The Renters’ Rights Act: the change that divides landlords
These figures come from our Q3 2026 Landlord Sentiment Survey, which ran from 1 to 8 October 2026. 1,654 landlords took part and 1,472 completed every page. For the full results, including how sentiment has moved since Q1 and Q2, see the .
Every quarter we ask landlords to rank four things that might encourage them to buy more rental property: reversal of Section 24, interest rates falling, lower Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) and repeal of the Renters’ Rights Act. The main article reported that 29.9% rank repeal first (base 1,468). Here we look at who those landlords are, and at the two practical concerns most closely tied to the Act: removing tenants who do not pay or who cause damage, and council licensing.
Leavers want it gone; investors rank it last
How landlords rank repeal depends heavily on their own plans. Among those who expect to exit the sector completely over the next three years, 39.9% rank repeal as the most important incentive to buy, and only 24.9% rank it last (base 361). Among landlords who plan to sell some properties, the figures are 29.7% and 36.4% (base 596); among those planning to stay the same, 25.5% and 41.5% (base 400).
Landlords who are still buying see it very differently. Only 14.0% rank repeal first and 49.5% rank it last (base 107). For this group, repeal is the lowest-scoring of the four incentives; falling interest rates and lower SDLT matter more to them.
This is not a one-off. In Q2, when we asked exactly the same questions, 39.6% of would-be leavers (base 568) and 15.1% of would-be buyers (base 199) ranked repeal first.
Key Insight: The landlords who most want the Renters’ Rights Act reversed are, for the most part, the ones already heading for the door. Those who are still investing have largely factored the Act in and are focused on the cost of borrowing and buying. The gap between leavers and those staying put held across every portfolio size, among landlords who own only in England, and when age and ownership structure were taken into account.
The most divisive incentive on the list
Repeal is ranked first by 29.9% of landlords, level with reversal of Section 24 (29.6%). But it is also ranked last by 36.0%, more than any other factor (lower SDLT is next at 27.6%). Section 24 reversal, by contrast, is ranked last by only 13.7% (all bases 1,468).
That combination explains why repeal comes third of four on SurveyMonkey’s weighted score, where a higher score means more important (4 is the maximum): Section 24 2.82, interest rates falling 2.58, repeal 2.40, lower SDLT 2.21.
The four options have been identical in all three surveys this year, so the trend is like-for-like. The pattern has been the same every quarter: repeal is ranked first by about three in ten landlords and last by a third or more. The share ranking it first has been broadly unchanged (31.1% in Q1, base 2,190; 30.8% in Q2, base 2,096; 29.9% in Q3), while the share ranking it last has edged up from 32.1% to 34.7% to 36.0%, and its weighted score has slipped from 2.48 to 2.44 to 2.40.
Key Insight: Landlords are split on the Act more sharply than on any other measure we ask about. Section 24 reversal is wanted almost across the board; repeal of the Renters’ Rights Act is either the top priority or the bottom one. The slight drift towards “ranked last” is consistent across three quarters but small, and we would not read it as a change in landlords’ views until Q4 confirms it.
Smaller landlords feel it most
The smaller the portfolio, the more likely landlords are to put repeal first. 36.6% of landlords with three or fewer properties rank it as their top incentive (base 489), against 24.9% of those with 11 or more (base 358). Between those groups the share falls from 29.3% (four or five properties, base 232) to 25.6% (six to ten, base 316). The same pattern appeared in Q2.
Key Insight: For a landlord with one or two properties, a single tenancy that goes wrong can mean months without rent and the whole of their rental income at risk. Larger landlords can spread that risk. It is therefore not surprising that the smallest landlords are the most likely to see the Act as the main obstacle to investing again. The difference held when plans, age, ownership structure and where landlords own property were taken into account.
