What does a balanced tenancy agreement actually look like?
I have been reflecting recently on how tenancy agreements are evolving, and I keep coming back to the same question: What does “balance” actually look like today?
On paper, a tenancy agreement is still a contract between two parties; one provides a property, the other pays to live in it, with both sides agreeing to certain obligations along the way. That sounds straightforward enough, but in practice, I am no longer sure that the consequences of those obligations are comparable.
If a landlord fails to meet their responsibilities, there are clear routes for tenants to seek redress, so to balance this out, there should be protections for landlords too.
What I find myself questioning is whether the same clarity exists in the other direction.
Take something as simple as the timing of rent. Most agreements specify when rent is due, yet persistent lateness often leads to a slow, uncertain process rather than a clearly defined consequence. The same could be said for access arrangements, reporting water leaks, cleaning the windows, or keeping the property and gardens clean and tidy. These are not unusual scenarios; they are part of the day-to-day reality of managing property.
In most areas of commercial life, contracts deal with this by setting expectations upfront and attaching clearly defined outcomes if those expectations are not met. That tends to reduce ambiguity and often prevents disputes from escalating in the first place. It makes me wonder whether residential tenancies would benefit from a similar approach. For example, would it be unreasonable for agreements to include predefined charges for certain types of breach, such as rent being consistently late beyond an agreed grace period? Not as a punishment, but as a way of creating clarity for both sides from the outset. Equally, where access is refused without good reason, or where a tenancy ends earlier than agreed, should the financial implications be clearer at the point the agreement is signed?
I appreciate that these are sensitive areas and nobody wants to create a system that feels punitive or unfair, but at the same time, I question whether the current framework really encourages the behaviours that both sides would ideally want to see. A landlord is expected to maintain the property, manage financing costs, comply with an increasing range of regulations, and respond promptly to issues as they arise. Alongside that, they also carry the financial impact of arrears, delays, and, in some cases, damage. That may be part of the role, but it does raise a broader question about how risk is being shared.
Another angle I have been considering is how we assess suitability at the start of a tenancy. Affordability is always a focus, but affordability alone does not necessarily tell you how resilient someone is to unexpected events. Would it make sense to think about resilience in a more structured way? For example, whether a tenant has a financial buffer, or whether some form of insurance-backed protection might sit alongside the agreement. That is not about excluding people; it is about recognising that unexpected situations do arise, and thinking in advance about how those situations are handled.
Ultimately, I am not suggesting that one side should have more power than the other. If anything, I am asking the opposite.
If tenancy agreements are meant to be mutual, should they not feel mutual in the way they operate day to day? At the moment, I am not convinced they always do.
I would be genuinely interested to hear how others see this. Would clearer, more structured agreements improve trust between landlords and tenants, or would they risk pushing things too far in the wrong direction?
By “A concerned landlord”
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
Previous Article
Scotland’s housing crisis deepens as housebuilding plummetsNext Article
Nottingham confirms permanent letting board ban
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1137
1:14 PM, 3rd April 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 12:36
I agree that courts treat housing a social necessity. It is one so that’s probably the correct stance. However, the problem arises because housing is I think the only one of the legal “necessaries” that can be provided by individuals without deep pockets. This was just about manageable when tenants were easily evicted if they became delinquent, but once the rot set in with regard to s21 it started to change, and when the courts became so underfunded that justice is effectively denied, it became practically unworkable. These are Governmental issues and the RRA will make things far worse.
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1395
1:22 PM, 3rd April 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by DPT at 03/04/2026 – 13:14
That’s why I think RGI is more important than ever these days
Member Since April 2026 - Comments: 3
4:56 PM, 3rd April 2026, About 6 days ago
Leases are “contracts”
like marriages are “contracts”. Regardless of what is written, the government will decide what they want to be enforced.
Pretending differently is cope. The only thing that will protect landlords is if they start to work together and use the same political tools as every other interest group. Landlord strike anyone?
Member Since January 2011 - Comments: 12193 - Articles: 1395
5:38 PM, 3rd April 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Robert H at 03/04/2026 – 16:56
Lenders and RGI insurers are likely to have far more influence with Government than a few landlords waving signs ever would.
