header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 August 2023 / Gary Scott
Issue: 8036 / Categories: Opinion , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Will the Renters Reform Bill harm tenants?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
132776
Intended to deliver a ‘renting revolution’, the Renters Reform Bill may ultimately achieve just the opposite: Gary Scott lists some causes for concern

The Renters Reform Bill is a bold attempt by government to change the structure and nature of the landlord and tenant relationship that has been in place for the past 30 years by abolishing assured shorthold tenancies. The aim is to remedy existing issues within the rental sector and to try to balance tenants’ security and a settled home life against the flexibility of landlords to deal with their property. The proposed legislation seems to have at its heart the idea that both parties should play fair.

What’s in the Bill?

What some have called the ‘no-fault’ eviction mechanism will be ended, but it would better be described as the ending of ‘no-reason’ evictions. Landlords would still have specified permitted reasons for eviction where the tenant is not at fault.

The right to end a tenancy for rent arrears is set to be changed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll