The Renters’ Rights Bill promises more security – but it won’t tackle high rents crippling renters

At some point near the end of this year – or perhaps early in 2026 – the Renters’ Rights Bill currently making its way through the House of Lords will be put into practice. Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions will be abolished, meaning England’s 12 million renters will finally be free from fear of being evicted in retaliation for having the cheek to ask their landlord to fix that broken boiler or drafty window one too many times.

But a crucial piece of the puzzle will remain missing. No renter will have genuine security in their homes until action is taken to regulate rent increases.

As welcome as the Renters’ Rights Bill is (and there is a lot to recommend it), it won’t include any controls or limitations on rent hikes within tenancies. It’s safe to say that the cost of renting is the number one issue for most renters. RRC research has found that nearly one in three renters – about 3.8 million people – ‘always’ or ‘often’ struggle to afford essentials like groceries due to the cost of rent.

But the ability of landlords to demand eye-watering rent increases doesn’t just push renters into poverty. It also pushes us out of our homes and communities. Once landlords are no longer able to evict tenants using section 21, we fear many more of them will be tempted to use an unfair rent increase to threaten tenants or force them out, undermining the bill’s key aims.

Many renters already face being pushed out of their homes by annual rent increases – polling we have commissioned found that almost a third of renters in England could be forced to move home if hit with a 7.9% rent rise – for reference, rents are currently increasing at a rate of 6.7% annually.

The government’s proposed solution to this rent hike evictions loophole is allowing renters to appeal “unreasonable” rent increases at a tribunal, which would have the power to reject rent increases that are above the ‘market rate’.

But these tribunals already exist, and they fail to protect renters. We analysed all tribunal rent decisions with reasons published this year – and found out they approved a rent increase in over 90% of cases, with the average outcome being a 22.2% rent increase for tenants. Of course, few renters currently appeal rent increases, given the threat of eviction hanging over them. But high rent increases being sanctioned will continue to be a problem in the new system.

To make matters worse, tribunal decisions are opaque and not consistently evidenced. In several cases they used years old Google Street View pictures of the outside of properties to inform their decisions. In some a ‘market rent’ was determined by comparison to just a few other properties in the same area. And serious cases of disrepair collected in evidence do not stop tribunals setting a higher rent – only mitigate it.

Read more:

• Renters face higher deposits just for owning a pet. It’s wrong to squeeze more cash out of them
• Rise of the good landlords: Inside the movement to make the private rental sector tackle homelessness
• Would 1.5m landlords selling up and leaving the rental market really be a bad thing?

Taking your landlord to a tribunal is an awkward and complicated bureaucratic mechanism which many renters would avoid entirely, even if they knew it was an option (more than half currently do not). But the bigger, inherent problem with these tribunals is that, as any tenant could tell the government, ‘market rent’ is already too high.

For renters on low incomes, or with extra costs, who must find the cheapest place they can afford, average market rents are, by definition, unaffordable. Where will these renters find secure homes once the bill has passed? Will they be forced to live in squalid, unhealthy homes and hope they can argue for lower rent increases? Or will they be forced to move home periodically when their rent goes up – each time further away from their jobs, communities and children’s schools?

For these tenants a tribunal will offer little protection, and section 21 may as well not have been abolished when their landlords can threaten them with a rent increase they know they cannot afford.

Instead, the government should consider a cap on rent increases, limiting the amount landlords can put rents up by to the lowest of wage growth or inflation. Despite the scaremongering from landlord groups about these policies, they are common practice across Europe – France, Germany, Spain, Denmark and the Netherlands all have rent increase restrictions of one kind or another. And polling consistently shows they would be immensely popular, supported by three quarters of the public (and even 44% of landlords!).

A limit on annual rent increases would allow renters to plan for their future and put down roots in an area. It might even allow wages, long outpaced by rent growth, to finally start to catch up, and give tenants genuine security in their homes while reducing homelessness and poverty. And it could only be good for the economy if renters have money to spend on the things they need rather than lining their landlord’s pockets.

This government has been a bit reticent to talk about rent affordability, preferring instead to emphasise their housebuilding plans but without a discussion of what can realistically be expected in terms of an impact on the cost of renting. But even if housing targets are met, research suggests the impact on rents, though welcome, will be marginal – perhaps 1.5% or 2%.

If the government is to achieve its missions to improve quality of life, boost voters’ disposable incomes and make housing more affordable, in-tenancy rent stabilisation has to be an option on the table. Otherwise, despite all the good that’s in the Renters’ Rights Bill, many private renters won’t feel the full benefit of improved security.

Paul Shanks is press officer of the Renters Reform Coalition.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more.