Landlords silenced as the Renters’ Rights Bill runs out of steam

All the while, Gov’t is rolling out the Red Carpet for Build to Rent giants. It would be interesting to see how they manage the Optics of the very different treatment they give to the PRS vs the other guys

Reply to the comment left by Fatai Haruna at 17/10/2025 – 13:24
The government might be rolling out the red carpet for build to rent giants via what it is doing for the build-to-rent sector. But I just asked a chat bot how many builders went bust in 2025 and it said:

“In the 12 months to May 2025, 4,056 construction firms in the UK went out of business, according to The Gazette. While this represents the highest number of insolvencies for any UK sector during that period, a different report from BCIS shows 3,973 insolvencies in the 12 months ending July 2025, which was a decrease of 9.5% compared to the same period in 2024.

May 2025: 4,056 construction companies in England and Wales became insolvent in the 12 months ending in May 2025, reports Construction Wave and The Gazette.

July 2025: 3,973 construction firms became insolvent in the 12 months ending in July 2025, according to BCIS. This figure is lower than the 4,389 insolvencies recorded in the 12 months ending July 2024.

Comparison: The figures from different sources for similar periods vary, but they both indicate a significant number of insolvencies in the sector during 2025.”

Builders can only build if buyers can afford to buy: Favouring build-to-rent giants over the little people appears to me to be hypocritical.

In doing what the government is doing it is penalising the smaller players in the PRS and favouring the larger players. The government is distorting the market, driving the small players out, and favouring the big players. This will drive rents up.

But builders are still going to struggle to maintain a workforce to build enough properties and are going to keep going bust because the government has increased the minimum wage, increased employers national insurance and decreased the level at which it kicks in. And it’s also proposing to give employees employment rights from day one which means that it is more risky to hire people in just the same way that the RRB is going to make it more risky to house many tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 17/10/2025 – 15:24
Hang on I thought the government was blaming a shortage of builders last week – that was one of the justifications for allowing more immigration. Surely they wouldn’t make up stories to justify the policy.

I promise to stop being cynical when I am proved wrong!

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 17/10/2025 – 15:42
Of course government is blaming a shortage of builders…and the fact that there is a shortage of builders shouldn’t surprise anybody.

Buyers other than the favoured big build-to-rent companies can’t afford to buy the houses that those builders who are still solvent can afford to build and builders can’t afford to build houses for people to buy quickly or cheaply because labour just attacked employers and employment in its budget.

There’s nothing about this government that is ‘joined up’. Even their lies aren’t joined up. This government giveth via their support to the build-to-rent sector, but taketh away via their budget and Renters Rights Bill. The Home Office was already taking away before they started…but they should have known that. This government is still pursuing an ideology rather than any kind of coherent economic vision based on any understanding of history, markets, finance or business.

This government is already trying to avoid the inconvenient truths of the effect of its policies.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/15/imf-warns-reeves-watering-down-obr-powers/

PS: It’s always somebody else’s fault…they are never going to run out of people to blame…but in the end, even people that voted for them are going to stop believing their lies.

FYI:

The Build-to-Rent Trojan Horse
The build-to-rent schemes being advanced by the likes of Aviva, L&G, Lloyd’s and Blackstone are not simply investment vehicles — they are the council estates of the future, designed as part of a planned socialist dream.
These largely offshore funds typically operate on ten-year horizons. Through the high-rise “rabbit-hutch” developments they are constructing at premium rents, they will extract their profits and, when their cycles conclude, transfer the estates to local councils. In doing so, they will have created the new generation of state-controlled housing without a single brick being laid directly by government.
Designed Dependency
The units themselves are intentionally limited in size, preventing them from becoming truly self-contained homes. They rely instead on communal catering and shared facilities — a setup that ensures residents remain dependent on managed services rather than enjoying genuine independence.
With few alternative housing options, many tenants will spend their working lives paying high rents, only to retire with nothing to show for it — lifelong clients of the state rather than property owners.
Digital Control Systems
This planned dependency extends beyond housing. The proposed national digital ID system will enable the state to monitor and ultimately control individual spending, travel, and even carbon consumption, under the guise of social and environmental responsibility. It represents the technological infrastructure of a managed society — not a free one.
The End of Private Ownership
The next stage is already being signalled: pricing owner-occupiers out of their homes through targeted taxation, inflation, and rising borrowing costs. Once households are under pressure, the government will step in as “saviour”, offering to assume mortgage payments and property liabilities in exchange for ownership and lifetime accommodation rights.
It will appear benevolent — but it will mean the end of true home ownership.
Checkmate for the PRS
Alongside the dismantling of the Private Rented Sector (PRS) through taxation, regulation and impending rent control, the strategy forms a complete playbook for the transfer of private property into state-controlled tenure.
This is not accidental policy drift. It is deliberate — the modern expression of the socialist dream, executed through financial engineering rather than bulldozers.
And it echoes George Orwell’s chilling prophecy from 1984:
“We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.”
— George Orwell, written in 1948; published 8 June 1949.
The question for landlords, homeowners, and investors is simple: how far down this road will we walk before realising we are surrendering — not by force, but by consent?

Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 17/10/2025 – 16:39
This blog claiming to be linked to Phil Spencer had something to say about build-to-rent:

https://www.moveiq.co.uk/blog/renting/affordable-housing/

Amongst other things it says:

“The homes are specifically for renters, and many buildings include additional services, such as on-site gyms, co-working areas and concierge services.

For this reason, many build-to-rent homes come at a premium and can cost more than traditional rental homes in the same area. When it comes to affordability, however, location also matters. Build-to-rent homes in sought-after postcodes achieve higher rental prices than similar properties in less desirable neighbourhoods.”

But it also says:

“However, build-to-rent is set to account for 8% of privately rented properties in the UK by 2032. ”

So if that’s right, 92% of the market will not be build-to-rent, and some of the build-to-rent properties will be marketed at a premium rent.

In the meantime the effect of implementing the Renters Rights Bill is going to make some tenants too risky to house and push rents up.

There is a lot of hype here. The government will never mandate that tenants can purchase the rented property at discount – that just won’t happen. Rent controls in some form might happen. You can simply get round UC claiments from being tenants by applying for landlord insurance and they will be rejected – so whatever happens rents will go up to cover landlord insurance once the bill is introduced.
For my part, 13 sold , 5 left to go .. no mortgae so no worries. When the tenant leaves I will sell (however the 5 properties left all have long tem tenants – one 20+ years !)

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 17/10/2025 – 16:57
Read my other posts in this article. The Labour Government is counting on retaliatory rent increases to give it the political cover to nationalise the PRS by stealth.

And if the Greens gain influence, it could be even worse — they’ve openly declared that the private rented sector should be abolished altogether. That stance will only embolden those further to the left of Labour — including Corbyn’s faction — and accelerate the push toward full state control of housing.

Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 17/10/2025 – 17:29
The 1977 Rent Act granted private tenants the Right of First Refusal to purchase their rented homes. Legislation already exists giving public sector tenants the Right to Buy — it would only need to be extended to the PRS.

It has happened before: the 1977 provisions were never repealed, only superseded. The Housing Act 1988 simply ensured that the earlier rules did not apply to new tenancies — but that safeguard can easily be reversed. In large part, it already has been.

Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 17/10/2025 – 17:36
I hear what you say but it won’t happen. Personally, I have already sold 2 properties to my previous tenants and I did give them a discount (no estate agents fees to account for)