The day-to-day reality: getting tenants out and council licensing
We also asked landlords which other factors influence their decision to sell. Two relate directly to how landlords experience regulation day to day. Difficulty removing tenants who do not pay or who cause damage was the most cited reason of all (59.8%), and selective and additional licensing and council enforcement was third (53.4%), behind the higher income tax rates on rental income due from April 2027 (59.7%; base 1,486). Respondents could choose more than one option, so the totals exceed 100%. Nearly three in four (73.7%) chose at least one of the two, and 39.6% chose both.
Both concerns are strongest among landlords who are leaving: 65.4% of would-be exiters cite difficulty removing tenants and 61.0% cite licensing (base 367), against 43.2% and 42.1% of those planning to buy (base 95).
They also line up with how landlords rank repeal. Of those who rank repeal first as an incentive to buy, 72.7% cite difficulty removing tenants as a reason to sell and 66.9% cite licensing (base 414). Of those who rank repeal last, the figures are 48.9% and 43.0% (base 481).
Licensing becomes a bigger concern as portfolios grow: it is a reason to sell for 43.8% of landlords with no properties or one (base 185), rising to 62.6% of those with 21 or more (base 171).
Key Insight: For many landlords, the Renters’ Rights Act is not an abstract piece of legislation; it is about whether they can recover their property from a tenant who stops paying, and about the growing cost and paperwork of council licensing. Landlords who rank repeal first are far more likely to name those concerns. Licensing weighs most on larger portfolios, which have more properties to license.
Licensing weighs most on London landlords
Landlords with property in London were the most likely to cite licensing and council enforcement as a reason to sell (61.8%, base 356), against 52.0% of those who own elsewhere in England but not in London (base 1,040). Landlords with property in Scotland (43.5%, base 69) and Wales (40.3%, base 77) were less likely again; both nations run their own registration and licensing systems.
The same divide by nation shows in how landlords rank repeal. Among landlords who own only in England, 31.3% rank repeal first (base 1,287). Among those who own only in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, just 16.7% do (base 72), and 48.6% rank it last.
Key Insight: Landlords appear to be answering about the rules that apply to their own properties. Those outside England, where most of the Renters’ Rights Act does not apply, give it a much lower priority. London owners, who are more often covered by selective and additional licensing schemes, are the most likely to cite licensing as a reason to sell. The London difference held when portfolio size and plans were taken into account.
Among those leaving, the Act now tops the reasons to sell
When we ask landlords to rank six factors in their decision to sell, the Renters’ Rights Act comes third overall (weighted score 3.77 out of 6, base 1,499), behind higher interest rates and lower Capital Gains Tax. Among landlords planning to exit completely it comes first (4.36, base 379), with 40.4% ranking it as their top reason, up from 34.7% in Q2 (base 568). Among those planning to stay the same or buy, it comes fourth.
Key Insight: For landlords on their way out, the Act has become the single most important factor in the decision to sell, and the share ranking it first has risen since Q2. That rise is moderate at these sample sizes, and Q4 will show whether it continues.
What made little difference
Within England, the region in which landlords own property made little difference to how they rank repeal: between 25.0% and 36.0% of each English region’s landlords rank it first (bases 112 to 346), and none of these differences is large enough to rank regions against each other.
HMO landlords, whose properties are among the most heavily licensed, were no more likely than others to rank repeal first (26.9%, base 212, against 28.9% of landlords with houses, base 987) and only slightly more likely to cite licensing as a reason to sell (58.1%, base 210, against 52.8%, base 1,021), a difference within the margin of error.
Among landlords under 55, the gap between leavers and those staying the same disappears: 28.0% of under-55s planning to exit rank repeal first (base 50), against 28.1% of those planning to stay the same (base 64). The divide is driven by landlords aged 55 and over.
In landlords’ own words
We also asked two open questions. In answer to “What is the single biggest issue facing you as a landlord right now?”, about one in five (19.1%, 267 of 1,395) raised the Renters’ Rights Act, possession or tenants’ rights, and 12.0% named the Act directly. Asked what would make them stay in the sector or expand, 13.7% (180 of 1,314) called for the Act to be repealed or amended, or for Section 21 to be restored.
