The current Labour government in the UK brought in a new law – the Renter’s Rights Act 2025. [1] This brought in 3 main measures; “no-fault evictions” were banned, rents can only be increased once a year and there is the possibility of appealing excessive rent increases to an independent Tribunal, and fixed-term tenancies were abolished. The first provision, as I understand it, means that property owners can’t just evict tenants at will; they need a valid reason – for example they want to sell the property, or move in. If I understand the badly worded document on the government website correctly, they cannot exercise this right at all in the first 12 months of a tenancy, and thereafter have to give four months notice. The second provision is self-explanatory. The third is actually, potentially, very useful for tenants. Before this legislation a landlord could offer a tenancy for a minimum term of say 12 months. When they signed this document the tenant became liable for the rent for the full 12 months. If their circumstances changed, too bad. They couldn’t move, or, some landlords might have “let them” – so long as the tenant themselves found a replacement. Clearly, this was a major inconvenience for people.
The landlord-tenant relationship is a feudal anachronism. Its persistence belies claims about ‘democracy’, but there we are, if anyone thought that human rights trumped property rights in modern Western societies, they need to be in some kind of psychiatric institution.
Firstly; I would credit the authors of this legislation with trying to make a significant difference to the lives of renters. It is, in my view, a significant political achievement, and the one tangible change that the present administration can be proud of. But – the proof is in the eating. The problem is that legislation can only do so much. Legislation does not make people nicer, or landlords suddenly find in themselves a sense of social solidarity.
The law which bans “no-fault evictions” is probably reasonably robust. Landlords can still evict for breaches of the tenancy agreement – so if you want not be evicted at random, tenants will need to be squeaky clean. (There are provisions to prevent landlords saying they need to evict to sell, and then ‘changing their minds’). Of course, the reality is that there is a sub-culture of renting, where these provisions will not be enforceable. The landlord’s mates will just turn up with a fierce dog – or, not even that – just nothing will be repaired. But, for those who rent from landlords who play by the law, this will help.
The rent controls might help – at least you won’t pay more then ‘market rates’ – too bad if the market rate is 60% of your monthly disposable income, but, no one said anything about social justice. At least it might make your exploitation slightly more predictable.
Of course, not just ‘rogue landlords’, but ‘respectable’ ones too, will find ways to get round this. I noticed today, how they will be getting round the cancellation of the fixed tenancy period. I saw an advert (on a website ‘Open Rent’). The adverts follow a template, how many bedrooms etc., and – “landlord’s preferred tenancy”. Ah. That explains the way round that one. It creates a situation analogous to how companies can, if they want, get around anti-discrimination laws in employment processes. In this case, when you meet the landlord he/she can ask you some leading questions, like “How long do you think you will stay here?”. The ones who can’t convince him/her that they are planning to stay for 2 years will not be offered a tenancy. This is perfectly legal.
Under the new law, it is illegal to discriminate against people planning to pay the rent using social security subsidies. This blocks adverts which say “No DSS”. But, again, landlords, (and these, I think, are the respectable ones), have already found a way round this. DSS, or social housing payments, are fixed at a certain level. The same advert format I mention above also includes a field for “DSS covers Rent”. The landlord is saying, “the official DSS level in this area does not cover the cost of this property”. So, again, he/she is not explicitly breaking the law, but – good luck applying to this landlord if you are in receipt of housing benefits, and plan to cover the difference yourself.
The problem is – legislation is a blunt instrument. At the risk of stating the obvious, it only makes a difference if people follow the law. In this case: “rogue landlords” will continue to run a parallel regime, exploiting the most vulnerable, and even the law-abiding ones will find ways to at least bend some of the provisions. An analogous situation concerns plans to control children’s mobile phone usage via legislation, currently being discussed in parliament. You have to be spectacularly naive to think that you can control usage of social media by legislation. (According to some reports more than 60% of Australian teenagers are flouting the ban in that country). [2]
Fundamentally, these kinds of problems are problems of civil society. They cannot be solved at the level of national legislation. In reality they can only be solved at the level of civil society.
Notes