Peers in the House of Lords have strongly criticised the government’s Renters’ Rights Bill during the second stage of its committee review.
A number of members raised significant concerns about the proposed abolition of fixed-term tenancies, highlighting the potential disruption it could cause for both tenants and landlords. They argued that removing these agreements might lead to instability in the rental market, as tenants could face more uncertainty about the duration of their tenancy.
In addition, there was considerable debate about the new possession grounds outlined in the Bill. Several peers expressed concerns that these provisions could undermine the rights of landlords and complicate the eviction process.
Furthermore, fears were voiced that the overall impact of the Bill might be to drive out responsible landlords, especially those with smaller portfolios. Critics warned that the changes could lead to a reduction in the number of properties available to rent, making it harder for tenants to find affordable homes in the long run.
These criticisms suggest that the Renters’ Rights Bill faces an uphill battle to gain full support as it progresses through the legislative process.
Heavy burden on landlords
During the debate, Baroness Scott of Bybrook delivered a scathing critique of the government’s approach to the Renters’ Rights Bill, accusing them of rushing the legislation through without fully considering the implications. She argued that in its haste to publish the Bill, the government appeared to be abandoning the principle of prospective law-making, which ensures that new laws are well thought out and tested before being enforced. Instead, she claimed, they were placing an immediate and heavy burden on landlords, who could struggle to meet the demands of the proposed changes.
The Earl of Leicester, a landlord himself with decades of experience, shared his concerns about the Bill’s potential to drive responsible landlords out of the private rented sector. He explained that he had 47 tenants who had been with him for between 21 and 40 years, and another 45 who had stayed between 11 and 20 years. This long-standing relationship with tenants, he argued, was a testament to the stability and trust that good landlords provide. He warned that, as currently written, the Bill posed a serious risk of creating an environment where good landlords would be forced to exit the market, leading to a loss of secure and long-term housing options for renters.
Baroness Scott reinforced this point, highlighting that a significant proportion of landlords in the UK – 45% – own just a single property. She further explained that many of these landlords are self-managing, without the support of large teams or the resources necessary to comply with complex and constantly evolving regulations. For these smaller landlords, the burden of navigating the new rules in the Bill could become overwhelming, she argued, and might lead them to withdraw from the rental market altogether. This, she warned, could exacerbate the housing crisis rather than alleviate it, as fewer landlords could result in less available rental housing.
The debate continues to raise critical questions about the balance between protecting tenants’ rights and ensuring that landlords, particularly small-scale ones, are not unduly penalised. While many MPs and peers agree that reforms are needed to improve renters’ rights, there is growing concern that the current form of the Bill could have unintended consequences that could harm both landlords and tenants. As the committee stage progresses, it is clear that more careful thought and consultation will be required to ensure that the legislation does not inadvertently disrupt the private rental market.
Concerns around abolotion of fixed-term tenancies
Lord Jackson of Peterborough also raised concerns about the timing of the Renters’ Rights Bill and the potential confusion surrounding its implementation. He urged the government to provide clearer guidance on when the Bill would actually come into force, highlighting the need for certainty for both landlords and tenants. Specifically, Lord Jackson expressed worries that, under the current version of the Bill, all fixed-term tenancies could be abolished and converted into rolling (periodic) tenancies immediately upon the commencement of the legislation.
He further explained that this would mean that all existing assured shorthold tenancies – even those that were already mid-term – would be automatically converted to periodic tenancies once the Bill took effect. Lord Jackson argued that such an immediate shift could create significant disruption for both landlords and tenants who were expecting their agreements to remain valid for the full duration of their fixed terms. He called for the government to set clear commencement dates and introduce transitional periods to ensure that new obligations under the Bill were implemented in a manageable and fair way.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook shared Lord Jackson’s concerns, echoing the need for clarity regarding the implementation timeline of the Bill. She pointed out a scenario where a tenant might sign a tenancy agreement in January 2025, operating under one set of rules. However, if the Renters’ Rights Bill were to pass in June 2025, the same agreement could suddenly become invalid due to the new legislation. This, she argued, could cause confusion and legal complications for tenants who may not have been fully aware of the potential changes or for landlords who have relied on existing agreements. The lack of clear communication on the Bill’s timeline could create unnecessary instability and uncertainty in the rental market, making it harder for both parties to navigate their legal obligations.
Unfair for landlords
During stage two of the committee stage, Lord Pannick expressed strong criticism of Clause 15 of the Renters’ Rights Bill, which limits landlords’ ability to evict tenants within the first 12 months of a tenancy. According to this clause, landlords would be required to give tenants four months’ notice before eviction. Furthermore, landlords would also be prohibited from marketing the property for rent for 12 months after the notice expires or if a claim for eviction is filed.
Lord Pannick argued that this provision was “extremely unfair to landlords” and raised concerns that it would inevitably have a negative impact on the housing supply. He warned that the clause could make it more difficult for landlords to recover possession of their properties when needed, which could discourage investment in the private rented sector.
Baroness Scott also weighed in, stating that landlords should have their rights respected and retain the ability to recover possession of their properties when necessary. She expressed the view that the Bill’s restrictions could make it more difficult for landlords to manage their properties and ensure they are able to make appropriate decisions regarding their tenants.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamstead, representing the Liberal Democrats, argued that any new possession grounds should be practical for the courts to handle. She stressed the importance of ensuring that the courts are equipped and streamlined to handle a potential influx of cases resulting from the Bill’s provisions. Without proper court capacity, the system could become overwhelmed, causing delays and issues in enforcing landlord rights.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, defended the 12-month restriction, stating that it was designed to prevent abuse of possession grounds. She explained that this constraint was intended to make it easier for tenants to identify when seeking rent repayment orders or for local authorities wishing to prosecute abuse of possession grounds, which carries a significant fine of £40,000.
Baroness Taylor also clarified that the 12-month restriction ensured tenants who leave during the notice period are protected, not just those facing eviction through the courts. She expressed confidence that the current 12-month restriction on re-letting is the right measure to prevent abuse and maintain fairness for tenants.
Landlords should not be punished
Baroness Scott expressed her support for Lord Carter of Haslemere’s amendment to maintain the current threshold for rent arrears. Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, this threshold would be raised from two months to three months before a landlord could enforce repossession by serving notice. However, Lord Carter’s proposed amendment would keep the existing two-month threshold when the Bill comes into force, and Baroness Scott backed this change.
Baroness Scott argued that the amendment strikes a fair balance, recognising the need for landlords to be protected from bad actors who could inflict significant financial harm on them. She pointed out that landlords should not be punished for providing rental properties in the market, emphasising that the existing possession grounds for rent arrears offer a sensible safeguard. By retaining the two-month threshold, landlords can operate with more confidence, knowing they will not face financial loss from tenants who fail to pay their rent.
The Bill will undergo a few more debates during the committee stage in May before it moves on to the report stage, with four more debates scheduled to take place. These ongoing discussions will determine the final shape of the Renters’ Rights Bill as it continues to make its way through the legislative process.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property