Several themes ran through those answers:
-
Possession: the fear of being unable to remove a tenant who stops paying or damages the property within a reasonable time once Section 21 has gone. One landlord described the loss of Section 21 simply as “terrifying”.
-
Rent reviews: concern that any rent increase will now be challenged as a matter of course, making the relationship with tenants more adversarial.
-
Penalties and fees: worries about large fines for minor administrative errors, and licensing, register and other fees adding up.
-
Amend, not only repeal: some landlords asked for specific changes rather than repeal, such as a set period to put things right before penalties apply, or a relaxation of the restriction on re-letting a property after a failed sale.
-
Waiting to see: a minority expect the market to settle once the new system beds in.
How we analysed the results
-
Questions: Q5 (ranking of four incentives to buy, base 1,468), Q7 (ranking of six factors in the decision to sell, base 1,499) and Q19 (other reasons to sell, multi-select, base 1,486), compared with plans over the next three years (Q3), portfolio size (Q9), regions owned in (Q8), property types (Q12) and age (Q27).
-
Weighted scores: SurveyMonkey gives each option a score based on its ranking (first place scores 4 in Q5 and 6 in Q7), then averages them. A higher score means more important. Scores are only compared where the list of options was the same.
-
Bases: percentages are of landlords who answered both questions in each comparison, so bases vary.
-
Groups: portfolio sizes are combined into three or fewer and 11 or more where stated. “England only” and “Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland only” are mutually exclusive; regional rows otherwise overlap because landlords choose every region they own in. In the licensing chart, “Wales” combines North and South Wales and “Rest of England” is landlords with property in England but none in London. Respondents under 55 were combined into one group.
-
Small numbers: no group with fewer than 50 respondents is reported. Differences are described as meaningful only where they pass a standard statistical test at 95% confidence. The main findings (plans, portfolio size and nation for repeal; plans, portfolio size and London for licensing) were also checked in a combined model allowing for the other factors at the same time.
-
Comparisons over time: Q5 has had the same four options in all three waves, so the Q1 to Q3 trend is like-for-like. Our question about plans covered the next 12 months in Q1 and the next three years from Q2, so the comparison by plans uses Q2 and Q3 only. Q7 had three options in Q1 and six from Q2, so it is compared with Q2 only. Q19 is new this quarter.
-
Who took part: respondents are self-selecting Property118 readers, not a random sample of all UK landlords. They are mostly experienced landlords aged 55 or over, and every question in Q3 could be skipped.
What Does This Mean for Landlords?
The Renters’ Rights Act divides landlords more sharply than any other issue we ask about. For those who are leaving, and for the smallest landlords, repeal is the change most likely to bring them back into the market. For those who are still buying, it is mostly the least important of the four incentives.
That matters for how the debate is framed. Repeal would not, on this evidence, unlock much new investment from landlords who are already buying; they are waiting on interest rates and the cost of purchase. It might keep more of the landlords who are on their way out. Those are disproportionately smaller landlords, and their concerns are practical ones: recovering a property from a tenant who will not pay, and the cost and burden of licensing.
For policymakers who do not intend to repeal the Act, the evidence points to where reassurance would count: faster and more predictable possession where tenants do not pay or cause damage, and licensing that is simpler and cheaper for compliant landlords. Several respondents asked for exactly that kind of amendment rather than outright repeal.
These are the views of engaged Property118 readers rather than every landlord in the UK, and they describe intentions rather than actions. With the Act’s changes now taking effect, the Q4 survey will show whether landlords’ priorities are settling or hardening.
Have Your Say
Has the Renters’ Rights Act changed your plans, or are licensing and possession the bigger worry for you? Please tell us in the comments below; your experiences help explain what the numbers show.
Look out for the Q4 2026 survey at the end of December. The more landlords who take part, the stronger the evidence we can put in front of journalists and policymakers. Read the
4 comments on this article
Learn from your peers’ experience
A different perspective could help you spot an issue, avoid a mistake or find a better way forward. Read the comments and add your own views if you wish.