Member Since January 2023 - Comments: 36
7:03 PM, 3rd April 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 18:05
Your comments are 100% accurate, rarely have I read such a concise report of what is actually happening out there. It will become a two tier system for the reasons you describe. I suppose its up to the landlord to decide which tier he wants to be in. I have noticed that the good/expensive properties let very quickly and there is generally no aggravation from the tenant. As you also say, the Government dont give a toss and ignore us along with farmers and people in the hospitality business, we are of little consequence, even though we do a job, they dont have the resources to do. I think the new regulations will do exactly as you describe and is planned by the government in that they will eventually take ownership of all those lower and middle bracket properties thus reaching their housing targets. It just wont be worth it to the landlord to continue.
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 90
7:33 PM, 3rd April 2026, About 6 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander – Founder of Property118 at 03/04/2026 – 17:38
A good point Mark, but Rent Guarantee Insurance (RGI) will only remain available while risk can still be spread. Once the PRS is fully captured by regulation, the entire market becomes higher risk. At that point, RGI will only remain available to landlords with tenants who have impeccable credit ratings and present little or no moral hazard.
Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee (MIG) insurance was once widely available in the wider mortgage market to protect lenders and, controversially, borrowers as well, although that point was never properly tested. After a market downturn, however, it largely disappeared as a mainstream insurance product and is an example of how insurance markets retreat when risk becomes harder to price or spread.
Other forms of insurance have also been withdrawn, either entirely or from the mainstream market. These include PPI, income protection insurance, which has become heavily restricted, flood insurance, where the private market withdrew, and professional indemnity insurance, where some sectors have become either uninsurable or insurable only at prohibitive cost.
The PRS, as it has evolved, is no longer considered a mainstream sector. What government is backing instead is the build-to-rent and co-living model, with estates of hundreds of units. That is the direction of travel because, once the likes of BlackRock have extracted their profits over the next 10 to 20 years, those developments will ultimately be transferred to councils and become the council estates of tomorrow.
Member Since October 2011 - Comments: 136
8:11 AM, 5th April 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 02/04/2026 – 18:05
But Person of the People, how does the fact that the RRA was initiated, designed and created by the last government fit with the scenario you describe? Or the fact that the current Labour Party government is clearly largely comprised – and led by – pale blue Tories?
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1137
9:37 AM, 5th April 2026, About 4 days ago
RGI wont cover landlords for the risk of a £7k or £40k fine for making an administrative error. It wont cover them for being unable to sell after evicting a tenant under ground 1A and then not being able to re-let either. It wont cover them when a student refuses to move out of their 2 bed property to make way for the new student intake. It wont cover them when they get stuck with an anti-social tenant because s8 ground 14 is not fit for purpose. It wont cover them when theyre waiting over a year for a ruling from the Tribunal on their rent increase.
Thrse are risks that are baked in to the RRA that RGI insurers will have little interest in.
Member Since January 2023 - Comments: 36
1:53 PM, 5th April 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by DPT at 05/04/2026 – 09:37
The old adage for Insurance Companies, give folk an umbrella and take it away when it rains’.
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 90
1:59 PM, 5th April 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Denise G at 05/04/2026 – 08:11
The last truly capitalist government was the early days of Blair when the Trade and Industry Secretary said: “We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, as long as they pay their taxes”
Osbourne, under Cameron, brought in S24 Tax on Turnover for landlords and it’s been a relentless vote seeking grind of confiscatory regulations and tax since then…
… it won’t change until the economy comes out of its doom loop but it’s so far behind others that it’ll take decades for a real improvement… and for the average Brit it won’t change, if at all, until a radical Thatcher like change in the administration…
… for example, Americans are so much more productive that in average standard of living comparisons Americans are 38% ahead of the UK before they get out of bed… if the US stood still and the UK grew at its average 10 year growth rate it’d still be behind in 2046… US health outcomes are way ahead of the NHS, now International Health Service, and from their surplus average income they could buy and throw away the NHS many times over…
… organisations that represent various sectors, including property, have been asleep on the job for many years while successive governments have plucked the lowest hanging fruit… assets such as property that can’t be put in a brief case and taken out of the country and can be confiscated at the stroke of a keyboard button are considered by governments to be their own currently cared for by landlords so it doesn’t carry the capital cost and occupational risk… they just look for the next political opportunity to harvest more fruit…
…nothing will change while property owners run around like petulant gardeners while still watering the plants… affirmative action that impacts government policy and exposes the political deception is the only way it’ll change…