57% of Landlords Say Moving Away From Fixed Terms Has Had a Negative Impact

Two surveys find landlords changing rents, tenant requirements and investment plans after the Renters’ Rights Act. New national registration requirements also prompt concerns about costs, management time and preparedness.

Real Estate Abroad Newsroom4 min read
A vintage black-and-white photo of a large group holding protest signs outside a building.
Photo: Unknown authorUnknown author / Wikimedia Commons (Public domain)

Key takeaways

  • Goodlord found 57% of landlords viewed the move away from fixed-term tenancies negatively.
  • Landbay found 36% had increased rents and 34% had changed tenant-referencing or affordability requirements.
  • Landlord registration was expected by 65% of surveyed landlords to increase costs.

What has changed for landlords?

Landbay’s Q3 survey of more than 2,000 landlords found 53% believed the legislation had negatively affected their buy-to-let business since its main measures came into force in May. Of those respondents, 31% described the impact as somewhat negative and 22% as very negative.

BeforeAfter
Fixed-term tenancies were availableThe legislation brought in periodic tenancies and an end to fixed-term tenancies
Landlords could accept more than one month’s rent in advanceThe Renters’ Rights Act made accepting more than one month’s rent in advance illegal
Section 21 provided a “no fault” eviction routeThe abolition of Section 21 was cited by 32% of surveyed landlords as the individual change expected to have the greatest business impact
A national landlord registration service was being introducedLandlords must prepare for its cost, record-keeping and property-management requirements

The Renters’ Rights Act has also changed how some landlords assess applicants. Goodlord found that 26% were more likely to reject applicants they would previously have accepted, while 31% would rather leave a property vacant while seeking a lower-risk tenant (Landlord Today).

Another 33% said they had become more cautious about applicants with limited or poor credit or rental histories, and applicants with County Court Judgments against their names. Meanwhile, 27% of respondents said they were trying to reduce their holdings or had already done so during the past year.

Readers should check:

  • The detailed requirements for the national landlord register, including any information still needed by the property owner or manager.
  • How referencing and affordability requirements have changed for each rental property.
  • The likely effect of registration on management time and letting costs.
  • Whether a landlord’s portfolio, rents and future purchase plans have changed in response to the legislation.

Are rents and tenant requirements changing?

Landbay found that 36% of landlords had increased rents, 34% had changed their tenant-referencing or affordability requirements, and 16% had increased their use of letting agents or other professional support.

The survey also recorded changes to property investment plans. Almost a third, or 33%, had decided to sell or were considering selling properties, while 29% had reduced plans to purchase additional rental properties. Another 13% were setting aside more money to cover costs, although 28% reported making no significant changes to their businesses.

These are reported landlord responses rather than a forecast of rents for individual properties. The data nevertheless shows that the rules were already influencing rents, applicant criteria, use of professional support and decisions about whether to retain or acquire more rental properties at the time of the surveys.

What does landlord registration mean for property management?

More than 90% of Landbay’s respondents knew a registration service was being introduced. That awareness did not always mean they understood the obligations: 17% knew about the register but did not fully understand the requirements, and another 17% knew one was coming but did not know the details.

Landlords were asked what they expected from registration. Almost two-thirds, or 65%, anticipated increased costs, while 44% expected to spend more time managing their properties. Another 38% believed the requirements could lead them to increase rents where possible, 33% thought they could make additional property purchases less likely, and 26% said they could make landlords more likely to sell.

Only 12% expected registration to have little or no impact on their businesses.

Preparation was also mixed. While 59% described themselves as very or quite prepared, 24% said they were not very prepared or not prepared at all. A further 17% said they did not yet know enough about the requirements to assess their preparation.

What should overseas property buyers check?

Neither survey provides a foreign-buyer-specific tax, visa or financing result. The evidence instead concerns how UK landlords report changing their operations and investment decisions. Overseas buyers assessing a rental property should therefore distinguish the landlord’s operating responses from any separate costs or entry rules that apply to them.

Property buyers financing a purchase can also compare how flood risk affects England’s mortgage market. For broader cross-border comparisons, readers may also consult Spain’s new housing decree.

Landbay sales and distribution director Rob Stanton said the findings show landlords are already making practical decisions based on the requirements they face, rather than merely expressing concerns about future changes.

Sources

Weekly briefing for buyers abroad

The week's property news for international buyers, plus residency-by-investment changes and market data.

One email a week. Unsubscribe at any time.

Share this article

More news