Previous Article
Advertised rents break £1,400 barrier - Rightmove
Member Since June 2013 - Comments: 3410 - Articles: 83
10:18 AM, 15th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Where do they get £7000 fine from? You’ve actually got the boiler certificate (which the Govt has failed to get uploaded automatically like an MOT), you’ve just forgot to upload it. And you fining me £7000? He’s just drove his car with no MOT & got £100 fine. NO NO NO MOT at all.
Why is mine £7000 fine?
I’ll keep saying it as want all this spreading:
Those of you that are in a position to buy your home with just a few changes, I urge you to talk to me please, so we can avoid selling to another Landlord or empty
I am really sorry, but please ring me after reading this. The Govt are going too far and now going to fine us £7000 for every boiler certificate I forgot to send to their new database. Even if I’ve done the certificate.
I can’t carry on with these threats.
I’m sending this now so you know my mindset & how this Govt & Council’s are making us ill with unbearable workload. Some of your homes I always thought I would never sell to you or anyone, but if you have anyone that wishes to buy to keep you in, please talk to me.
Below are just some snippets as to what’s going off.
These are the latest changes the Govt has bought in May 2026 the Renter Rights act Renters Rights Bill-They have hurt the majority of tenants, but Govt got more votes off the Renters Groups for bringing them in.
Very long, but all applies to you & your home.
Tenants, Govt has just gave you £33 pm rent increase with rules they said were to protect you
Dear Tenants,
Govt has just bought in yet another charge £65 per year EACH house for property database fee. So you got to have rent increase for that £6pm. Plus 20+ questions, uploading loads of forms, an hour each house, & then updating the database throughout the year whenever a change, boiler certificate etc. And if u forget to upload a new (even if you’ve done it and got it) EPC, Landlady gets fined £7000. Tenants in London love to hear this. You sensible people in Nottingham know it makes your Landlord want to sell.
All this information needed for the property database, the Council already have for your Selective Licensing, who already charge £1000 every 5 years, so £200 per year, so you got £20 pm rent increase for that.
Previously we could just agree between ourselves if rents were £1000 & you were paying £750, you could agree verbally to £775 or £800. Well Govt has put a stop to that costing you again. Govt has said all rent increases must be done by Section 13. Letting agents cost £75 to do this, so that’s another £7pm. Some Letting Agents charge £250+VAT to issue a Section 13 which is £25pm on top of your rent increase.
So before we even get a little rent increase to pay for all inflationary increased costs, you’ve got £33pm which is going straight on the Govt charges.
This is without the extra admin we’ve got 4am office starts 9pm finishes. So no longer small rent increases I’m afraid, we got minimum £83pm before we start.
I could go on & on if some Media outlet would finally tell the truth & put it all out there, cause tenants that had no problem (80%) are really hit hard by all these Govt & Council changes.
A colleague wrote this out:
The regulatory and administrative burden has changed hugely over the years.
When I first started renting properties back in 1989, things were incredibly straightforward. You could go into WH Smith, buy a standard tenancy agreement, photocopy it and get on with letting the property. Today, the paperwork and compliance surrounding a single tenancy can run into hundreds of pages once you include tenancy documentation, deposit protection, EPCs, gas safety, electrical inspections, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, right to rent checks, prescribed information, licensing requirements, certificates, notices and all the other documentation and administration that has accumulated over the years.
And it is not just the paperwork. There are now countless additional costs, licences, inspections, certificates, software requirements, professional fees, compliance costs, council charges and taxation changes that simply did not exist when many of us started out.
Making Tax Digital is another example. Landlords who fall within the current threshold now have to maintain digital records and use compatible software, with quarterly reporting requirements to HMRC. HMRC itself confirms that landlords may face additional software, accountancy, training and administration costs as a result.
