The Renters' Rights Act: A Short-Sighted Policy With Long-Term Consequences

The Renters’ Rights Act was introduced with a commendable ambition: improving standards and security for tenants in the private rented sector. Few within the housing industry would argue against fair treatment, transparency, or the need to remove poor‑quality operators from the market. However, good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. As the legislation moves closer to implementation, mounting evidence suggests that the policy is proving short‑sighted, with consequences that may ultimately harm tenants, local authorities, and the public purse alike.

A Shrinking Rental Market

One of the most significant — and foreseeable — consequences of the Renters’ Rights Act is the accelerating exodus of private landlords from the market. According to iamproperty’s latest report, The Real eSTATE of It, letting agents across the country describe a sector caught between competing pressures: rising rents on the one hand, and rapidly declining stock levels on the other.

As one contributor to the report put it, “It’s two steps forward, one step back. Rents rise, but stock just isn’t there.”

This imbalance lies at the heart of the current crisis. While demand for rental property remains exceptionally strong, the supply of homes available to rent is falling as landlords choose to sell. The result is simple economics: fewer homes, more competition, and higher rents; precisely the opposite of what the legislation set out to achieve.

The Myth of the ‘Big Corporate Landlord’

A fundamental flaw in current policy thinking is the assumption that the private rented sector is dominated by large, well‑capitalised corporate landlords. In reality, most landlords are individuals or small partnerships. Many were actively encouraged over decades to invest in buy‑to‑let properties as a way of providing for their future, often instead of relying on traditional pensions.

These are not faceless investment funds. They are teachers, tradespeople, retirees and small business owners who planned carefully around a stable regulatory environment. Repeated tax changes, rising compliance costs and now sweeping legislative reform have made that environment increasingly uncertain. For many, selling is not a strategy, it is a necessity.

Letting agents report that this is not a slow drift but an accelerating trend, with landlords actively exiting the sector ahead of the new Renters’ Rights framework coming into force.

The Impact on Local Authorities

Perhaps the most overlooked consequence of the landlord sell‑off is its impact on local authorities. A substantial proportion of private rental homes are leased to councils for housing those in need, often at below‑market rents, and with flexibility that the public sector struggles to replicate.

As private landlords leave the market, those homes disappear. Local authorities are then forced to find alternative accommodation for displaced tenants, often in an already overheated rental market. The alternatives — short‑term private lets, hotels, or purpose‑built temporary accommodation — come at a significantly higher cost.

Ultimately, these costs do not disappear. They are passed directly to the public purse, meaning taxpayers end up footing the bill for a policy that has reduced supply and driven up market rents.

A Market in Transition — Under Pressure

The iamproperty report highlights how this landlord exodus is reshaping the entire housing ecosystem. Many letting agencies are now reassessing their business models, reducing their reliance on investor‑led growth and shifting focus toward owner‑occupiers and needs‑based movers.

One agent commented: “We’re changing everything about our strategy for 2026. A big part of that is the shift in who our customer actually is — less landlord and rental and more owners.”

While adaptability is a strength, this transition is happening out of necessity, not opportunity. Regulatory uncertainty continues to loom large, with only 26% of agents expressing optimism about the current environment despite widespread support for higher consumer standards in principle.

Regulation Without Replacement

The core problem is not regulation itself, but regulation without replacement. If private landlords are driven out of the sector, something must take their place at scale. At present, there is no credible mechanism to replace the tens of thousands of rental homes being sold each year.

Large‑scale institutional investment is neither quick nor guaranteed, and social housing delivery continues to lag far behind need. In the meantime, tenants face fewer choices, higher rents, and increased insecurity as competition for homes intensifies.

Time for a Rethink

The Renters’ Rights Act risks becoming a textbook case of unintended consequences. By failing to recognise the reality of who landlords are, how the rental market functions, and the crucial role private landlords play in supporting both tenants and local authorities, the policy threatens to make an already fragile housing situation worse.

If the objective is long‑term stability, affordability, and fairness, then policymakers must reassess whether driving out small landlords, without any viable replacement, serves that goal. A more balanced approach, one that supports good landlords while tackling bad practice, would protect tenants without sacrificing supply.

Without such a rethink, the result will be entirely predictable: fewer rental homes, higher costs, and a growing burden on the public purse, all borne by the very people the legislation was designed to protect.

‍