Labour attacks Tories over claims Renters’ Rights Act “has to go”

If anyone wants the PRS to remain a flexible housing option for millions of tenants the RRA at least needs to be tweaked.

Not allowing lump sum upfront rent is causing major problems for international applicants, self employed or gig economy workers or anyone on a probationary or fixed term work contract. At the very least there should be some kind of escrow system where a reputable third party holds the lump sum and pays the landlord monthly.

Abolishing Section 21 has caused major problems for more marginal applicants. When Section 21 existed some of us would give people with less than perfect referencing a chance. Now the risk is too great. It’s also not helped anyone being evicted because the landlord wants to sell. They still get evicted and have to pay all of their own moving costs. I always favoured keeping Section 21 with 2 months rent payable as compensation in the rare event a long term (over 2 years) tenant who has fully adhered to their tenancy agreement needs to be evicted. So far in my 30 years as a landlord none of my tenants would have been compensated because I have never needed to evict any if them. However, one day I may wish to retire. As far as I can see such a scheme would be much fairer to impeccable tenants, encourage more flaky tenants to become impeccable and allow us to take a chance on the more marginal ones.

The student ground 4a isn’t fit for purpose. Very few students sign tenancy agreements in March or later, so we couldn’t use ground 4a anyway. Even for the few that could use it, having to serve it 4 months in advance simply reminds students they only need to give 2 months notice, so will probably create longer voids than would otherwise occur. If students leave too early either student rents will massively rise or those houses will leave the student market. Either way it’s bad for both students and landlords. The academic year is a fixed concept. Student tenancies also need to be a fixed term.

Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 06/10/2026 – 10:10
Yes, some pensioners and some overseas students need to be able to pay upfront to get around credit-referencing problems.

But being unable to take more than the advertised rent is also a problem. If you advertise then a tenant comes forward with specific needs….e.g. has a pet or multiple pets…the ban in the RRA means you are unable to tweak the rent to accommodate these tenants by increasing the rent to cover additional insurance and additional maintenance costs. The unnecessary parts of the Act stopping landlords from discriminating against tenants on benefits and tenants with children are also damaging: The Act makes both of these groups higher risk than before and actually makes it less likely that a landlord would be able to accommodate them.

If the Conservatives want to do something to make the situation in the PRS better they could eliminate the ban on taking more than the advertised rent and taking rent upfront and change the legislation such that it is clear the landlord is not liable for checking whether tenants are on benefits or not, so that the housing benefits people cannot retrospectively go back and claw back housing benefit from the landlord. That way many more landlords would not care whether working age benefits tenants were on benefits and it would be less risky to accommodate them. Landlords have no powers to check eligibility anyway.

Labour’s Renters Rights act just stops landlords from being able to respond to market demands. It actually damages the interests of tenants in the private rental sector.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 06/10/2026 – 14:43
If the tenants get the benefit and pay the landlord as the tenancy agreement is directly between the landlord and the tenant, then the council cannot got to the LL and demand repayment as the council is not paying the LL directly. This is my understanding. The council can stop payment to the tenants or ask them to return the money. After this the tenants may stop their rent payments.

Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 06/10/2026 – 10:10
RRA and the reasons sited has changed my view of renting to the students now, especially to foreign students who do not provide UK guarantors. The agents have many of the foreign students without guarantors wanting accommodation, giving a reason that the students father is a member of Parliament. But I say that is overseas and I am unfamiliar with their system etc.

Reply to the comment left by Tiger at 06/10/2026 – 20:24
This also used to be my understanding and accordingly I USED to take benefits tenants (20 years ago). But then I found out that the benefits people will still come after the landlord for the money even if the tenant has paid the landlord directly. That was why I stopped taking working-age benefits tenants.

Well, the Tories had to say it because Reform did. And Labour had to “slam” it because the Tories said it. It’s a playground spat, with an obvious progression. Everything that was said will mean little in a few weeks.

Reply to the comment left by Landlord Phil at 12/10/2026 – 17:54
I don’t know about that….I do know that Michael Gove didn’t talk a lot of sense but I also know that labour made things even worse with their Renters Rights Act.

Neither conservative nor labour needed to get rid of no-fault evictions for example: They could have just extended the notice period for a no-fault eviction to 6 or 12 months leaving eviction for non-payment, antisocial behaviour or failing to look after a property with a short notice period. And with respect to benefits tenants they could have changed the law so that the landlord is definitely not responsible for assessing whether tenants are eligible for or not eligible for benefits; because if they did that then a lot of landlords (including me) wouldn’t care as much whether tenants were on benefits or not. Labour didn’t do this because they are even less competent than Michael Gove, and even more dishonest about their real intentions than any conservative or reform politician they might have been criticising for the past few years.

But all they care about is harvesting landlords and appearing to attack the usual scapegoats for their failings.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 18:20

The intricacies aren’t really what I’m alluding to. I’m generalising about the poor state of British politics & our terrible politicians. The subject matter is unimportant, how they all get on their high horses, before a quiet climb down is what gets my goat. I’m no longer affiliated to any party. They’re all as bad as each other, they just come in different colours.
They all just shout & get outraged because that’s their role. They don’t have to really believe what they say. It’s like wrestling, but with more wooden actors.
Todays news is tomorrow’s chip wrapping. Well it would be, but that’s banned too now.

RRA does not allow rent in advance. This has caused refusal of foreign students, most of them not having a UK guarantor. If they do, they are fairly weak guarantors.
The labour has not gone through this area very well. As usual they have passed an ACT without prior studies.
Matthew PennyPincher :
We now have Liebour who has put the interests of unscrupulous tenants over those of decent housing provider landlords. (Bear in mind they provide a safe home with various costs absorbed for on-going maintenance apart from all regular certificates.

Reply to the comment left by Tiger at 13/10/2026 – 22:10

Actually there is a scenario where advance rent is legally allowed. That is when a tenant chooses to inflate their 2nd or subsequent payment to a figure of their choosing, to cover future rent. You cannot ask for it, but if a choice is made by the tenant, and it’s appropriately documented, there’s no restrictions on advance payments. And before the detractors say otherwise, read the RRA. It’s perfectly legal & acceptable in the correct context. The important part is that it has to be the tenants choice to do so.