Why is the Renters’ Rights Bill a hopeless sham for landlords and tenants?

Personally I think the bedroom entitlement for tenants is a major problem. It doesn’t exist for owner occupiers so why does it exist for families living in either Social or private sector rental housing?

When I was a child my mother used to talk about her time as a midwife working on one of the local Council estates in the 1950s. How families would have 13 or 14 children. Those houses have only ever had 2 or 3 bedrooms, so today could only house a maximum of 6 people (less if the children’s age and gender dictated).

When was the bedroom entitlement invented and why? Why does it only apply to tenants and not home owners?

Why is it OK for owner occupiers to use triple bunk beds for their children but not allow tenants to? A home owner is perfectly at liberty to put as many sets of bunk beds in a room as will fit. If a tenant did the same they would be deemed to be overcrowded and in need of rehousing. By the time they eventually get rehoused the eldest child is likely to be on the verge of leaving home and then the family would be under occupying.

Re the housing crisis, I am feeding in thoughts to the Dark Matter Lab’s Homes that Don’t Cost the Earth research project (https://darkmatterlabs.notion.site/hdce). I have pointed out that there are different types of tenants using the PRS and different solutions are required for each type. Rent caps may not be an appropriate solution and anyway the Government are determined not to try them despite the Mayor of London’s requests. The campaign for unfreezing LHAs is gathering power and will hopefully succeed soon. Privatisation of social housing provision, which is effectively what has happened from Government policy over the last three decades, now needs to be reversed, but there needs to be interim support for PRS landlords to continue housing those on benefits until there are enough social homes and competent management of them. (HDCE is also looking at empty homes and households that should be encouraged to downsize, as the huge environmental impact of building 1.5m new homes is not compatible with our net zero carbon commitments.)

As the National Organisation of Residents Associations, the only national group representing local people through their RAs, we have continually lobbied Ministers and the MHLG or whatever it is called now, that what is needed is not just more Housing, but SOCIAL HOUSING but no one will take responsibility for it!
There are of course other reasons as well covered in this article but essentially THAT is what is required.
Jerry Gillen, Joint Chair, NORA

Reply to the comment left by Jerry Gillen at 24/10/2025 – 14:55
Many communities around the country, rural and urban, have set up community land trusts. It is slow progress but each project makes a huge difference to a small number of people and the local community around it. CLT Network’s Tom Chance has been promoting CLTs to the Government as an ideal way to provide permanently affordable housing with robust stewardship/resident input into management, and to hold other community assets of all types for use by local people. I have been working with London CLT since 2014.

“Renters’ Rights Bill” isn’t about protecting tenants – it’s about protecting council budgets.
https://propertyindustryeye.com/renters-rights-bill-isnt-about-protecting-tenants-its-about-protecting-council-budgets/

It may be but that’s backfired, in some places social tenants can only afford 1% of properties available for rent. But when social tenants find themselves homeless as is the consequences of this bill due to less rental properties, the councils have to find B&B rates. I would wager this delusional bill will be costing councils and not saving budgets. Why not ask the question?

Reply to the comment left by Paul Smith at 13:21

As Sec.21 will be gone, then there will have to be a specified “Ground” for the eviction. Many of these will be deemed by the Council as the Tenant intentionally making themselves homeless and give the bums rush by the Council.
Having a Tenancy is going to become precious.
It could be that Tenants improve their behaviour as they will not be able be able to fall back on their council.

Can’t imagine families will be on the streets, the evidence will be B&B costs which will continue to rise. Easy to measure, just can’t see homeless kids. The current waste on children in care homes is phenomenal, I believe Blackpool council spend £300k – yes three hundred thousand pounds on each child in care each year, but only £7,500 on rent for a three bed house at the current LHA rent.

Even if they put families on the streets the kids would go into care. One child in care would house 40 families with three kids.

Do you think in this scenario of utter waste there can be an upside, the evidence will be measured financially.

Reply to the comment left by Gromit at 25/10/2025 – 13:41
Blackpool council does not publicly list the specific cost of children’s homes, but recent reports indicate the average cost for a private residential placement is approximately £290,000 per child per year. The council is currently investigating whether to run its own homes to address these high costs.

This article is spot on. At best, the government is hoping that non paying social funded tenants will be able to hang on for longer. This will save the councils cash but leave these vulnerable people with a CCJ and no hope of renting again for years. At worst, we are seeing a simple act of jealousy (I haven’t got a house and some people have more than one) from the younger members of parliament and lobbyists.
My next tenant will need to have an interview in their present home and a spotless credit check to stand a chance..