Landlords hit by surge in short-stay renters

Apparently there is a shortage of properties to rent and tenants were expected to stay longer and hold onto properties, and not do the property-hopping.
I would be grateful for explanation as well as an advice how to prepare for such a scenario. Thank you.

A recently widowed lady i know wanted to move to cheaper and smaller rental, she found one and gave her landlord notice. She had signed a 12 month agreement which still had some months to go. The landlord and agent accepted her notice but told her she was liable for the rent to end of the 12 month contract.
I looked this up, and yes she was liable for rent either to end of contract or until a new tenant had been found, and I think she was also liable to pay some if not all of landlords costs in finding new tenant.
Personally I wouldn’t have enforced this given the genuine circumstances especially as she and her husband had been good tenants for about 3 years.
Luckily the property was let quickly and she only had to pay one month.
Wouldn’t that apply to these “stop over tenants”? Well until the new RR Bill applies.

Reply to the comment left by Jill Church at <a href="15/09/2025″ rel=”ugc”>https://www.property118.com/landlords-hit-by-surge-in-short-stay-renters/#comment-196839“>15/09/2025 – 10:411) Are the courts in a position to enforce payment for the unused period ? The backlogs suggest not, and maybe this is why tenants feel free to wander elsewhere breaking their contract.
2) How do you know a tenant has permanently left the property? Is it just lack of rent payments? Does the LL have to give an ultimatum longer than 2 months before re-letting the property?
3) how does the law see action by the LL in these circumstances – justified, or breach of contract by the LL?

I understand that tenant will need to give 2 months notice under RRB rules, given we’re hearing there is high demand for rental properties it should be possible to re-let fairly quickly, so hopefully minimum void period.
But would be annoying if it happened frequently and if any damage to property during short let.
For example: short stay tenant takes the kitchen with him!
Hard to know what could be done to prevent “short stayers”.

If we experienced a ‘surge’ in stop over tenants we would drop the break clause from our ASTs. If this resulted in properties re-letting more slowly then we would have mis-read the market demand, but I don’t think so.

Reply to the comment left by Jill Church at 15/09/2025 – 11:53
The tenant’s history will become ever more important. An evidenced history of staying for a reasonable length of time and whilst it may seem unfair on those yet to establish a history, I would treat everyone else as a potential time waster who may want to up sticks after the new two month notice on day one becomes possible under RRB.

Well done legislators, you’ve done for the PRS what has been a conundrum for many when they want to borrow money (how do you build a credit history if no one lends because you haven’t got one) and applying for jobs that always require previous experience of that role. The difference being that individual landlords are expected to take ever more risk on their housing asset, often worth many hundreds of thousands and a significant portion of their worldly wealth for a tiny, tiny, fraction of that amount paid up front. Compared to a big corporate structure that can easily dismiss an employee who is not up to the job in a trial period or a big bank who is effectively lending buttons from a balance sheet of billions to large numbers of customers and can just build in a default percentage into their lending model.

The simple answer for me is no new tenants in my one remaining property, the other thirteen having already been sold.

Reply to the comment left by Peter G at 15/09/2025 – 11:43
Fair points.
There should be a dedicated “housing court” to deal with these matters, especially as it would appear all evictions will need to go before a court once the S21 goes.
Doubt that will happen!

Reply to the comment left by Keith Wellburn at 15/09/2025 – 12:21
I should have added, for some there may be an opportunity to offer short term rentals – but that depends on local markets. And of course that use has its own implications with focus on clamping down on short term letting because there are many MPs who consider it detrimental to longer term tenants in their constituencys.

Reply to the comment left by Jill Church at 15/09/2025 – 10:41
No
Because all ASTs willbe periodic from day 1.

Little Johnny: hey Doug, are you saying nasty things about me? I can’t find anywhere to live any more.
Me : Indeed little Johnny. You told me you loved that flat of mine, stayed in it for a couple of months, and then did a runner. You’re a lying little toe-rag, I hope you enjoy your cardboard box under the bridge. Actions and consequences, little Johnny.