The continuing Renters’ Rights Act nightmare – what happens if the first month’s rent isn’t paid?
In a Property118 comment on 27 December, member “Spock” said:
“I have a student property. Traditionally, I have always asked for the rent payment for the first month a few days before the start of the tenancy start date. I never hand out keys until I know that everyone has paid the first month’s rent. If I can’t receive any rent before day 1, then if even one person hasn’t paid, then I can’t hand out any keys, which obviously creates problems. Have I read this correctly ? Am I unable to accept any rent before day 1?”
I’m guessing there may be other landlords wondering this. Here is my answer.
You don’t have to wait for the rent until Day 1, but you must not refuse to hand over the keys after the agreement has been signed. If you do, there is a real risk that you may have to pay fines (called “penalties”) of up to £40,000.
When both landlord and tenant have signed a tenancy agreement for a new Assured Tenancy, the tenancy is said to have been “entered into”. Usually, the agreement will be dated when the last person who is a party to the agreement has signed. If the commencement date of the tenancy is a later date then the time between the two dates is called the “permitted pre-tenancy period”.
You can accept rent in advance during (not before) the permitted pre-tenancy period, just as you have done in the past. This is limited to one month’s rent or 28 days rent if the rent payment period is less than a month. You can also accept payment of the agreed deposit up to the cap.
So far there is not really much if any, change to what you have been doing. But after the tenancy has been entered into you cannot refuse to hand over the keys even if the tenant never pays the first month’s rent, because that amounts to preventing occupation, which is equivalent to unlawful eviction or unlawful exclusion. That is an offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and now carries civil penalties of up to £40,000 under section 58 of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 as an alternative to prosecution.
Make no mistake, refusing to hand over the keys is a serious offence.
If the tenant does not pay the first month’s rent and has moved in, then you can issue a notice under s.8 of the Housing Act 1988 specifying ground 10 and giving 4 weeks’ notice before you start court proceedings. But ground 10 is discretionary. The judge might refuse to grant an order for possession, or give the tenant time to pay, so that you would have to go back to the court again if the tenant never pays any rent.
Alternatively, you can wait until there are three months’ rent arrears and then give a four‑week section 8 notice specifying Ground 8 (serious rent arrears). You could also specify Ground 11 (persistent delay in paying rent). Note that there must be 3 months’ rent outstanding both on the date of the Section 8 notice and on the date of the hearing.
Tenants who understand this and want to game the system can, in practice, go a long time without paying rent.
Suppose the landlord and tenant meet on 1st May 2026 and both sign an agreement for a tenancy to start on 14th May. The landlord cannot ask for any rent until the agreement has been entered into. As soon as it is signed, the landlord asks for the first month’s rent, expecting the tenant to transfer the money there and then because that is what the agreement says they should do. The tenant says they will pay it on the day they move in. On 14th May, they meet at the property, and the landlord asks for the rent. The tenant says it will be paid the next day. The landlord cannot refuse to hand over the keys. They must give the keys to the tenant and let them move in.
The rent never arrives. The landlord gives 4 weeks’ notice specifying ground 10 expiring (say) 12th June and issues proceedings the next day. The court lists a hearing date of 10 August. The tenant has never paid any rent, but the court has discretion, and after hearing the tenant’s sad tale of woe, the judge grants 3 weeks to pay.
The tenant never pays. On 1 September, there are 3 months’ arrears outstanding, so rather than pursue the original claim, the landlord serves a new notice specifying ground 8 and on 30 September issues proceedings for a second time.
The hearing is on 25 November, and this time the court does grant an order for possession. The landlord pays to transfer the claim to the High Court for a writ of possession, and the bailiffs arrive at the property on 27 January 2027. The tenant has gone and has left the property in perhaps not quite as good a state as it was on 1 May 2026. The landlord has had no rent since the last tenant left, many months ago; meanwhile, they have been paying the mortgage, the insurance, and all the costs of the proceedings.
The tenant has lived rent-free for about 8 months.
All this was explained to the government during the committee stage of the Bill, but they ignored it.
Michael
Comments
Have Your Say
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
Member Since May 2017 - Comments: 765
3:37 PM, 15th January 2026, About 3 months ago
It was suggested to me that you could, say, offer a tenant a £25 rent rise unofficially or £30 officially. Therefore if the tenant goes to tribuanal contesting a £30 rise, they risk having the larger amount agreed at tribunal.
I dont think the tenant has anything to loose by going to tribunal to get the increase delayed and a soft judge who sets the increase low
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
3:49 PM, 15th January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/01/2026 – 15:05
Well said Ian 👍
Member Since December 2025 - Comments: 49
5:31 PM, 15th January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 15/01/2026 – 15:05
Ian
The most important bits (abolishing s21 and fixed term tenancied, decent homes standard) were the same tho. Agree these not helpful tho ..
