6 months ago | 30 comments
Well, that’s that then. No glorious resistance in the House of Lords, as the Renters’ Rights Bill limps back to the Commons and then Royal Assent.
No real defence of the PRS to help politicians understand what they’ve got wrong.
And they’ve got a lot wrong, as time will tell.
The game of ‘ping pong’ between the Houses ran out of steam like an asthmatic marathon runner who can see the finish line but has nothing else to give.
Reading the debates shows that some peers did understand the PRS, but they got shouted down and ignored.
We call this democracy.
Not only was there no outcry, but the landlord forums were mute as well. Everyone appears to be exhausted and unwilling to fight more.
The debates over pet deposits and re-letting restrictions were interesting, but the government wouldn’t be moved.
What began as a bold Labour pledge to shield tenants from rogue evictions and unfair rent rises has morphed into a decree.
For landlords across England, this signals not victory, but a precarious truce.
We are stuck in the rental trenches, with an air of unease about what happens next.
Though there’s still nothing being published about how this Bill really impacts tenants and the inevitable instability that will come.
Smaller landlords will sell and not invest.
That’s tenants losing out twice there.
The government insists that the reforms won’t destabilise the sector but wait and see what happens to a landlord who must wait for a full year before re-renting, or face penalties.
A landlord’s right to choose whether pets are allowed is gone, and there’s no extra cash to cover the inevitable repairs.
Some might say that benefits claimants gaining equal footing in tenant applications is a good thing.
It is if they can find somewhere they can afford.
Don’t get me started on periodic tenancies and the right for a tenant to hand in their notice from day one.
The hassle and cost of recruiting new tenants and the risk of voids will seriously damage supply.
It’s going to be an interesting trap that appears in the coming months as landlords reassess whether they want to remain.
I’ve mentioned before that the Bill effectively removes a landlord’s control of their own property which is just nonsense on stilts.
But I hadn’t quite appreciated that a landlord with long-term tenants and rising costs is facing a dilemma.
For many, the numbers won’t add up, and as the risk of making a loss every year grows, they won’t want to let down their tenants.
And here the portrayal of all landlords being heartless will loom large.
That’s because we might have to hand out bad news to decent people who rent our homes.
They’ll be left to find fewer homes at higher rents, and with letting criteria getting tighter, where will they go?
Clueless councils bringing in selective licensing adds to the chaos, and the costs for upgrading homes for EPC measures will really put the skids under the sector.
Then we have the prospect of the landlord ombudsman which, I’m predicting, won’t be on the side of landlords.
Plus, the landlord database where our private details are available to the world will be an issue.
Especially, since it will highlight ‘problem’ landlords.
Rents will now inevitably rise to counter the growing costs, bringing hardship to many tenants.
Landlords are facing a dilemma that’s not of our making.
The abolition of Section 21 has always sounded noble because the landlord has always been the ‘greedy’ or ‘exploitative’ one.
In reality, the world is about to learn what landlords really face as eviction cases clog the courts.
Unpaid rent, antisocial behaviour and rented homes wrecked will be top of the bill.
At the start of this, I mentioned that the reaction from landlords and property experts was subdued, but that’s not all.
The celebration from tenant activist groups who have pushed for this was surprisingly quiet.
Perhaps the penny is starting to drop as members and supporters start telling these clowns that their landlord is bailing out.
It’s going to be a sad day when Royal Assent is given, and the number of evictions begins to rise.
That means it could be a worrying Christmas for many, and that’s without Rachel Thieves’ Autumn Budget, as they begin the search for a home.
Though with all those illegal immigrants leaving hotels for nice, rented homes, they could be moved into those empty rooms.
At the moment, it’s like a Christmas Day truce in the trenches, but when the guns start again it’s going to change the environment completely.
We tried to warn renters and politicians and anyone who would listen.
But you ignored us, and now tenants need to prepare for very bad news.
Everyone in the PRS has been hit by the Bill because this ridiculous law will have a generational impact.
When the dust settles and small landlords disappear, and with no homes to rent, there’s going to be a very unpleasant political blowback.
Good.
Until next time,
The Landlord Crusader
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
6 months ago | 30 comments
6 months ago | 5 comments
6 months ago | 1 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since January 2022 - Comments: 267
10:56 AM, 21st October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 17/10/2025 – 11:53
I thought it was 1.5 m NEW HOMES!
