A recent debate in the House of Lords ended with a narrow victory that could significantly change part of the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Members of the Lords voted by just four votes to pass an amendment which cuts the current re-letting ban from 12 months down to six months.
As the Bill stands, landlords who evict tenants in order to sell their property but then have the sale fall through are prevented from letting the home to someone else for a full year.
This rule was originally designed to stop landlords from abusing the system by pretending to sell simply to remove tenants.
However, the amendment proposed by Lord Cromwell sought to reduce this period, arguing it was too harsh, particularly when genuine sales collapse.
In the end, the House of Lords voted 213 in favour and 209 against, meaning the amendment passed by a slim margin.
Supporters of the change believe it strikes a fairer balance between protecting tenants and recognising that property transactions can and do fall through unexpectedly.
Those backing the amendment also claim the previous 12-month ban risked financially harming landlords who were acting in good faith.
Meanwhile, critics argue that cutting the ban to six months could reopen the door to potential misuse by unscrupulous landlords.
They warn it might encourage some landlords to exploit the rule by attempting to evict tenants under the pretence of selling, knowing they could quickly re-let if a sale doesn’t proceed.
The issue has highlighted the difficult balancing act the Bill faces between offering stronger protections for renters and not overly restricting landlords.
This debate is one of many that have taken place around the Renters’ Rights Bill as it makes its way through Parliament.
With the Bill still needing further scrutiny, it remains to be seen whether this amendment will survive into the final version of the legislation.
Tenants’ groups have expressed disappointment, suggesting the change could weaken important safeguards designed to reduce unnecessary evictions.
On the other hand, landlord associations have welcomed the amendment, describing it as a pragmatic step that recognises the realities of the housing market.
All eyes now turn to the next stages of the Bill, where MPs in the House of Commons will have their say on the proposed changes.
Unjustifiably penal provision of the bill
Under the current draft of the Renters’ Rights Bill, landlords must provide tenants with at least four months’ notice if they plan to sell the property.
The Bill also includes a 12-month “protected interval” at the beginning of any tenancy, preventing landlords from evicting tenants to sell during this initial period.
If a landlord does evict a tenant to sell and the sale then falls through, the legislation currently stops them from re-letting the property for another 12 months.
Lord Cromwell has proposed an amendment specifically aimed at situations where the landlord’s attempt to sell fails.
He argues that forcing landlords to keep a property empty for a year in these cases can cause serious financial harm.
Speaking in the debate, Lord Cromwell highlighted that roughly a third of property sales collapse before completion.
He said: “Amendment 58 seeks to reduce that period to six months, which would mitigate what is an unjustifiably penal provision of the Bill, which damages both landlords and prospective tenants.”
Lord Cromwell also pointed out that when he and others raised concerns that 12 months was excessive, they were told the rule was necessary to stop “evil landlords” from exploiting the system.
The fear was that landlords could falsely claim they planned to sell, evict tenants, and then re-let at a higher rent.
However, Lord Cromwell dismissed this argument, suggesting it does not apply to most landlords acting in good faith.
He argued that if a landlord wanted to charge a higher rent, the Bill already includes a formal process for applying a normal rent increase.
“There would be little reason,” he explained, “to go through the complex and costly process of eviction just to put up the rent.”
Lord Cromwell stressed that his amendment does not remove the protection against landlords who falsely claim to sell, but rather makes the penalty less harsh for those whose sales genuinely fail.
His comments reflect a wider debate in Parliament about how to balance protecting tenants from unfair eviction with not punishing landlords whose sales collapse through no fault of their own.
Ultimately, the amendment aims to keep the spirit of the Bill while softening its impact in these specific circumstances.
The discussion shows the challenge of creating legislation that deters abuse while remaining fair to landlords and supporting the broader housing market.
Financial burden and barrier
Lord Cromwell has also raised concerns that the existing 12-month re-letting ban could unintentionally lead to higher rents for tenants.
He explained to the House that landlords facing long void periods would have little choice but to increase rents significantly to cover their financial losses.
He said: “The numbers demonstrated clearly that the supposedly avaricious landlord, even if having the property empty for only six months, as I propose, rather than 12, would have to put the rent up by a very substantial amount, in excess of 200% or even 300%, to recoup their rental losses.”
Lord Cromwell highlighted that the financial strain is not limited to lost rental income alone.
He pointed out that landlords would still be liable for other expenses, including council tax surcharges on empty properties.
There is also the added risk and cost of keeping a property vacant, which can lead to maintenance issues or even vandalism.
He argued that trying to impose such enormous rent increases would be completely unrealistic.
“In practice,” he explained, “the rent asked would be completely uncompetitive against other properties not carrying such an inflated rent level.”
Lord Cromwell concluded that forcing landlords to keep a property empty for six months already presents a significant financial deterrent.
He believes this six-month period is enough to discourage landlords from evicting tenants simply to relist properties at higher rents.
In his view, extending the ban to 12 months does not add meaningful protection but instead punishes landlords who genuinely struggle to sell.
He described the government’s fear that landlords would routinely abuse the selling ground as “untenable” when faced with the real costs involved.
The debate highlights the challenge of creating fair rules that protect tenants without introducing unintended financial consequences.
Lord Cromwell’s amendment seeks to strike that balance by keeping the system strict enough to deter abuse, yet flexible enough to avoid harming responsible landlords.
The proposal has sparked discussion among peers on whether current measures fairly weigh both landlords’ and tenants’ interests.
Ultimately, his comments suggest that policy must be shaped not only by principle but by practical financial realities landlords face in the market.
Tenant group slams amendment change
Despite calls from Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, for Lord Cromwell to withdraw his amendment, the House of Lords narrowly approved it.
The vote was close, passing by just 213 votes to 209.
The amendment reduces the re-letting ban from 12 months to six months in cases where a landlord has served notice to sell but the sale does not go ahead.
Propertymark, the industry body, welcomed the move, describing it as a positive step for landlords.
They said: “Although evidence must be given to prove fair marketing, and that no suitable offers were refused. This reduction will help landlords avoid long void periods, prevent unnecessary financial penalties, and keep more properties available to rent.”
Propertymark highlighted that landlords will still need to show they genuinely tried to sell and did not turn down reasonable offers.
They believe the change strikes a better balance by reducing financial strain on landlords while still ensuring protection for tenants.
However, the Renters’ Reform Coalition strongly criticised the Lords for approving the amendment.
Posting on X, formerly known as Twitter, the tenant group argued that cutting the ban from a year to six months could still allow some landlords to abuse the system.
They claimed: “Many landlords will be able to bear a six-month empty period, nearly half own their property outright so have no costs. The government must take this change out.”
Yet this statement does not reflect the full picture of the sector.
Many landlords do not own their properties outright and often have mortgage payments to cover.
It’s also important to note that a significant number of landlords are not high earners.
According to the English Housing Survey, the median gross income for landlords before expenses is around £25,000.
Furthermore, around 41% of landlords earn less than £20,000 annually, making long void periods financially challenging.
The debate highlights the ongoing tension between protecting tenants from unfair evictions and recognising the economic realities faced by smaller landlords.
For now, the amendment will move forward, but it remains to be seen whether it will be kept in the final version of the legislation.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property