From No Fault to No Choice: Why Rent Reform was Inevitable

By Sadaf Zareen

A system designed for flexibility has reached its limit. For years, the private rental sector in England operated on a simple premise: landlords were given certainty, and tenants were given access. On paper, the balance appeared workable.

In practice, this model left tenants with limited security and little control over housing.

A Legal Right That Outgrew Its Purpose – The 1988 Housing Act 

In 1988, the law changed. The market responded quickly, but stability did not follow.

The Housing Act 1988 was introduced to revive a declining rental sector. Investment had slowed, supply was constrained and landlords lacked confidence in their ability to recover possession of their properties. The legislative solution was structural: to reduce risk to landlords and increase control.

At the centre of the Act was section 21, the ‘no-fault eviction’. It allowed landlords to regain possession without the proving fault, provided the correct procedures were followed. In practice, this meant that a tenant could be required to leave their home even where they had complied fully with the terms of their tenancy. 

Alongside this, the Act introduced the assured shorthold tenancy, a tenancy agreement which allows landlords to retain the right to repossess the property after a fixed term, usually between 6-12 months. These tenancies were designed to promote flexibility, it reflected an assumption that renting was a temporary arrangement rather than a long-term housing solution. As a result, the sector became increasingly transactional with limited emphasis on stability.

By 2025, over 4.6 million households in England depended on privately renting and more than a third has rented for over five years. For many, renting was no longer a transitional phase but rather a sustained and necessary form of housing. 

Against this backdrop, the continued use of an easy route to eviction had begun to create unease among tenants, exposing a widening gap between the legal framework and the realities of modern renting.

When Flexibility Became Vulnerability – Possession Orders 

The framework introduced by the Housing Act 1988 reshaped how possession operated in practice.

The process for landlords to regain possession became highly predictable. Where procedural requirements were satisfied, the court had a limited scope to examine justification. This reduced the time and cost associated with regaining possession and provided a level of certainty that supported landlord investment. 

The limited ability of the courts to question possession where procedure was followed was evident in Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield (2020). The landlord failed to provide a gas safety certificate before the tenant took occupation, a requirement intended to safeguard tenant wellbeing. The tenant argued that this failure should prevent the landlord from relying on section 21 for eviction. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument; it held that the defect could be remedied later. This reinforced how difficult it could be for tenants to rely on technical breaches to resist eviction.

Predictability also influenced tenant behaviour. Surveys conducted by housing charities throughout the early 2020s suggested that a significant proportion of tenants were reluctant to raise concerns about disrepair or unsafe living conditions. Fear of eviction, even when informal, was frequently cited as a reason for non-reporting. While section 21 was not always used, its existence contributed to a broader perception of insecurity and a lack of support for tenants, who often felt unempowered to raise housing concerns.

The loss of private tenancies also became a recurring feature in homelessness statistics. Local authority data has repeatedly identified the end of a private tenancy as one of the leading triggers for a statutory homelessness application. Lower income tenants were also more likely to experience housing instability due to limited financial resilience which increased the risk of housing instability. Data from the Office for National Statistics indicated that a notable proportion of private renters held minimal savings, leaving little capacity for unexpected relocation costs. 

Growing pressures for tenants meant change was imminent. 

The Shift to Reform

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 represents one of the most significant reforms to residential tenancy law in recent decades. Its provisions reflect a rebalance of certainty for landlords with stability for tenants.

Key Changes:

• Removal of section 21 (no-fault evictions)

• Transition from assured shorthold tenancies to periodic tenancies

• Expansion of statutory grounds for possession

• Strengthened protections against discrimination

• Greater regulation of rent increases

• Prohibition of rental bidding and excessive rent in advance

Section 21

The abolition of section 21 is the most visible reform. Landlords can no longer rely on a no-fault route to possession; claims must now be based on statutory grounds, primarily under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. These include persistent rent arrears, breaches of tenancy obligations or landlord’s intention to sell or occupy the property. 

Possession is now centred around proof rather than procedure, introducing greater judicial oversight and requiring landlords to maintain clear records. 

