6 days ago | 19 comments
A professor has warned the Renters’ Rights Act has caused changes in the private rented sector which are proving “ineffective or have perverse outcomes”.
Writing in the Telegraph, Tim Leunig, professor of economic history at the London School of Economics, has warned the act has backfired on tenants.
The news comes as a report in the Daily Mail reveals the Act has caused unintended consequences, with tenants struggling to find affordable places to live as landlords sell up.
Mr Leunig points out the government’s ban on offering more than the asking price for rental properties has been “ineffective”.
Mr Leunig writes in The Telegraph: “Landlords used to advertise flats at a low rent, find a lot of would-be renters, and then force them to bid for it. That was stressful, and people felt pressured into bidding high. That is now banned, and you can see why.
“Unfortunately, as a recent investigation by London Centric has shown, landlords are instead advertising flats at exceptionally high prices. Estate agents then encourage renters to view such flats with the assurance that the landlord will take a lower bid, and then all potential tenants are forced to bid, with a cap at the essentially false advertised price.
“That, it turns out, is legal. The effect, of course, is the same as the previous system: would-be tenants have to bid, with all the stress and uncertainty that entails”.
Under the act, landlords and agents can no longer require several months’ rent upfront.
Once a tenancy agreement has been signed, they may require no more than the initial month’s rent before occupation, although a tenant can voluntarily choose to pay rent early once the tenancy has begun.
Mr Leunig points out that international students and the self-employed have been hardest hit by the changes.
He told The Telegraph: “The self-employed often pay themselves via dividends. This means that they fail credit checks. To overcome that, and to reassure landlords, they often offered to pay a year’s rent in advance. That is no longer legal, and so this group now finds it harder to rent a home.
“The second group is international students, who obviously fail credit checks. Many have parents who have saved in advance, and could and traditionally did, pay for a whole year’s rent in advance. Once more, that is no longer possible, and landlords are shunning such tenants.
“Harming these groups is bad not only for the individuals concerned, but for the country as a whole. Some of those self-employed people will go on to create decent businesses, employing others and creating good jobs”.
The news comes as industry body Propertymark has urged the government to invest in the private rented sector.
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
Previous Article
Landlord rent arrears fall to record lowNext Article
Should you still consider a ‘rent to buy’?
6 days ago | 19 comments
1 week ago | 29 comments
1 week ago | 7 comments
Member Since January 2024 - Comments: 414
11:54 AM, 9th September 2026, About 22 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Tim Peters at 09/09/2026 – 10:04
Sadly, a professor cannot get the basics right.
Self-employed cannot take dividends, only shareholders in (generally) small companies can do so, instead of or in addition to a salary. The self-employed only receive profits.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2496
12:04 PM, 9th September 2026, About 22 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Ryan Stevens at 09/09/2026 – 11:54
Certainly he needs to check his facts: He is wrong about dividends but he is right that the self-employed (and partners in partnerships) are disadvantaged. He is also right that the Act is perverse. Labour’s Renters Rights Act creates an offence to discriminate against tenants on benefits and tenants with children, but [perversely] it makes these tenants even higher risk than they were before the Act.
Member Since August 2022 - Comments: 117
12:42 PM, 9th September 2026, About 22 hours ago
Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 09/09/2026 – 11:17
Absolutely Kate, I agree.
A 6-month fixed term gives certainty all round, to landlord and tenant. My tenants actually felt that fixed term tenancies gave them security.
A 2-month notice period is inconvenient for everyone – tenant, old landlord, new landlord, new employer if relocating.
Also, a tenant can now say they will stay for six months, but they no longer need to.
So, a 2-month turnaround time on a tenancy reduces landlords to AirBnB owners without any of the benefits.
As everyone on this forum already said – this Labour government never asked the people that mattered (tenants and landlords) what worked for them.
Member Since November 2020 - Comments: 142
7:33 AM, 10th September 2026, About 3 hours ago
Since when do self-employed people pay themselves dividends, as the learned professor has stated? Dividends are paid by companies to shareholders. Maybe a one-man company might pay him/herself dividends instead of or as well as a salary but that person is an employee of the company, not self-employed. Is this chap really a professor of economic history?