Renters’ Rights Act: Good intentions, poor delivery
- sarahmkm
- 6 hours ago
- 4 min read
The Johnson Conservative government proposed ending what have become called 'no fault' evictions. This policy had its critics within the Conservative Party: it was the Thatcher government’s reforms to the Rent Act 1977 which increased the availability of rented accommodation by allowing landlords to recover their property without a court battle to establish a ground for possession. But, assuming there is to be a return to proving a ground for possession, property owners must have effective access to a court to do so.
Jonathan Hulley has previously argued that in the interests of speed such cases should go to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Justice delayed is justice denied: expanding the role of the First Tier Tribunal in landlord and tenant cases. Here, he draws attention to the injustice which is looming with Labour’s Renters’ Rights Act which received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025.
Labour, supported by the Liberal Democrats, have introduced the Renters’ Rights Act as a historic milestone for tenants. It removes what were once known as “no fault” evictions under Section 21 and replaces them with a broader range of grounds for property possession.
The stated aim is for a fairer and more secure rental market. However, the deeper question is whether a law created with good intentions will succeed in practice. For many landlords and tenants, the outcome may differ significantly from what its creators in Westminster have envisaged.
A system overloaded before it begins
Under the new legislation, landlords must demonstrate a specific legal reason before they can reclaim their property. Acceptable grounds include rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, serious breaches of tenancy, or the necessity to sell or to move back into the property. There is also a provision that allows student landlords to recover their properties at the end of an academic year, ensuring continuous turnover in student housing.
In practice, every eviction now requires a full court hearing. The simpler and quicker Section 21 process, which was previously managed on paper, will soon disappear. The civil courts, already under pressure, are expected to handle an even greater volume of complex and contested cases.
Currently, the average possession case takes over thirty weeks to resolve. The introduction of extra hearings, stricter evidential requirements, and new rights to challenge decisions will extend the process even further. Lawyers and judges have warned that unless investment in improving court processes and staffing is increased, the system could collapse under its own weight.One solicitor from Justice for Renters, has said that “without adequate resources, access to justice becomes a privilege rather than a right.”
It serves as a warning that extends beyond housing law. When the Government enacts sweeping reforms without adequately preparing the systems to carry them out, both landlords and tenants are left facing uncertainty.
And at the very least, the Government must delay the implementation of the Act or implement in sensible stages to allow the public and private landlords time to prepare.
Fairness requires competence, not just good intentions
This is where the difference in political philosophy becomes evident. This Government’s instinct is to legislate first and consider delivery later. They believe that fairness can be achieved simply by expanding the list of rules and prohibitions. Yet, without the competence to enforce those rules or the realism to understand how the system operates in practice, fairness becomes an illusion.
As a Conservative, I hold a different perspective. I believe in a property-owning democracy where both tenants and landlords have clear rights and responsibilities. The law should protect the vulnerable while also preserving the confidence of those who invest in and maintain homes. This balance is essential for ensuring a healthy housing supply and stable communities.
The Renters’ Rights Act, however, risks disrupting the balance in the wrong way. Many small landlords, who make up a large part of the market, may decide to exit the sector altogether. The result will be fewer rental properties and higher rents for those who stay. Even worse, the withdrawal of good, responsible landlords could create conditions that Britain last saw in the 1970s, when heavy regulation pushed much of the private rental market underground.
During that period, many properties were left unmaintained or fell into disrepair because owners could not afford to invest. In some areas of London, racketeers and slum landlords filled the void, while honest property owners were pushed out of the market altogether.
We should not be so naïve as to believe that history cannot repeat itself. When regulation becomes too burdensome and the government assumes it can legislate trust into existence, the result is often flawed. The Renters Right Act may have good intentions, but it runs the risk of rewarding the unscrupulous and penalising the responsible.
The need for a realistic approach
The Government’s pledge of court readiness has so far been insufficient. Current digital court systems are antiquated, and staff shortages continue to increase.
A Conservative approach would have been more cautious. It would have ensured that reforms to tenancy law were accompanied by investment in court infrastructure and clear guidance for both tenants and landlords. It would have focused on steady, achievable change rather than headline-grabbing announcements.
Fairness in housing cannot be achieved through slogans or sweeping decrees. It depends on trust, partnership, and a justice system that works efficiently for everyone. The Renters’ Rights Act risks undermining all three.
If this legislation is to succeed, ministers must return to fundamental principles: protect those in need, support those who provide homes, and ensure that the courts are properly equipped to uphold the law. They must also delay the implementation of the new Act to allow the public and private rented sectors time to prepare. Anything less will leave the country with a rented sector that promises fairness but results in frustration.
Jonathan Hulley is an Executive Committee member of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. He is also a leading social housing lawyer. He currently serves on Surrey County Council and was the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Twickenham in July 2024.
The Society of Conservative Lawyers, an association of lawyers who support or are sympathetic to the aims of the Conservative Party. Members hold a range of different views within those parameters and the views expressed in its publications are only those of their authors, and not necessarily held by all members of the Society or by the Conservative Party. The views expressed in this post are those of the authors alone, who take sole responsibility for all errors and omissions.