The electrical safety regulations alone now require inspections at least every five years, with reports having to be provided to tenants and councils when requested. Gas safety checks are annual, EPC requirements have been introduced, smoke and carbon monoxide alarm requirements have expanded, and licensing and other local authority requirements can add substantial further costs.
So Mick’s £83 figure is really only scratching the surface. There is a much bigger story here about the cumulative cost of regulation, taxation, compliance and administration, and ultimately a significant proportion of those costs inevitably find their way into the cost of renting.
I honestly think someone needs to sit down and produce a proper historical comparison of what it actually cost to let a property in 1989 compared with what it costs today. I suspect the difference would be quite staggering.
I’ll keep putting this on when people wonder why rents keep going up.
I will add to this list as I remember more.
Keep spreading these words please.
WhyTenantsCan’tGetHouses
A background to why you tenants are paying extortionate rents and can’t get anywhere unless you earning a cracking wage-Blame the Govt and Councils you vote for because you like it when they give more regs & rules to the Landlord-Guess who pays for this? You do.
2015 George Osborne introduce Section 24, fully implemented by 2021, where your rent can be £1000, your mortgage £700 & you still lose money on the house due to the bizarre Tax rules introduced-Look it up, it’s that mad, 6 year old kids say That can’t be right. Too late when you’ve already bought the house in personal name.
They wanted Pet deposits banned.
Cause we’d want £100 more in case dog did damage.
End of tenancy, dog did no damage, tenant got all deposit back.
2019 you banned higher pet deposits cause some tenants didn’t like it when dog did damage & didn’t get their deposit back.
We stopped taking pets.
2024 MP stood up in Parliament and called for Pet deposits to be reinstated cause tenants with pets couldn’t get accommodation.
You couldn’t make this up.
Description here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u54ouYTdNr7WaCPYW18Q_tZdlJr8-VwSUJpE0IcPf5k/edit?usp=drivesdk
They don’t want Landlords helping tenants with Benefits and they bought in Universal Credit which has zero communication with Landlord- We now don’t take Benefit tenants.
They bought in Selective Licensing on good Landlords with good houses. We put the rents up to cover it and now don’t take risky tenants.
Landlord can get fined £30,000 if tenant takes battery out smoke alarm and Landlord CAN’T prove that tenant did it.
Landlord can get fined £30,000 if renting 1 bed flat to single person and he/she moves his/her partner in unbeknown to the Landlord if the Selective License only has license for one occupier.
They started fining Landlords £5000 if they didn’t check tenants passport properly on Right to Rent checks-Landlords stopped taking anyone that had the slightest chance of being illegal immigrant. Innocent UK citizens suffered.
2015, they bought in that if Landlord CANNOT PROVE he/she has gave tenant boiler certificate, you can never get your property back. Even if had a new boiler 5 years later, Judge says Not bothered, u not having your house back. This helped the current bad tenant, hurts the next 100,000 tenants waiting for a home. A purely Anti Landlord measure to stop Landlord getting rid bad tenant or having his house back.
Oct 2024 Unison now wants a rent freeze. Ooh are we a charity are we? What other individual who sells or provides something is told YOU CANNOT charge a price u wish?
Oct 2024 the Renter Rights Bill is going to make it law, u can’t do rent increase unless use Section 13. Now for years, I’ve agreed informally with tenant ‘Ok £25 a month, u still £200pm now below anyone else.’ Job done.
Now, I’m totally full up with paperwork and rules and regs. I have no more time. Section 13 some more say only a few mins. It’s still 30 mins by time printed, filled in, signed, scanned, sent. Each one when u have lots of houses on top of Selective Licensing INSISTING we inspect each house every 4 months (two weeks solid just on inspections every months) is taking me over the edge. My existing tenants are going to have to go with Letting Agent who charge £300 for a Section 13. That’s £25pm extra on the rent. Along with the extra £100pm Letting Agent fee which gets rid of cheap rent was charity. I was only going to charge £25 pm increase. I now have to charge £50pm to get the £25pm charge back the Govt has caused.
