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 2015 - Comments: 2188 - Articles: 2
9:46 AM, 30th December 2025, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 29/12/2025 – 20:43
How long before asking for any sort of rent guarantee will be considered to be discriminatory?
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
10:08 AM, 30th December 2025, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 30/12/2025 – 09:46
About six months.
Member Since December 2015 - Comments: 292
10:36 AM, 30th December 2025, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 30/12/2025 – 09:46
Having wealth, high earnings and ambition will be discriminatory.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2188 - Articles: 2
10:40 AM, 30th December 2025, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by dismayed landlord at 30/12/2025 – 10:36
I venture to suggest that anything and everything will be considered discriminatory when there is a fine to be levied by the local authority for the benefit of the local authority!
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1137
5:09 PM, 30th December 2025, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Michael Crofts at 29/12/2025 – 15:10
I think the RRA used loose language around when a tenancy is “entered into” and that’s why it was subsequently clarified that rent could be legitimately paid in the period between the agreement being signed and the tenancy beginning, thus drawing a distinction between the two. I believe, therefore that its still the case that a prospective tenant would only be able to sue for breach of contract if prevented from taking possession. However, its not yet clear to me what action a local authority could or would take in this instance.
Member Since December 2025 - Comments: 4
8:01 PM, 30th December 2025, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by DPT at 30/12/2025 – 17:09
I agree the intention seems to have been to preserve the distinction between signing and commencement, and in theory that clarification helps.
The difficulty is that enforcement risk doesn’t sit with breach of contract alone. Once a tenancy is “entered into”, refusing to hand over keys can be viewed as preventing occupation — and that’s where local authority action becomes a real unknown. Councils won’t necessarily make fine legal distinctions after the event.
Until there’s clear guidance or case law, the uncertainty itself changes the risk for landlords. Even if the tenant’s civil remedy is limited, the exposure to enforcement action is what makes this tricky in practice.
In my own view, I think what landlord should do that seems to be the safest approach right now are:
• Get the agreement signed as close to the start date as possible
• Take rent and deposit immediately after signing during the permitted period
• Don’t rely on “keys for rent” on day one
• Be ready to issue a Section 8 promptly if rent isn’t paid
It’s not ideal, but it reduces the risk of being accused of unlawful exclusion while we wait for clarity.
Member Since March 2022 - Comments: 137
8:09 PM, 30th December 2025, About 3 months ago
You need to take a view from a risk perspective rather than nitty gritty of collection of cash and meeting, pain in the arse etc… The RRA has tipped the risk profile. So simple mitigations for all PRS landlords…
1) Take out RGI that covers rent until eviction (Goodloard or ABG) Appox £195-£250 per year.
2) Reference the tenants properly and DO NOT accept anyone that falls below the RGI requirements.
3) Ensure rent is at market rate.
4) Ensure you increase rent to market rate every year and when you have a new void period.
5) Any tenants that don’t pay/cause damage ensure you get a CCJ to give the next LL a heads up.
This is all bad for tenants as RGI will protect LL’s and the result is a higher standard of tenant and higher rents.
Member Since December 2025 - Comments: 31
8:32 AM, 31st December 2025, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Koye Beckley at 30/12/2025 – 20:01
Koye – I agree with you, the uncertainty increases the risk, and this is partly because there is every incentive for enforcement officers to serve Notices of Intent’ and Final Notices imposing penalties. It costs them nothing to do so, and there is no real career risk if the occasional penalty is overturned on appeal. Because local Housing Authorities have a duty to enforce and earn revenue from penalties to finance ongoing enforcement both the individual officers and their employers will not care if the occasional enforcement action fails. But from the landlord’s point of view the receipt of a Notice is going to trigger legal costs and a huge amount of worry, particularly if they have withheld the keys and then let the property to someone else which means they cannot remedy the situation by giving the keys to the original tenant.
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1137
1:09 PM, 1st January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Koye Beckley at 30/12/2025 – 20:01
Yes, I agree, as I said earlier that the key issue is the interpretation of the new legislation around penalties for withholding the keys. I suspect this will be one of the first areas tested by the courts and I hope there are some sympathetic solicitors already preparing arguments.
Member Since December 2025 - Comments: 4
2:16 PM, 1st January 2026, About 3 months ago
Reply to the comment left by DPT at 01/01/2026 – 13:09
Yes, I agree to that too. It will be one of the first areas tested by the courts.