What actual problem did the Renters’ Rights Act fix?

The vitriol directed at landlords has resulted in laws that protect rogue tenants to a quite remarkable degree, delaying their inevitable removal, often at the expense of the landlord’s health and well-being.

The truth is rogue tenants, people who disrespect the contract, then use the law to support their errant behaviour, are better served now than prior to the act. Landlords now more than ever need to protect themselves from rogue tenants by increasing the level of vigilance in very, very careful vetting. Once the rogue tenants are in, it is too late.

The problems the act purported to fix were much less prevalent than the politicians led us to believe, 0.5% (1 in 200), tenancies ended in bailiff eviction, but the media and MPs focused on single cases and hyped this as the norm, till it became the conventional wisdom.

A story was told that landlords were repeatedly raising rents to prey on vulnerable tenants, but this narrative was simply blowing smoke.

The government claimed to need a huge new act to address wrongs committed by lazy, greedy landlords. Namely, landlords raising rents unfairly and the tenants having no legal redress. The government chose to ignore that long before the Renters’ Rights Act came into effect, tenants could have a rent rise checked and reduced by the first-tier tribunal.

Also, for periodic tenancies, it was unlawful to raise rents more than once a year, despite banks being able to increase landlord costs or mortgages multiple times a year; landlords were already restricted.

The laws before the act were largely governed by the Housing Act 1988.

Under the Housing Act 1988, which previously governed most tenancies, rent increases for Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs) in England already followed strict legal procedures.

For fixed-term ASTs, rent could only be increased if:

• the tenancy agreement included a rent review clause; or
• the tenant agreed to the increase.

For periodic (“rolling”) tenancies, landlords generally had to use a Section 13 notice (Form 4) to raise the rent.

There were also existing safeguards:

• rent could usually only be increased once every 12 months;
• landlords had to provide at least one month’s notice (or six months for yearly tenancies); and
• tenants could challenge increases they believed exceeded market rates.

Importantly, tenants could apply to the First-tier Tribunal before the new rent took effect. The Tribunal would assess local market evidence and determine an appropriate market rent.

Crucially, prior to the new reforms, the Tribunal was also able to set the rent higher than the landlord’s proposed increase if it concluded the requested figure was still below market value. Any revised rent could also be backdated to the date specified in the landlord’s notice.

Given that landlords could already only increase rents within legal limits, and tenants already had access to independent legal redress, the question remains: What actual problem did the Renters Rights Act fix?

Crucially, in 2019, the Tribunal had the power to set a rent higher than what the landlord initially proposed if they felt the proposal was still below market value. The outcome the new rent usually applies from the date of the landlord’s notice, meaning it could be backdated.

Given a landlord can set the rent at market levels even now, what problem did the RRA fix? What does the Property118 community think?

Regards,

Paul