Tenant Lab UK

The Renters’ Rights Act was supposed to make renting fairer.

And in several important ways, it has.

Section 21 “no-fault” evictions have gone. Tenants have greater protection from discrimination. Rental bidding above the advertised rent has been banned. Landlords have new responsibilities, and renters have more power to challenge unfair practices.

Those are meaningful changes. But despite the headline stories cherry picked these were not issues faced by the majority of renters.

And good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes.

Since the main tenancy reforms came into force in England on 1 May 2026, some of the new rules have created unintended consequences for the very people the legislation was designed to protect.

Here are five ways the new system can actually make life harder for tenants.

1. Some tenants have lost one of the few ways they could compete for a home

One of the biggest changes concerns rent in advance.

Landlords can no longer require tenants to pay six or twelve months’ rent upfront. Once a tenancy agreement has been signed, a landlord can generally require no more than one month’s rent before the tenancy starts.

For many renters, that is welcome.

Nobody should have to find £15,000 or £20,000 simply to secure somewhere to live.

But there is another group of renters for whom paying rent in advance was not exploitation. It was their solution to failing conventional referencing.

Think about:

• someone newly arrived in the UK with no UK credit history;
• an international student without a UK guarantor;
• a freelancer whose income varies month to month;
• somebody between jobs but with substantial savings;
• a retired tenant living from assets rather than salary.

Previously, somebody in that position might say:

“I cannot pass your normal affordability test, but I can demonstrate that I have the money by paying six months upfront.”

That option has largely disappeared.

And this was not a tiny corner of the market. The English Housing Survey found that 626,000 private-renting households paid rent in advance in addition to their deposit in 2024–25. Around 29% of those households paid more than one month in advance.

Evidence submitted to the London Assembly Housing Committee has specifically warned that restrictions on rent in advance could make it harder for vulnerable tenants and those without UK guarantors to secure homes.

The rule protects tenants from unreasonable upfront demands.

But it has also removed a tool that some perfectly good tenants used to prove they were a safe bet.

2. Landlords have more reason to choose the “safest” applicant

The Act rightly prevents landlords and letting agents from discriminating against prospective tenants simply because they receive benefits or have children.

But legislation cannot remove competition between applicants.

Imagine a landlord receives ten applications for one flat.

Applicant A has a permanent job, earns four times the rent and has a homeowner guarantor.

Applicant B is self-employed, earns enough overall but has irregular monthly income and no guarantor.

The landlord cannot unlawfully discriminate.

But they can still assess affordability and risk and ultimately choose between suitable applicants.

And the more difficult or expensive it becomes to recover possession where rent is not paid, the stronger the incentive becomes to pick the applicant who looks safest on paper.

That creates a potential paradox.

The tenants who most need a more flexible rental market — people with irregular income, limited credit history or unconventional financial circumstances — may face more stringent referencing rather than less.

Evidence submitted to the London Assembly has raised exactly this concern: landlords may respond to greater perceived tenancy risk by becoming more cautious about whom they accept.

Better tenant protection is important.

But if the result is that marginal applicants struggle to get through the front door in the first place, we have simply moved the problem.

3. Students may find the private rental market harder to navigate

Student renting has always operated differently from most of the private rental sector.

A group might sign a house in November knowing that they will move in the following September and stay for one academic year.

That predictable cycle suited both sides.

The Renters’ Rights Act replaced most fixed-term assured tenancies with periodic tenancies. Tenants can generally leave by giving two months’ notice rather than being tied into a fixed end date.

That gives students flexibility.

But it also disrupts the traditional annual student-letting cycle.

The Act introduced a special possession ground for certain student HMOs so landlords can recover properties for the following academic year. Government guidance confirms these special rules, and Parliament has already had to address transitional arrangements for the 2025/26 and 2026/27 student cycles.

Purpose-built student accommodation can also operate differently from an ordinary privately rented student house.

The result is a system that is arguably more complicated for students, not less.

If traditional student landlords decide that ordinary student houses are less predictable to operate, some could leave that market or move towards other tenant groups.

For students in university towns already struggling with accommodation shortages, even a modest loss of supply matters.

4. More regulation does not automatically mean cheaper rent

Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding about rental reform is the assumption that stronger tenant rights and lower rents naturally go together.

They do not.

Rental prices are driven heavily by supply and demand.

Rightmove estimated at the end of 2025 that the number of available rental homes was still around one-third below the level of ten years earlier, despite an improvement in supply. It recorded an average of ten enquiries for each available rental property during 2025.

Immediately before the Act took effect, conditions actually appeared to be improving. In Q1 2026, Rightmove reported eight enquiries per available rental property, down from 11 a year earlier, with supply 3% higher year-on-year.

But the next quarter moved the other way.

In Q2 2026, Rightmove reported:

Average asking rent outside London: £1,397 per month

Average asking rent in London: £2,791 per month

and available rental supply was 1% lower than a year earlier, the first annual fall since 2022.

It would be wrong to claim the Renters’ Rights Act caused those movements. Interest rates, taxation, house prices, wages and wider landlord economics all matter.

But the lesson is important.

You cannot regulate your way out of a housing shortage.

Every additional cost, risk or administrative burden that makes somebody less willing to provide a rental home can ultimately affect tenants if it reduces supply.

The best protection against excessive rents is not simply a longer rulebook.

It is having enough homes available that landlords have to compete for tenants.

5. The end of fixed terms has removed something some tenants actually valued: certainty

Fixed-term tenancies were often portrayed as something that trapped tenants.

Sometimes they did.

A renter whose circumstances changed could find themselves liable for rent for months after they wanted to leave.

Periodic tenancies solve that problem. Under the new system, tenants can normally leave by giving two months’ notice.

But fixed terms provided something else too:

certainty.

A tenant signing a two-year tenancy knew, subject to serious breaches of the agreement, that they had contracted for that home for two years.

Under the new periodic model there is no contractual end date. Landlords cannot simply use Section 21 anymore, and important protections remain — including restrictions on using sale or landlord-occupation grounds during the first 12 months.

So this is not a return to arbitrary eviction.

But some tenants would genuinely prefer the option of saying:

“I want this property for three years, the landlord wants me here for three years, so let us both commit to three years.”

The new assured tenancy model generally does not allow that fixed-term arrangement.

Flexibility is valuable.

So is long-term contractual certainty.

A genuinely tenant-focused rental market should recognise that different renters want different things.

So, has the Renters’ Rights Act been bad for tenants?

No.

That would be too simplistic.

Ending Section 21, improving enforcement against poor landlords and preventing blatant discrimination are significant protections.

But it is equally simplistic to assume that every regulation labelled “pro-tenant” automatically improves life for tenants.

Housing is a market.

Change the risk, cost or flexibility on one side and behaviour changes on the other.

The real test of the Renters’ Rights Act should therefore not be how many new rights appear in legislation.

It should be what happens in the real world.

Can tenants find homes?

Can people with non-standard circumstances still pass referencing?

Do students have enough choice?

Are rents becoming more affordable?

Is rental supply increasing?

If the answer to those questions is no, policymakers need to be willing to adjust the rules — even when the original intention was good.

Because ultimately the best rental system is not one that is simply tough on landlords.

It is one that produces more good homes, fair competition and genuine choice for tenants.

That is the outcome tenants actually need.