Periodic Tenancies 

Periodic tenancies are expected to replace fixed-term contracts as the standard model, removing the automatic endpoint that previously allowed possession without justification. New statutory grounds include landlord or close family occupation and property sale, each with defined notice periods and limitations on re-letting to prevent indirect eviction. Notices for arrears have increased and arrears arising from unpaid Universal Credit housing support are disregarded.

Discrimination

The Act also strengthens protections for tenants. Landlords cannot discriminate against applicants who receive benefits or have children, must consider requests to keep pets within 28 days and may only increase rent once per year following a prescribed notice procedure. Tenants can challenge proposed increases through the First-Tier Tribunal if they believe the rent exceeds market value. Marketing practices that inflate rental bids or require more than one month’s rent in advance are prohibited.

Rent Increases

The Act introduces greater structure and oversight to rent increases. Under section 13, landlords must provide a minimum of two months’ notice before increasing rent, and this becomes the primary lawful mechanism for doing so. Rent may only be increased once within a 12-month period, limiting the frequency of adjustments and providing tenants with greater predictability.

However, the extent to which this enhances affordability remains uncertain. Rent levels are still linked to market rates, meaning that increases may continue to reflect wider supply and demand pressures rather than tenant circumstances.

Ban on Rental Bidding and Rent in Advance 

Landlords and agents are prohibited from encouraging or accepting bids above the advertised rent. This is intended to prevent informal auction-style practices, where prospective tenants compete by offering higher payments, often pricing out lower-income applicants. In addition, landlords are restricted from requiring more than one month’s rent in advance. This reduces the upfront financial burden on tenants, particularly those with limited savings. However, some risks remain.

Landlords may respond by advertising properties at higher initial rents, effectively embedding bidding behaviour into the listing price. In practice, this may limit the overall impact of the reform. Enforcement will depend on regulatory oversight, including local authorities and the property redress scheme, which requires landlord membership and provides a route for tenant complaints. Landlords may still require guarantors, meaning that access to housing may continue to depend, in part, on a tenant’s financial network.

Collectively, these measures represent a shift from transactional renting to firm housing stability.

What This Means For Landlords

As pressure on tenants eases, the regulatory burden on landlords heightens.

The Act significantly altered the daily operation of property management. Possession now depends on evidence rather than procedural compliance alone. Where documentation is incomplete, risk increases. A missed repair record, an informal agreement, or an undocumented conversation can weaken a possession claim. What once appeared routine now carries evidential significance. 

Possession claims based on statutory grounds are more likely to involve a dispute. Where tenants challenge contractual breaches, hearings may extend timelines and increase costs. As it is, landlords may run on tight margins; a simple delay can cause financial consequences. The heightened vigilance required from a landlord puts them in a more proactive  and structured approach to compliance. 

Yet, reform does not operate solely as a constraint; it also creates opportunity. 

Longer tenancy durations may reduce turnover. Each vacancy carries costs such as advertising, cleaning and lost rent. Industry estimates suggest re-letting a property can cost several hundred pounds per cycle. Stability can reduce these repeated expenses and supports predictable income streams.

The emphasis shifts away from short-term frequent change and towards long-term continuity.

It comes at a cost 

While reform strengthens tenant protection, it also raises questions about the sustainability of housing supply.

Industry bodies have reported early indications that some landlords are considering reducing their portfolios or selling properties. Rising compliance requirements have altered the economic profile of rental property ownership.

The Act also raises questions around timing and implementation. Although it is expected to come into force on 1 May, section 21 notices served before this date may still be relied upon. This may lead to a short-term increase in possession claims. Transitional provisions allow landlords to initiate certain proceedings until 31 July 2026, creating a period of overlap between the old and new regimes.

If landlord exit rates increase, the impact on supply could be significant. Reduced availability of rental properties increases competition among tenants, placing upward pressure on rents, particularly in high demand areas. Improving tenant security must be balanced against maintaining sufficient housing supply. 

The transition to fault based possession is likely to increase reliance on courts and tribunals. Delays in processing claims could create uncertainty for landlords and tenants alike. Effective implementation will depend on adequate administrative resources and judicial recourses.

Reform, therefore, is not only legislative, it is infrastructural. Its success will depend not only on legal change, but on how effectively the system adapts to support both landlords and tenants in practice.