9 months ago | 16 comments
Millions of private tenants will be left vulnerable to eviction despite the Renters’ Rights Bill’s claim to improve tenant protections, a survey reveals.
According to the Renters’ Reform Coalition (RRC), the legislation will abolish section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions but will not prevent landlords from imposing steep rent rises.
Those rent rises could effectively force tenants out of their homes with rises they can’t afford.
It says that four million renters – around 34% of tenants – could be forced to relocate if faced with a £110 rent increase.
The RRC is now calling for rent controls in a bid to close the economic eviction loophole.
Coalition director, Tom Darling, said: “The Renters’ Rights Bill is long overdue.
“It will give renters more rights and protections and should help drive up housing standards.
“But the rent rise eviction loophole is a serious gap in the legislation.”
He added: “Even after section 21 is abolished, our research suggests as many as a third of renters will still face being pushed out of their homes and communities by rent increases, and landlords will be able to use rent hikes they know tenants cannot afford to threaten or intimidate.”
The coalition says a £110 rent rise would be equivalent to a 7.9% increase, which is close to England’s average annual rent rise.
It adds that the impact is particularly severe for families, with 29% of renters with children stating they would ‘definitely’ have to move.
Also, 24% of tenants indicated they would need to reduce spending on essentials, such as food, to cope with such increases.
The Bill would see tenants being able to contest excessive rent rises through tribunals.
However, RRC‘s analysis of tribunal cases in early 2025 reveals an average rent increase of £244.63 per month – that’s a 22.2% rise for tenants who challenged their landlords.
The research shows that tribunals approved rent rises in more than 90% of cases, even in properties with severe disrepair or hazardous conditions.
Plus, 54% of renters are unaware of rent tribunals, and only 14% are ‘very likely’ to use them.
Mr Darling said: “The government’s proposed solution will not address this – our analysis shows rent tribunals will do nothing to protect the large proportion of renters who already cannot afford average market rents, even if they were willing to take their landlord to a tribunal in the first place.
“But a cap on rent increases would be simple to implement, putting money back into renters’ pockets and giving them real long-term security in their homes.”
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
Platform pushes for PRS reform to save landlords billions in fees
9 months ago | 16 comments
10 months ago | 25 comments
10 months ago | 22 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since January 2023 - Comments: 26
10:15 PM, 1st July 2025, About 9 months ago
Reply to the comment left by PAUL BARTLETT at 01/07/2025 – 10:54
The Monetary Policy Committe does NOT meet “every three weeks” by the way. Indeed, some months are skipped entirely.
Mortgage rates are influenced by the SONIA Swap Rates market.
Regardless, it appears to me that landlords with a new property will start charging the maximum right from the off.
Member Since February 2023 - Comments: 3
9:15 AM, 2nd July 2025, About 9 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Northern Observer at 01/07/2025 – 10:31
So, not much then! 🙄
Member Since April 2020 - Comments: 95
11:20 AM, 2nd July 2025, About 9 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Disillusioned Landlord at 01/07/2025 – 20:23
There needs to be a Rule that prevents this or protects landlords. These tenants pick it up from CAB and the like and then are advised to speak with one of their lawyers who give out free advice about what they can do and their rights etc with no in depth knowledge of the actual facts involved. The Landlord becomes vulnerable and has to take care not to do anything which could lead to an accusation of unlawful eviction which is an arrestable offence ! The tenant, meanwhile, will probably just walk away in the end months later following the court possession procedure and the landlord can get rid of their things probably having to pay a removal firm not to mention the lost rent, court fees etc. The law needs to take account of this type of eviction as it is not an eviction as such if the tenant goes but does not remove their things and stops paying the rent. It should be a timed situation ie so long to remove before the landlord can re-enter. It’s unfair to landlords to be expected to store a tenants belongings with no hope of recovering costs and make them wait months for a court order in these situations. The law needs to take account and tenants need to be advised from the start that this behaviour is not worth attaching expectation of financial reward as will most likely be the conclusion rubber stamped by the court.
Member Since May 2024 - Comments: 46
12:23 PM, 2nd July 2025, About 9 months ago
Reply to the comment left by David Marsden at 02/07/2025 – 09:15
Exactly