The Renters' Rights Act: one year on

A year since the Renters' Rights Act became law, and six months since section 21 was consigned to history, our chief policy officer Chris Norris takes stock of what has changed, what hasn't, and what still needs fixing.

Many happy returns?

Anniversaries are funny things. Some you celebrate, some you mark, and some you simply note in passing with a slightly raised eyebrow. 

The Renters' Rights Act has now turned one. It received Royal Assent on 27th October 2026 and, roughly six months ago, on 1st May 2026, its first and by far its biggest ‘phase’ came into force. On that fateful day, we lost access to Section 21, consigned fixed terms to the dustbin of rental history, and practically every tenancy in England became periodic overnight. 

I doubt many of you will be holding street parties, but having spent the years since 2019 (and quite a few before) arguing about these reforms in one form or another, I think it's worth pausing to review how the world, or at least the English PRS, has fared over so far. Has it been an annus horribilis, or mirabilis?  

Of course it’s still far too early to draw too many conclusions, but let’s not let that stop us from sitting upon the ground and telling sad stories of the death of kings … or something less dramatic.

The new normal

We’ve all lived through the transition and most of you have already done the hard bit. Serving the government information sheet by the end of May, getting used to new tenancy agreements, and embarking on a crash course in section 8 grounds (which hopefully you will never have to use).

If you haven’t, call us now. You’ve got some catching up to do and potentially some painful conversations coming down the track.  

Many of you also took the opportunity to serve a section 21 notice before 1st May meaning that your window to raise a valid no-fault claim closed at the end of July.

This means two things for the near future. First, there are still a lot of section 21 claims in the system, waiting for a decision. And secondly, any possession claims from now on will be strictly section 8, and probably even slower as the courts system gets to grips with increased demand for hearings.  

Rent reviews have changed too. Increases now come by section 13 notice, once a year, and a tenant who disagrees with your assessment of the market can ask the First-tier Tribunal to make a determination.

This isn’t a new arrangement, section 13s have always been open to challenge, but unlike the old rules, the tribunal can no longer set a rent higher than the one you proposed.

Add the ban on bidding wars, the one-month cap on rent in advance, and the disproportionate focus on pets in rental property, and it's fair to say the sector hasn't seen a reset like it since 1988 - or for the pedantic amongst you (my kind of people) 15th January 1989.

What’s it been like on the ground?

In May, as the dust was still swirling around our feet, we asked in a poll how you expected the Act to change the way you operate. Nearly eight in ten of you said it would make you more selective about to whom you let, and nine in ten were worried about how long the courts would take if and when things went wrong. 

Neither figure would surprise an experienced landlord, but it seems to be coming as a surprise to many commentators and (I’m sorry to say) some in government, as it becomes a reality. 

When the cost of a tenancy failing goes up - as it will if it takes longer to obtain a hearing in court, or even to meet the threshold for the mandatory rent arrears ground - landlords understandably look harder at the likelihood that it will be sustainable.

Where able, they try to minimise the risk of failure by choosing the ‘safest’ looking option.  

That isn't a threat, or doomsaying, it's risk management.

But it does mean tenants who present as a greater risk, because of poor credit histories, irregular incomes or no access to a guarantor are the first to feel the squeeze.

This is precisely the opposite of what the Act set out to achieve, and exactly what we, and many others in the industry, warned minsters would be the inevitable outcome of their over-zealous pursuit of parts of the reform agenda. 

The early tribunal decisions carry a more practical lesson. Property platform LonRes found that in roughly one in five of the first 47 rent cases decided under the new rules, the tribunal thought the home could command more than the landlord had asked, but could award no more than the figure on the notice.  

This would suggest that, disruptive as rent challenges are, they need not be feared if you do your research and provide sufficient evidence and comparable rents before you serve a section 13 notice, not after.

And the courts?

Putting aside whether you agree that the Act has any merit, or was needed in the first place, the courts were always our leading concern. We have said repeatedly and often that the courts would be the ultimate test of whether these reforms would achieve the Government’s objectives.  

The Sunak government agreed that more work was needed, the Starmer government bet on ‘digitisation’, and the Burnham government is yet to commit to anything much around fixing our straining judicial system.