Not 1.5m just
‘Rebadged’
Silly me
Member Since September 2015 - Comments: 1013
11:02 AM, 21st October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by JeggNegg at 21/10/2025 – 10:56
Goalpost shifting at its best.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
11:38 AM, 21st October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by JeggNegg at 21/10/2025 – 10:56
It never was 1.5 million new homes. It’s all just smoke and mirrors designed to cover up the simple fact that labour can’t make 1.5 million extra homes available without finance from the private rented sector. It’s an inconvenient truth that the socialists in government, unions and left-wing radicals in other ‘alternative’ parties don’t want to acknowledge.
Member Since December 2023 - Comments: 31
5:03 PM, 21st October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Bristol Landlord at 19/10/2025 – 18:42
Before the Housing Act 1989, property letting was a very high risk / low return occupation.
The RRB is returning it back to that dark era.
Dark for tenants also, as it will become difficult to find a landlord willing to let, especially if they are between jobs, on benefits, no guarantor etc.
I’ve stopped letting and am preparing to sell. 25 tenants will need to find alternative housing.
Tories from Osborne onwards as much to blame as Labour for destroying the industry?
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
5:21 PM, 21st October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Cause For Concern at 21/10/2025 – 17:03
I think conservative and labour governments have done damage, but the worst offender was the SNP.
My wife and I were discussing government with a friend this week and agreeing that it is hard to know who to vote for. We now know that we shouldn’t vote for the Green Party as they are even more radical than labour. But competence seems to be in short supply in government at the moment.
Member Since June 2021 - Comments: 3
2:26 PM, 25th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 21/10/2025 – 17:21
That’s the question for so many reasons beyond being a landlord. I know very clearly who I don’t want, but then discarding those, there’s no-one left. 🙁
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2188 - Articles: 2
3:52 PM, 25th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Sue Winstanley at 25/10/2025 – 14:26
I would welcome back the Monster Raving Loony party were it not for the fact that it is currently in power.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
11:47 AM, 27th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 25/10/2025 – 15:52
I know: I have in the past, when I was much younger, voted for Monster Raving Loony in local elections when none of the candidates for the main parties was either talking sense, or coming out and saying what they stood for so that you knew what you were voting for. In some of the ‘safe-seats’ the local candidates can sometimes be too arrogant to tell you what they are trying to do for you and in these situations you look for alternatives…to send a message via the ballot box.
I believe very strongly that if you have the right to vote then you should exercise it. Ideally there would be a party you could vote for in order to be able to send the message “…a plague on all your houses….and keep your hands off mine…”
Unfortunately it’s no longer possible to choose the Greens in a local election: The Greens now clearly want your house and don’t think you should have it even if you spent 4 or 5 decades paying for your house after tax, including all those decades of insurance contributions. The Greens are now a radical, communist party.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2188 - Articles: 2
5:29 PM, 27th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 27/10/2025 – 11:47
I have always advocated for a “No suitable candidate” option on voting slips. If that non-candidate wins, then the election has to be rerun.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1999
2:15 PM, 28th October 2025, About 5 months ago
Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 27/10/2025 – 17:29
A vote for Monster Raving Loony was a vote for “No suitable candidate”. It was a statement via the ballot box that the main party candidates were even more loony than the people in the top hats and frock coats. It meant “…go away and do better next time.”
What the loony-left doesn’t get is:
– Around 65% of households in the UK own their own home.
– According to Google, there was a 2014 survey in Britain that showed 86% wanted to own their own home.
– There was a recent survey (2024) which showed that 71% of UK non-homeowners aspired to home ownership.
– And about 1/3 of people want to own a buy to let in the future
Which means that when the loony-left (including the Green Party) attacks home ownership they are actually attacking the majority. Left-wing parties generally are the death of aspiration. Most people work to support their families, and after they’ve done it, they hope to pass whatever is left that they don’t need on to their offspring. Left-wing parties destroy incentive. And Rachel Reeves’ policies aren’t an attack on the rich either; they are an attack on families.
The Green Party just showed its hand: Anybody aspiring to own any property shouldn’t be voting Green any more, not even as a protest vote in a local election. What they just voted for isn’t sustainable.
Former Green Party candidates who generally believe in sustainability need some other party to join.