Higher rent arrears – RGI costs will cover (and extra insurance costs will inevitably be passed on to tenants just like any other cost increases) tho not extra stress/mental health costs to LLs.
Actually rent can be accepted in the pre tenancy period for month1 (along with deposit)
If you get rid of fixed terms and allow tenants to give (max) 2 months notice then rent in advance logically makes no sense. What happens if tenant pays 12m in advance then decides on day1 to give 2m notice? Is LL then supposed to have kept aside and re imburse- if so no point for the LL as funds tied up, if not tenant still effectively tied down or faces a big loss
If you are going to have grounds based on sale you logically have to prohibit reletting for a decent period. With sales taking 12-14 weeks from offer accepted 6 months would have been fairer.
Max rent in ads – LLs will just give a higher advertised and accept bids below, no reason why market will not mean they accept same price unless you h ad been v lucky and gets excessive price bidding or if youd advertised way too low to start with (who does that with property its not ebay where bidding is defacto)
Not backdating rent increases this will encourage everyone to settle before goes to tribunal which is an expensive way to deal. But tenants already have incentive to go to tribunal as they pay original rent meanwhile. However only a tiny fraction do (The number of “fair or market rent cases” brought before the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in England during the calendar year 2023 was 921. ). Most tenants and LLs don’t want stress or expense of lawyers and courts.
So I maintain the big ticket parts of the legislation were the same, Labour haven’t taken opportunity to take steps to fix the market (well people don’t believe the promises to build more will work etc) but many of the problems go back years if not decades
Member Since March 2018 - Comments: 182
10:31 PM, 15th January 2026, About 3 months ago
Instead of fixing and removing the problems of both tenants and landlords, the RRA creates more problems for both, especially landlords.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
8:44 AM, 16th January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Peter G at 15/01/2026 – 22:31
…and more cost for tenants.
Creating a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2203 - Articles: 2
1:54 PM, 16th January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 16/01/2026 – 08:44
I consider that there never was a problem with the 1988 act and most subsequent legislation was enacted to solve a non-existent problem.
Good tenants have nothing to fear from S21, so why abolish it?
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3538 - Articles: 5
3:35 PM, 16th January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 16/01/2026 – 13:54
because as we all know none of this is actually about tenants or Landlords, its about the government of the day being SEEN to take action to appease and please the larger vote base….
Let’s see what happens when those the government are supposed to be ‘helping’ get shafted by the governments own self interference… plus the lack of progress with building more social rent accommodation and the freeze on LHA rates…
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1174
7:35 AM, 20th January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by DavidM at 15/01/2026 – 17:31
I agree with most of your post, but I’m not clear why you think the fact that the FTT not backdating rent increases encourages everyone to settle. The legislation surely incentivises tenants to challenge the increase as theyre guaranteed a longer period without it. Also the more tenants that do it, the longer the waiting times for a ruling will get. And the expense appears to be borne by the tax-payer, not the tenant, or for that matter the landlord.
Tenants tend not to challenge increases at the moment because unless its way above market rent, the tribunal tends not to quash them. Also the tenant risks an upward revision not just a downward and if the increase is upheld, they face a mountain of arrears and a ruined reputation.
Member Since June 2023 - Comments: 3
11:48 PM, 23rd January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Koye Beckley at 29/12/2025 – 12:31
The new bill was in my honest opinion and experience, poorly thought out, typically pious wittering which looks good on paper; failing badly in reality. I’ve had nothing but heartache, from unscrupulous managing agents also entitled tenants since 2004. I grew up in a Rackman era rented property, fast forward multiple decades and rented a family home, which after the last entitled B, popping babies like shelling peas. Deciding not to sign another SHT, sitting tight not paying rent preferring a 3 bedroom council house 🙃 all found with the change in 2 child benefit cap ? Where is the Government going to house all these entitled tenants who feel this is what they are owed ?
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 2002 - Articles: 21
11:58 AM, 26th January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by DavidM at 17:31
Only just seen your post. You write: “Actually rent can be accepted in the pre tenancy period for month1 (along with deposit).”
You need to be very careful with language. Rent must not be accepted before the tenancy is entered into. Rent can be accepted between the date of signing and the date of the tenant moving in. That’s quite a different thing. If the tenancy is signed on the 10th of the month to begin on the 17th but the tenant fails to pay the first instalment of rent by the17th, the tenancy still exists -it came into existence on the 10th – and the tenant is entitled to take possession of the property and the landlord must release the keys.