As the Renters’ Rights Act comes into force this Friday, England’s private rented sector enters a new era: one that promises greater security for tenants, but also raises urgent questions about supply, viability and unintended consequences.
The Renters’ Rights Act represents the most decisive shift yet from a lightly regulated, short‑term model of renting towards a framework that treats renting as a legitimate long‑term housing option.
With around 35%, or 8.8 million, UK households renting and the average home in England costing 7.6 times median annual earnings, in many respects, that is long overdue. Renting has become a long‑term reality for many who can’t afford to buy, and a conscious choice for those seeking flexibility or preferring not to have the responsibility or burden of homeownership. But whether the Act ultimately succeeds will depend less on its intent, which is widely supported, and more on how it interacts with already strained market dynamics.
Increased stability for renters
At its core, the Renters’ Rights Act seeks to rebalance power in a sector that has expanded rapidly over the past 20 years, without its regulatory framework keeping pace. By abolishing no‑fault evictions and moving all private tenancies onto open‑ended arrangements, the legislation offers renters greater stability, predictability and confidence that their homes cannot be taken away without justification.
Housing insecurity has had real social and economic consequences, particularly for families and communities. It has been shown to be closely linked to antisocial behaviour, while data suggests that children who move schools (a frequent consequence of moving home) have worse economic outcomes than those who don’t.
By making it harder for renters to be discriminated against, and by reducing the risk of households being pushed into homelessness through sudden loss of accommodation, the Act continues a broader programme of reform that has materially improved conditions in the sector, particularly for those who are more vulnerable. Measures such as tenancy deposit protection schemes, now firmly embedded, show that regulation can raise standards and improve fairness for tenants without undermining the market.
A steadier system
The Act also introduces clearer rules around rent increases and marketing practices. Landlords will be limited to one rent increase per year, using a prescribed process, and will no longer be permitted to invite or accept offers above the advertised rent. For renters, this should mean greater transparency and fewer surprises.
However, these measures also make the system more rigid for providers, particularly in high‑demand markets where pricing has historically been influenced by competition at the point of letting. Faced with limits on flexibility later in the tenancy, some landlords are likely to respond by setting higher initial rents to avoid under-pricing at the outset and to reflect increased risk, cost and regulatory burden.
In other words, fairness may improve, but affordability is far from guaranteed.
The cumulative impact on supply
Perhaps the most significant risk lies on the supply side.
The Renters’ Rights Act is the latest in a long line of mounting pressures for landlords: changes to tax treatment, the removal of mortgage interest relief, selective licensing schemes and rising compliance costs. For many small‑scale landlords, particularly those providing older or lower‑value stock, the business case has already been under strain.
For some, the additional obligations and reduced flexibility introduced by the Act may be the final factor that prompts an exit from the sector. While well‑capitalised, professional operators are better placed to adapt, smaller landlords still account for a substantial proportion of rented homes, including in markets where alternatives are limited. A survey from property consultancy Allsop found that more than two in five private landlords said they were unlikely to continue letting their properties following the implementation of the Act.
Can build‑to‑rent fill the gap?
In theory, large‑scale build to rent, which includes coliving and later living, should be the answer to absorb this shift, offering professionally managed homes with longer‑term stability built into the model. Encouraging movement into purpose-built rental accommodation also helps free up family homes currently tied up in house shares or later‑life occupation, which can then go back on the market. In practice though, build-to-rent schemes account for only around 5% of all private rental homes, and delivery of new large-scale schemes is proving increasingly challenging.
Developers are contending with the combined impact of the Building Safety Act, elevated borrowing costs, material inflation and labour shortages, all of which are weighing heavily on scheme viability. While demand certainly exists for multifamily rental, with high absorption rates and low and stable vacancy rates, many projects are progressing more slowly than anticipated.
If smaller landlords exit faster than new purpose‑built schemes come forward, the result is likely to be a tightening of supply at a time when demand for rented homes remains high. Savills data suggests that the UK’s private rented sector shrank by £48 billion in 2025, the third consecutive year of contraction in the sector, as the environment for landlords became less appealing. With the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force and further tax increases in the pipeline from next April, it’s clear that the sector is becoming less and not more attractive.
Balancing protection with provision
None of this diminishes the importance of reform. Treating renting as a credible long‑term tenure is essential if the housing system is to reflect modern economic and social realities. The Act addresses genuine injustices and brings much‑needed consistency to a fragmented landscape. Over the last decade, being a landlord has shifted from a largely hands‑off role to one involving clear responsibilities and meaningful consequences. This rebalancing can only be a good thing.
But reform alone will not resolve the underlying imbalance between supply and demand. If the policy ambition is to deliver a fairer, more stable rented sector, it will need to be matched by equal focus on viability, delivery and investment – from small landlords through to institutional capital.
The test of the Renters’ Rights Act will not be whether it improves life for renters in principle, but whether it does so without inadvertently making homes harder to find, or more expensive to secure, in practice.
This is a personal blog post. Any opinions, findings, and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Centre for the New Midlands or any of our associated organisations/individuals.
ABOUT OUR AUTHOR:
Henry Columbine is MD, Strategy & Corporate Communications at global corporate affairs firm SEC Newgate. He has more than 18 years’ experience in strategic communications with a focus on the property sector and heads up SEC Newgate’s Midlands office as well as leading the company’s activity across the UK regions.
Working primarily with real estate developers, investment firms and consultants, he advises on strategic communications, stakeholder engagement and corporate positioning. His work has helped clients navigate and communicate around key policy and regulatory themes including planning reform, building safety legislation, rental reform, decarbonisation requirements, business rates and wider regulatory change.
Henry regularly contributes to sector thought leadership, is a long-standing judge at Property Week’s RESI Awards and contributed to ‘Promoting Property’, published by Routledge in 2020.
Born and raised in Walsall and now based in the Midlands, Henry has a BA in Modern Languages (French and German) from Durham University and has lived and worked in London, France, Austria and Guadeloupe. He brings particular interest in how housing, planning and decarbonisation policy translate into real‑world delivery and community outcomes across the Midlands.
