Explore the potential impacts of the Renters' Rights Bill in the UK. Learn about changes to evictions, tenancies, and what it means for landlords and tenants.
Written by
Ben Luxon
PUBLISHED ON
Jun 5, 2025
When the Renters’ Rights Bill was first introduced, many hoped it would bring sensible improvements to the rental sector. After all, tenants and landlords alike want stability, clarity, and fairness.
As of June 2025, the bill has now passed through the Committee Stage and is heading quickly towards Royal Assent, looking like it will be passed into law before October 2025 (you can track its progress here). Unfortunately, as more details have emerged, it’s becoming clear that this bill may end up creating more problems than it solves.
At its heart, the bill is about rebalancing power in the rental market. But it does so by pushing landlords further into a corner, while unintentionally setting up tenants to face more barriers, more bureaucracy, and ironically, less security in the long term.
Let’s break down the major changes, what they mean in practice, and why landlords should be concerned, not just for themselves, but for their tenants too.
The biggest change is the abolition of Section 21 "no-fault" evictions. The government says this move is about ending unfair evictions and giving tenants more security. But the practical result is that landlords will be forced to rely solely on Section 8 grounds to regain possession of their property.
And here’s the problem: Section 8 requires a court hearing, which introduces significant delays, legal costs, and uncertainty. If a tenant stops paying rent, trashes the property, or behaves antisocially, you’ll still need to go through the courts—an already overwhelmed system with months-long backlogs.
According to Ministry of Justice data, eviction claims under Section 8 take an average of 6-12 months. That’s half a year or more of potentially lost income and property damage. And when that time does come? There’s no guarantee you’ll get the possession order you need.
The government has acknowledged this issue, which is why the Section 21 ban won’t be implemented until court reforms are in place. That might sound reassuring, but it also leaves us in limbo. The Bill is moving forward, but the infrastructure to support it isn’t ready.
Landlords are right to be skeptical. Promises of court reform have been made before. Without massive investment and clear procedural overhauls, relying solely on the courts for eviction will be a disaster.
And let’s not forget: a court-ordered eviction leaves a formal mark on a tenant’s record. That makes it harder for them to rent in the future. Ironically, the Bill’s attempt to protect tenants might lead to more long-term harm.
Landlords aren’t oblivious to these changes. Many are already adjusting their approach:
All of this contributes to a more hostile environment for tenants, especially those on lower incomes or with imperfect records.
While the Bill is positioned as a win for renters, it may end up making things worse. Without Section 21, landlords will need to rely on formal legal grounds to evict tenants. That includes rent arrears, antisocial behavior, or property damage—all of which will likely result in court records that follow the tenant for years.
Previously, landlords might have used Section 21 to quietly part ways with a problematic tenant, without leaving a formal stain on their record. Now? It’s a court battle or nothing. And once that eviction is on the books, future landlords are less likely to take a chance on them.
So the Bill doesn't eliminate evictions. It just turns them into a more adversarial and damaging process for all involved.
Another big shift: fixed-term tenancies are gone. Instead, all tenancies will become periodic, rolling month to month, with tenants able to leave at any time with just two months’ notice.
At first glance, this sounds like a win for renters—more flexibility, less commitment. But from a landlord’s perspective, this creates serious instability. You could spend weeks vetting a tenant, cover the cost of professional cleaning and maintenance, and then be left with an empty property two months later. That’s not just inconvenient—it’s financially damaging, especially in slower rental markets or during off-peak seasons.
It also makes long-term planning near impossible. Why invest in upgrades or energy efficiency improvements when there’s no guarantee the tenant will stay long enough to justify the expense? It erodes the incentive to maintain or improve rental stock, which ultimately hurts tenants too.
The impact on the student rental market is especially concerning. Student lets operate on a very specific timeline—tenancies typically begin just before the academic year and run for 10 to 12 months. This model gives landlords predictability and ensures students have housing aligned with their studies.
Under the new rules, if a student decides to end the tenancy early, say in November or February, landlords won’t be able to replace them with another student. The student housing market isn’t year-round—students all move in at the same time. This leaves landlords with two options: either take the property off the market until the next academic cycle (losing several months of rental income), or try to rent to a non-student, which may violate licensing conditions or create compatibility issues with existing tenants.
In practice, this means fewer landlords are likely to offer student rentals. Why take on the risk when there’s no guarantee of a full-term let? And fewer student rentals ultimately means more pressure on local housing markets, higher rents for students, and more competition for already scarce accommodation.
So while scrapping fixed-term contracts might sound like a step forward for tenant rights, the knock-on effects could seriously disrupt an important segment of the rental market.
The Bill also introduces a default right for tenants to request a pet, and landlords must not unreasonably refuse.
Again, this seems fair in theory. But who defines what’s reasonable? And who pays when that dog chews through the carpet or the cat damages wooden floors?
Landlords will be allowed to require pet insurance, but that assumes the policy covers all possible damage. In practice, landlords will bear the risk, with limited recourse if things go wrong.
Rent increases will be limited to once per year, with tenants able to challenge them through a tribunal if they believe the rise is unfair.
But there’s no mechanism to account for inflation, rising interest rates, or increased maintenance costs. The tribunal process could delay rightful increases or lead landlords to preemptively raise rents just in case they can't later.
More bureaucracy. More friction. Less control.
The Bill also lays the groundwork for a national landlord register, accessed through a new digital property portal. While this may improve transparency in the long run, it adds another layer of compliance.
For smaller landlords, especially accidental or part-time ones, these new obligations could push them out of the market. That’s less rental stock and more competition for tenants—not a good outcome for anyone.
It’s not all bad news. There are some parts of the Bill that deserve cautious praise:
But even these positives come with caveats. Better property standards are great in theory, but who pays for upgrades? In an already tight rental market, increased regulation without incentives could push more landlords to sell up.
Related: About Section 13: Notice of Rent Increase Form for UK Landlords
If you’re feeling overwhelmed, you’re not alone. This Bill represents the biggest shakeup to the rental sector in decades.
But rather than panic, landlords need to prepare:
Landlord Studio is built to help landlords operate smarter, not harder.
In a post-Section 21 world, documentation and organisation aren’t optional—they’re your best defense. With Landlord Studio, you stay compliant, efficient, and in control.
Related: Making Tax Digital (MTD) for Landlords: The Complete Guide
The Renters’ Rights Bill is being sold as a tenant-friendly revolution. But it may end up backfiring—creating longer evictions, higher rents, and reduced housing availability.
For landlords, it introduces more risk, more red tape, and less flexibility. For tenants, it may mean fewer landlords willing to rent to them.
There are still opportunities to shape this Bill before it becomes law. Landlords should stay informed, speak up, and prepare for the changes ahead.
Because in this new world of increased regulation and decreased control, only the prepared will thrive.