If you’ll excuse the pun, the jury is definitely still out so far as a verdict on the courts is concerned.

The latest Ministry of Justice figures, covering April to June, show landlord claims up 6% on a year earlier, driven by a 16% jump in accelerated claims as landlords acted on outstanding section 21 notices before the claims window closed. The median time from claim to repossession was 27.1 weeks, almost exactly where it was a year ago. 

That might sound reassuring, but I’m not sure how comforted I feel.

Those figures capture just two months of the new regime and largely reflect cases started under the old one.

The real test is how quickly section 8 claims, each needing a hearing, move through the system once they arrive in volume. The first clues will likely arrive when the July to September figures are published in November. 

What we need from ministers hasn't changed. We’ve called for published targets for how quickly legitimate possession claims are heard and enforced, the resources to meet them, and a digital process that speeds things up rather than simply moving the queue online.  

When I raised court delays with the courts minister at Labour conference, I was told the department is working towards an efficient system, which is difficult to argue with but equally difficult to measure.

Supply, PRS saviour or nail in the coffin?

If you want to know whether reform is working for tenants, watch supply and how easy it is for households to find somewhere to live. Zoopla’s Richard Donnell reported in the summer that the number of homes available to rent fell in July for the first time in three years, and expects rents to end the year 4–5% higher.

Not exactly a glowing early endorsement – although for clarity, I know that Richard himself is far from convinced that the Act has had a significant impact since May. 

In fairness, the Act isn't the only factor. Supply also fell in Scotland, where the Act doesn't apply, and higher mortgage rates are keeping would-be first-time buyers renting for longer. However, it is a factor, and agents consistently report landlords choosing to sell when tenants move on, rather than relet. 

There is a glimmer of good news. Polling conducted with Pegasus Insight found 22% of landlords sold property in the year to June, well below the 38% who said they would in earlier surveys.  

Landlords, it turns out, are more resilient than their survey answers suggest.

But resilience has limits, and good landlords need a reason to stay, not just a reason not to exit a market which has many increasingly concerned about viability.

A tax system rewarding investment rather than discouraging it would have be an excellent first step, as we explained in our submission to the Treasury. Instead the sector has suffered a further blow, with landlords facing a 4% surcharge on income tax on rental income from April next year – following the announcement of a new two percentage point increase last week.

Phase two: a database worth paying for?

Phase two if the Act starts in just a few weeks. The Register your rental property service opens on 15th December in the West Midlands and rolls out region by region, with every property let on an assured or regulated tenancy in England due to be registered by 14th November 2027, at £65 per property per year. 

The principle has some merit; a well-designed register should make it easy for good landlords to demonstrate compliance and help councils focus their efforts on finding the criminals and bad actors who aren't without requiring even more costly discretionary licensing schemes.  

However, we estimate the fee alone could cost the sector more than £327m a year, for the pleasure of manually uploading information many of us already provide local authorities in respect of local licensing schemes. If the database is going to justify that price, it needs to replace duplication, not add to it, and demonstrate some genuine value for businesses who will have to populate it. 

Beyond that, the Government is consulting on extending Awaab's Law to private rented homes until 18th December. NRLA will respond to the consultation, but it is open to landlords too and we would strongly encourage anyone with an interest consider contributing.  

Next up will be a landlord ombudsman, due in 2028, and rent challenges are set to move from the tribunal to HMRC's Valuation Office, though no date for the transition has been set and expectations are it could take up to two years.

Quid pro quo

I said at the start this wasn't a celebration, and it isn't. Most landlords will never love this Act. But it is the law, the vast majority of you are complying with it, and you've earned the right to expect the Government to hold up its end of the bargain. 

That means courts that work, a database worth paying for, enforcement that targets the criminal minority rather than burdening the compliant majority, and a tax regime that encourages good landlords to invest rather than exit. 

In the end, the Act won't be judged by how many rights it creates on paper, but by whether tenants can find a decent home to rent. That depends on good landlords choosing to stay. We'll keep making that case, with evidence, to anyone who will listen, and to a few more who probably won't.