Why Matthew Pennycook is wrong about the Renters’ Rights Act?

Reply to the comment left by Mark Gora at 09/05/2026 – 10:34
Yes, that’s an important point. If the tenant doesn’t pay the rent then as I understand the situation that’s mandatory grounds for repossession and where the problem arises is that if the courts aren’t functioning (because they haven’t been fixed yet and the promise to put more money in to fix them hasn’t yet made any difference) then the delay in seeking repossession is where the risk is.

So what the advent of the renters rights act means for landlords and their agents is that they shouldn’t even consider taking on tenants with a poor credit rating…homeless…on benefits…not working…retired on a low income….until they see that the courts have been fixed.

Reply to the comment left by David at 09/05/2026 – 11:45
….and that includes Rachel from accounts then….

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 11/05/2026 – 11:22
They consider Rachel works and gets rewarded for failure, unlike landlords who sit on their backsides all day counting their massive profits. If they fail though they lose their properties unlike Rachel who keeps her job.

“So what the advent of the renters rights act means for landlords and their agents is that they shouldn’t even consider taking on tenants with a poor credit rating…homeless…on benefits…not working…retired on a low income….until they see that the courts have been fixed.”
Not just until the courts have been fixed, any financially dodgy tenants should never be considered by the PRS until the RRA is repealed. I will never even consider a tenant with a CCJ, even one that has been satisfied.

Reply to the comment left by David at 11/05/2026 – 11:30
This is correct: Unincorporated small portfolio landlords have been used as a scapegoat for society’s ills by the main parties (both conservative and labour)….they have been singled-out, targeted. Any other business can offset it’s finance costs against revenues. If you have a BTL property on an 80% BTL mortgage you might be just about breaking even in cash terms; but if there’s a problem and a mortgage company or bank forces you to sell then you can easily lose your investment because the bank takes NO risk. As the landlord you do all the work, and if it all fails then you take ALL the risk….it’s probably 50-100% of YOUR equity that’s at risk on a mortgaged house not 20% of the value of the house.

Because tax policy has turned it into a higher risk venture you don’t have any choice but to avoid high-risk tenants, like for example benefits tenants, social-housing tenants. Although the renters rights act says that you can’t ‘discriminate’ against tenants on benefits the fact of the matter is that because of the introduction of the renters rights act either you or your agent are going to have to apply more stringent credit-referencing checks to ALL prospective tenants. Social housing tenants, tenants on benefit and potentially ‘homeless’ tenants will be just too high risk to take.

What this means is that the government has created a situation where part of the market cannot afford to take the risk of helping to solve one of society’s problems at a time when that problem is getting worse. The banks and financial services companies will take no risk…many mortgage lenders prohibit you from taking homeless people or asylum seekers for example, and there will often be restrictions from your insurer.

But the fact that the government has created a situation where the market can’t help to fix a problem is not your fault as a landlord: That’s the fault of a government that introduced a renters rights act with some badly-thought out bits in it because collectively they just weren’t prepared to listen.

Honesty it seems as if this was passed for no reason other then to appeal people who can’t understand basic economics.