Sep 2024 Ed Miliband MP wants all houses to EPC C which will cost Landlords £5000 and increase tenants cheap rents. As soon he announced this, he made more tenants homeless. Few words on that here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eI7z29SNRCDLLwX6_0QQChrwTxZ4jGZw4UNybVYfD1s/edit?usp=drivesdk
Section 24 Tax bought in by George Osborne of the Tories who said it will only affect 1 in 5 Landlords-That’s over 2 million tenants put at risk of homeless. Landlords with tenants of 25 years are now being made homeless on this one action alone.
Oct 2024 I’ve heard there’s a part of the RRB that says we must give tenants our home address on paperwork.
Details of that here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v7aETrvz0j6CdS7LZwYukthZAbhNxLWRKR8qShi6Gok/edit?usp=drivesdk
Aug 2025 RRB
Aug 2025 Making Tax digital
Aug 2025 RRB getting rid of Section 21 so u can’t get rid of bad tenant which would help a good tenant get the house.
Aug 2025 NI on rental income, another retrospective change after you’ve already housed the tenant and agreed to keep their rent lower than others.
Feb 2026 RRB making us register every property & pay-As well as Licensing-On houses many of us don’t want & only keeping for tenants anyway.
I’ll keep saying it to hope some common sense MP takes this up and actually wants to help tenants, and not getting votes hurting Landlords:
April 2026 Govt now fining us £7000 each tenant for every RRA act letter we cannot prove we’ve gave to the tenant-In ten years time. We get fined £7000 for an admin error for a letter the tenant can get off the internet just like we have to. This time Govt gone too far. We Housing Providers. Many of us don’t want the houses & only keeping for the tenant. And you want to fine us £7000 for an error where no one has got hurt?
£7000 for a paperwork error each tenant & even if you have gave em the sheets, if you lose your proof, you’ve had it. I can stab someone & get less. Parking ticket £60. No car insurance £200. Letter that tenants not bothered about £7000?
I tell me Landlord mates in the gym, they can’t believe it. I say It’s really easy, go on Google put £7000 fine Landlord in. They come back next day & say Wow cannot believe it, I would never have never known, that’s it, I’m selling.
I bike Sundays with 10-15 lads. Some have houses, I tell them, they flabbergasted, they had no idea.
I’ve got several expensive (for Nottingham) nice bungalows nice areas I was maybe never gonna’ sell. I’m even selling them now if/when the tenant should ever leave. Govt gone too far now. Renters group love it, but someone please tell em, they’ve now voted for something that’s made their houses more expensive & cut supply. My tenants understand fully what the Govt & Councils are doing to them, they’ve known for years I wish to sell but they now can’t get anywhere any more. All started since George Osborne Sec 24 2015, then Selective Licensing 2018, then UC, the list goes on.
April 2026 the ICO data fee we have to pay every year just so we can give the tenant the plumbers number when they have a leak gushing out.
May 2026, can only issue rent increase by Section 13 when previously could agree verbally with tenant and if rents are £1000, and tenant paying £775, they’d normally agree to £800 job done. Now Govt say must be done by Section 13, I’m getting older and the ever increasing paperwork is frying my brain. Letting agents charges £300 to do a section 13. That’s the rent increase gone on admin, so you have increase more than £25pm-Tenant loses again. Well done Govt.
Aug 2026
Govt has just bought in yet another charge £65 per year EACH house for property database fee. So you got to have rent increase for that £6pm. Plus 20+ questions, uploading loads of forms, an hour each house, & then updating the database throughout the year whenever a change, boiler certificate etc. And if u forget to upload a new (even if you’ve done it and got it) EPC, Landlady gets fined £7000. Tenants in London love to hear this. You sensible people in Nottingham know it makes your Landlord want to sell.
Sep 2026 Govt introduce a property database that is £65 PAID EVERY YEAR EVERY PROPERTY. What does the Govt not understand about that is another £6pm on top of the rent? Who’s benefiting from that?
