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 January 2023 - Comments: 36
2:29 PM, 5th April 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 05/04/2026 – 13:59
Its still not too late for every landlord to give every tenant a s21. Just sayin’. A short sharp shock!
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 90
4:36 PM, 5th April 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by EL1111 at 05/04/2026 – 14:29
… and there’s comparatively little to lose… while they work there way through the broken legal system government will be forced to face the consequences… vacant possession will yield a higher sale price because an existing landlord or buyer have options to occupy, let and to relet to the existing tenant… in the short term it’s the only way government will be brought to the table for a constructive conversation… and if that yields fruit the s21 process can be withdrawn…
… the application cost will be minor compared to the impact of the regulations and fining levels as they currently stand… after 1st May 2026 the stable door will be shut with every exit regulated… the horses will then never be able to bolt… and even a change in government is unlikely to make a radical change in the short term while landlords are content to act as housing officers and manage a quasi council housing estate under the illusion they’re operating their own businesses…
… the fact that the council housing estate is pepper-potted throughout the country is fully aligned with housing policy… regulations already require developers to pepper-pot affordable housing throughout a private estate which has led to Red Book valuations reducing values…
… time is short so get those s21 notices issued en masse… what is to lose compared to the downside once regulations take grip… it might be the last roll of the dice but it could well be the winning throw… that would be a deserved and stunning turnaround for the sector… and landlords will be treated with the respect they deserve…
Member Since January 2025 - Comments: 90
10:47 PM, 5th April 2026, About 4 days ago
Reply to the comment left by Person Of The People at 05/04/2026 – 16:36
… at the very least, to preserve values, Section 21 notices should be considered and tenants invited to reapply under enhanced credit and tenancy checks…
… it will not be long before valuers routinely ask for copies of tenants’ covenants as part of the valuation process…
… many like to think that Thatcher sold off council houses on the cheap, but the reality was that the discounted prices, when measured against open market vacant possession value, were often still above the true value once the occupational cost and risk of a lifelong tenant under a highly regulated regime were deducted, with little realistic chance of possession ever being regained. After those deductions, many occupied council properties had negative values. Unbeknown to most, Thatcher sold to get rid of a state liability under the banner of ‘pride in ownership’. Transferring a state liability to the private sector was a masterful move, creating a home-owning democracy that would vote for her…
… Labour are now doing the exact reverse, turning landlords into notional owners carrying all the capital and occupational risk, while turning tenants into a grateful and supportive electorate…
… Labour will ramp up the regulations to full rent control once they have the political cover, just as they are extracting so-called windfall taxes from every industry they can…
… their underlying belief is that property values are merely a manifestation of the state granting permission to build and occupy, and regulations already extract 100% of profit over 20% of value across the entire life of a development, with the Competition and Markets Authority calculating that the average housing development takes between 6.3 and 6.6 years to complete…
… it is all about politics…
Major conferences for lenders and other stakeholders are now gathering pace. The next, on 11 and 12 May 2026, is attracting attendees at nearly £1,000 a ticket by promoting:
“… energy and regulatory constraints tighten, long-held assumptions around valuation, risk and execution are being tested.”
Do not say we have not been warned…