Renters' Right Bill - Committee Stage Summary

The sitting on the 22nd of April, 2025 included detailed debate on its purpose, potential impacts, and specific provisions like the abolition of fixed-term tenancies and changes to student accommodation rules. Members raised concerns that the Bill, while aiming to give renters more security, decent housing, and fair prices, might actually reduce the supply of rental homes by discouraging landlords from staying in the market. Some cited data showing many landlords plan to sell properties or increase rents due to the Bill, warning this could push up costs and make it harder for tenants - especially vulnerable groups - to find homes. There was also discussion about the experience in Scotland, where similar reforms led to landlords leaving and rents rising, and calls for the government to review the Bill’s real impact on housing supply and affordability.

A major topic was the government's plan to abolish fixed-term tenancies in favour of rolling, periodic ones. Many peers argued this would hurt both tenants and landlords, removing needed flexibility for groups like students, people on short-term work contracts, or those needing guarantors. Several amendments were proposed to allow short fixed terms or voluntary extension agreements, but the government resisted, saying periodic tenancies offer better security and flexibility. The debate also highlighted the unique needs of student renters, with concerns that the Bill’s approach could make it harder for students to secure housing and push them into more expensive, purpose-built blocks. Overall, the session showed strong disagreement on whether the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting tenants and keeping the rental market healthy and accessible.

The sitting on the 24nd of April, 2025 focused on the committee stage of the Renters’ Rights Bill, with particular attention given to the Bill’s retroactive provisions, transitional arrangements, and the impact on superior and shared ownership leases. Several members raised concerns about the fairness and legal certainty of applying new tenancy rules to existing agreements without a transition period, highlighting the risk of undermining trust in the legal system and creating confusion for both landlords and tenants. The government responded by amending the Bill to ensure that landlords with superior leases would not be in breach when subletting under the new regime, but maintained that some retrospective effect was necessary to avoid a two-tier system and to ensure simultaneous improvements in tenant rights. There was consensus that better communication and clearer guidance would be essential, especially as many small landlords may not be aware of the impending changes.

The session also addressed the specific challenges faced by shared ownership leaseholders who have become "accidental landlords" due to issues such as the building safety crisis. Amendments were discussed to clarify how these individuals will be affected by the conversion to periodic tenancies and the new rights of tenants to a minimum 12-month stay, as well as the restrictions on reletting after a failed sale. Stakeholders expressed concern that the Bill, as drafted, could exacerbate financial hardship for this vulnerable group, who are often already letting at a loss. The government acknowledged these issues and offered to meet further but resisted calls for exemptions, arguing that tenant protections must be maintained.

The sitting on the 28th of April, 2025 focused on the operational readiness of the courts in light of the proposed abolition of Section 21 "no-fault" evictions under the Renters’ Rights Bill. There was broad consensus that while the ambition to strengthen tenant security is commendable, the courts are not currently equipped to handle the anticipated surge in contested possession cases. Several speakers highlighted significant concerns about existing court backlogs, inadequate resources, and delays-pointing to average possession proceedings taking up to seven months in some regions. The discussion also referenced ongoing IT system upgrades within HM Courts & Tribunals Service, but there was scepticism about the speed and effectiveness of these reforms, with some experts estimating a two- to five-year timeline for full implementation.

Debate centred on a range of proposed amendments, many of which sought to make the abolition of Section 21 contingent on a formal assessment and certification of court capacity. There was a clear divide: some argued that delaying reform would perpetuate insecurity for tenants, while others stressed that proceeding without sufficient infrastructure would undermine both landlord and tenant confidence in the system. The government’s position was that reforms should not be delayed by further assessments, but it committed to ongoing monitoring and resource allocation. The session also touched upon related issues such as the timing of evictions for families with school-aged children, notice periods for rent increases, and the risk of overwhelming the tribunal system with rent challenge cases.

The sitting on the 6th of May, 2025, the House of Lords continued the Committee Stage of the Renters’ Rights Bill, with a particular focus on the right of tenants to keep pets in rented accommodation. The debate centred on proposed amendments to clarify and strengthen tenants’ rights to request pets, the circumstances under which landlords can refuse or withdraw consent, and the implications for both private and social housing. Peers discussed the low proportion of pet-friendly rental properties, the impact of restrictive tenancy agreements on pet homelessness, and the well-documented benefits of pet ownership for public health and tenant well-being. The session highlighted that, while the Bill aims to prevent landlords from unreasonably refusing pet requests, concerns remain about potential loopholes, the role of superior landlords (such as freeholders or management companies), and the lack of clear legal definitions for what constitutes a “reasonable” refusal.

Key points extracted from the debate include: calls for amendments to ensure that once consent for a pet is granted it cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn, and that landlords must provide clear, evidence-based reasons for refusal rather than relying on personal preference. Some peers argued for more robust legal guidance or a code of conduct to reduce uncertainty and disputes. There was also significant discussion about the practicalities of requiring tenants to obtain pet damage insurance, with several members noting that such insurance products are currently unavailable or inadequate in the UK market. Concerns were raised that this requirement could allow landlords to block pet ownership in practice, undermining the Bill’s intent. The government response was that guidance would be issued to clarify these points, and that the insurance market is expected to adapt, but there was no commitment to change the Bill’s wording at this stage. Additionally, there was consensus that social housing tenants should not face stricter restrictions than private renters, though the government stopped short of agreeing to amend the Bill accordingly.

The summaries cover the first few sittings of the Committee debate. The Bill will be discussed further in the coming days and weeks, with more detailed examination of specific clauses and additional amendments expected as the process continues.

The increasing number of debates and additional sittings on the Renters’ Rights Bill reflects the complexity of the issues at hand. To stay informed on the latest developments and implications for the sector, please regularly check the Renters’ Rights Bill: A Complete Guide for Letting Agents page.

Please get in touch if you have any questions or want to discuss anything related to the Renters' Rights Bill.