EACH house for property database fee. So you got to have rent increase for that £6pm. Plus 20+ questions, uploading loads of forms, an hour each house, & then updating the database throughout the year whenever a change, boiler certificate etc. And if u forget to upload a new (even if you’ve done it and got it) EPC, Landlady gets fined £7000. Tenants in London love to hear this. You sensible people in Nottingham know it makes your Landlord want to sell.
Every anti Landlord measure they bring in to they think will help the tenant has hurt the tenants massively.
Every time the MP’s talk an anti landlord measure, they’ve made more homeless and increased rents.
There is loads more
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2652
11:39 AM, 15th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
I’m sure there is a lot more. But Mark also posted a separate thread with research showing that at least on Property118.com the larger landlords are more likely to raise rents than the smaller landlords. So if you aren’t trying to serve the market for benefits tenants and you’ve got a lot of properties in a limited company you don’t necessarily need to be afraid of labour’s Renters Rights Act because you can put in procedures to protect yourself from it and just keep raising rents year-on-year as average market rents rise. That’s unless labour bring in more rent controls; but even then as a big, limited company you don’t have the same problems because if labour or the greens attack you, then you can just sell properties you no longer want because you are liable to corporation tax, not to capital gains tax.
But Mark’s separate post showing that at least from the sample on Property118 larger landlords are more likely to raise rents and this article that also discusses section 24 and the other key, recent tax changes highlight the stupidity of the current situation. If you drive the competition provided by small landlords out of the market through a combination of the RRA, CGT, section 24 and other tax changes then you will both decrease the supply of housing and ALSO drive average rents up. You can’t really view the RRA in isolation from tax changes. Both George Osborne under the conservatives and labour with their RRA have created this situation; they are all to blame for the current stupidity. And where are the Green Party’s policies arguing for landlords to get the necessary capital allowances to be able to invest in renewables in order that landlords can rent energy efficient properties to the tenants that want them without that having to be at a massive premium? The Green Party used to be a party of sustainability, but technologies are only ‘sustainable’ if both owner-occupiers and small landlords can afford to finance them.
Less than 4% of houses built since labour came to power have been council houses. Clearly, suggesting that building council houses is a fix for the housing problem is just an old-school-labour-lie. With its enormous debt-pile and a need to invest both in energy security and defence it is obvious that labour don’t have the money to build lots of council houses, and there isn’t even much evidence out there that councils are good at building houses and turning their assets over to deliver safe accommodation in 2026 even if we do need more social housing.
Somewhere out there there must be politicians who aren’t part of the extreme right wing, or the extreme left-wing, who are prepared to stop lying to the electorate, explain that they don’t solve anything by attacking small landlords, and come up with policies that continue to favour small landlords investing in the residential housing market. If they have to acknowledge mistakes of the past then they should just get on with it.
And when it comes to benefits tenants, the market that I believe Mick serves, a competent government or competent and honest politician could make things better by stopping making benefits tenants unattractive, or risky for landlords: The provisions in the Renters Rights Act just make this group of tenants even more risky than they were before and the introduction of labour’s landlord database would only make things worse.
Member Since May 2024 - Comments: 174
5:36 PM, 16th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
For me it’s simple. The RRA has increased the cost of a default from perhaps 4 months to 12 months increasing risk. The inability to backdated a fair rent rise when taken to a tribunal is also grossly unfair and will result in a positive feedback as tribunals struggle. Also the toxic environment where you don’t want to admit to owning property.
Add to this the rates on bonds which are overtaking the net income from housing and no capital gains it will only take one tenant problem to go the section 8 1A route..
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2652
6:39 PM, 16th October 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Jack Jennings at 16/10/2026 – 17:36
In a toxic environment where you don’t want to admit to owning property, a landlord database with all your personal details on it is hardly a welcome addition to the increased risks already posed by Labour’s Renters Rights Act.