns with our experience on the ground.”

Has anyone notice the hidden inconsistency in this?

So he is saying that rents have increased over time, but costs also have (due to regulations, EPC, licensing etc). So in effect rents HAVE been suppressed. Where is this “opposite” scenario that is playing out?

BTW, who’s rising quality expectations? The tenants’ or the governments?

The whole premise of this argument is based on the idea that incomes are rising adequately to support an ever increasing cost of “better quality” rental housing. And this increase in incomes supporting even further increases in rents is outpacing maintenance and regulatory costs to create “more profit”. It’s a false premise. It sounds just like the blue-sky nonsense .gov likes to promote by saying that regulation improves the economy.

Real incomes are falling against inflation, costs of materials, products, energy, taxes and professional labour are going up. What fantasy does this guy live in?

Will this .gov scam push out smaller landlords? Yes.

The inference is that is a good thing, because small landlords have crappy properties, but who rents the “crappy” properties? People who can afford nice modern ones? Of course not.

So “bigger” landlords who can refurbish and re-rent at higher prices will push out the poorer people who have always lived in those areas. Or what really happens is the councils will be hit harder with higher benefit payments for housing. Then they will increase CT and licensing costs and round and round we go.

I can remember when I was young (30 years ago), my friends and I could live in a dump for cheap. We loved it, we were independent and yes we had the odd party, but we were never real trouble.

Now the kids still live at home, or their parents are subsidising their rent, or big brother pays for it.

But it’s all neat and pretty right?

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 16/04/2026 – 11:06
I think that this is likely to be true because the effect of policy stopping landlords from offsetting their finance costs against rents, along with increasing interest rates, is to penalise small landlords and drive those who wish to invest in property (because they trust it) into the use of incorporated structures, even if that is only for one or two properties. Stopping small portfolio landlords from offsetting finance costs, and rent controls, create pressure on smaller landlords to raise rents. I also suspect that larger incorporated landlords, whilst not under the same short-term pressures as small landlords, will be better at maximising rents over time.

On the attractiveness or otherwise of private rented accommodation as an investment the labour government just forced through a bill to force pension funds to invest in the UK:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/news/labour-force-through-plan-dictate-pension-investments/?msockid=0b8a4155c7db6ba1058955b1c6196a07

Gordon Brown attacked pensions and it appears this government is doing the same, both by including them in the IHT net and also by trying to take control over their investment policies. Over time I suspect that is also likely to make investment via a private company the favoured option. But it will also make investment offshore in investment vehicles that are beyond the reach of a left wing UK government more attractive. And that’s a problem because the country needs to be a place where investors want to invest, not somewhere they are coerced into putting money into.

Short term you might want to consider putting money into a stocks and shares ISA or gilt to accumulate some tax free cash as a contingency plan to lend money to your company to upgrade your EPC in 2030, assuming that you are actually obliged to. But at the moment the two increasingly attractive options for significant long term investment are (1) Limited company (2) offshore. SIPPs just became less attractive because of IHT, although you might still have some money in them, and if the government wanted to do something really radical to get closer to building 1.5 million new homes it could consider letting you invest your SIPP in residential property, rather than just in commercial property.

This article reads more like a wish list than reality. What is wrong with small independent landlords that they have to be eliminated? A single owner can be just as professional as the large corporates in providing property but now may not have the infrastructure to obey the commands of inexperienced government ministers. But let us proceed and create bureaucratic automata out of property entrepreneurs, for as all Government Ministers know paperwork repairs leaking taps.

Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 16/04/2026 – 16:53
There isn’t anything wrong with small independent landlords. Historically, small independent landlords have provided choice for tenants and competition in the rental market. Government policy attacking small landlords just drives rents up, gives tenants less choice, and makes it harder for the government to provide 1.5 million new homes (something it just will not do).

I have never felt that as far as student lets are concerned the issue has been at the end of the tenancy with a group suddenly deciding not to leave. In 30 years its never happened once. But as others have mentioned this article gives us no comfort whatsoever in terms of the abolition of fixed term tenancies and a group giving notice to leave considerably sooner than they previously would have been able to. The inevitable void has to be factored in and I expect student let rents next academic year to jump by around 15% as a result.

All we need in this utopian world is that all tenants be honest and as professional as the landlords that are housing them. We also need the corporate landlords, that are obviously the darlings of government choice, to not act like nearly every other corporation in the sectors of public transport, water utilities, gas and electric utilities and postal services. How many horror stories from the likes of Thames Water do we have to have before ministers who are wined, dined and flattered by lobbyists realise that this is not the right direction. Once these giants have monopolised the PRS, they will be too big to fail and like the banks will end up being subsidised like another arm of social housing (but with dividends being paid out).

Reply to the comment left by howdidigethere at 16/04/2026 – 11:48
Absolutely! The result of all these policies is to drive up rents, more costs for landlords and the end of cheap rents accommodation. The government then worries about inflation and a lack of disposable income to support the consumer led economy. Looks like it is all their fault for increasing the costs and regulations on most businesses, with landlords being particularly singled out for unfair treatment. Since when is letting out property that you manage yourself unearned income!!