As the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 edges closer to full implementation, one quiet but significant behavioral shift is already emerging in the private rental sector: landlords are becoming more cautious and, in some cases, more selective than ever before.
For many, the question is no longer, “How quickly can I let this property?” but rather, Who can I safely let it to?
And increasingly, some landlords may conclude that a short void period is preferable to the perceived risk of taking on a tenant who does not meet the “perfect on paper” standard.
The End of Section 21 and the Rise of Perceived Risk
The abolition of Section 21 from 1 May 2026 represents a fundamental change to the balance of risk in the private rented sector.
For decades, Section 21 acted as a safety net. It allowed landlords to regain possession without proving fault, providing reassurance that if a tenancy went wrong, there was a relatively predictable route to recovery. Its removal means landlords must now rely solely on Section 8, which requires specific statutory grounds such as rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, or breach of tenancy.
While those grounds still exist, the reality is that pursuing possession under Section 8 is slower, more complex, and heavily dependent on an already backlogged court system. Proceedings can take many months, sometimes longer, during which rental income may be uncertain and costs continue to accrue.
For landlords, this changes the risk calculation at the very start of a tenancy.
Rent in Advance: Another Safety Net Removed
The perceived risk is compounded by the removal of rent in advance as a risk-mitigation tool.
Historically, rent in advance allowed landlords to balance flexibility with protection. Applicants with less conventional profiles, such as those with historic CCJs, self-employed income, zero-hour contracts, or short UK credit histories, could still be considered if they were able to demonstrate affordability upfront.
Under the new regime, that option largely disappears. Landlords can no longer offset uncertainty with additional financial security at the outset. In practice, this may push decision-making in a more conservative direction.
Faced with a choice between:
- accepting a tenant with a non-standard profile and limited exit options, or
- waiting a few extra weeks for an applicant with stable employment, clean credit, and strong references
Many landlords may decide that void is a safer commercial decision.
Who Loses Out?
The unintended consequence is that the very tenants the Act aims to protect may find themselves facing greater barriers at the application stage.
The modern labor market is increasingly fragmented. Gig-economy workers, freelancers, contractors, carers, and those returning from financial difficulty are no longer outliers; they are a growing proportion of the workforce. Yet these applicants often fail to meet traditional referencing criteria, despite being perfectly capable of sustaining a tenancy.
As landlord caution increases, these groups risk being squeezed out of the private rented sector altogether because they don’t fit a narrow definition of “low risk,” even though they are good tenants.
The Landlord Trade-Off: Security vs Flexibility
For landlords, the trade-off is stark.
On one hand, the Renters’ Rights Act promises a fairer and more stable system for tenants. On the other, it removes key tools landlords previously relied on to manage risk efficiently. Without confidence that possession can be regained swiftly in genuine problem cases, many landlords are reassessing their exposure.
Some may respond by:
- tightening tenant selection criteria
- increasing initial rents to price in perceived risk
- favouring longer voids over marginal applicants
- or exiting the sector entirely
None of these outcomes were the stated aim of reform, but they are rational responses to a system where flexibility has been reduced without corresponding improvements in court capacity.
The Myth of the “Perfect Tenant”
The idea of a “perfect tenant” has always been something of a myth. Most successful tenancies are built on communication, pragmatism, and mutual understanding rather than flawless paperwork.
However, under the new regime, landlords may feel compelled to prioritise certainty over potential, opting for applicants who tick every box rather than those who could, with flexibility, become excellent long-term tenants.
The risk is a rental market that becomes more rigid, less inclusive, and ultimately more expensive, even as it seeks to offer greater security.
A Sector in Transition
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is a landmark reform, and its core objective, protecting tenants from arbitrary eviction, is clear and understandable. However, not everyone will experience its ripple effects equally.
Tenants gain stronger rights during a tenancy, yet may face tougher scrutiny before securing one.
Landlords lose a key mechanism for managing risk and may respond by becoming more cautious, not less.
The sector is currently undergoing a period of transition, as practitioners continue to refine the balance between fairness, risk, and accessibility. Whether the market adapts in a way that genuinely benefits both sides will depend not only on legislation but also on how courts, enforcement bodies, and landlords themselves respond over time.
For now, one thing is clear: the question is no longer whether the perfect tenant exists, but whether the system inadvertently encourages landlords to keep looking for one.
As the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 edges closer to full implementation, one quiet but significant behavioral shift is already emerging in the private rental sector: landlords are becoming more cautious and, in some cases, more selective than ever before.
For many, the question is no longer, “How quickly can I let this property?” but rather, Who can I safely let it to?
And increasingly, some landlords may conclude that a short void period is preferable to the perceived risk of taking on a tenant who does not meet the “perfect on paper” standard.
The End of Section 21 and the Rise of Perceived Risk
The abolition of Section 21 from 1 May 2026 represents a fundamental change to the balance of risk in the private rented sector.
For decades, Section 21 acted as a safety net. It allowed landlords to regain possession without proving fault, providing reassurance that if a tenancy went wrong, there was a relatively predictable route to recovery. Its removal means landlords must now rely solely on Section 8, which requires specific statutory grounds such as rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, or breach of tenancy.
While those grounds still exist, the reality is that pursuing possession under Section 8 is slower, more complex, and heavily dependent on an already backlogged court system. Proceedings can take many months, sometimes longer, during which rental income may be uncertain and costs continue to accrue.
For landlords, this changes the risk calculation at the very start of a tenancy.
Rent in Advance: Another Safety Net Removed
The perceived risk is compounded by the removal of rent in advance as a risk-mitigation tool.
Historically, rent in advance allowed landlords to balance flexibility with protection. Applicants with less conventional profiles, such as those with historic CCJs, self-employed income, zero-hour contracts, or short UK credit histories, could still be considered if they were able to demonstrate affordability upfront.
Under the new regime, that option largely disappears. Landlords can no longer offset uncertainty with additional financial security at the outset. In practice, this may push decision-making in a more conservative direction.
Faced with a choice between:
- accepting a tenant with a non-standard profile and limited exit options, or
- waiting a few extra weeks for an applicant with stable employment, clean credit, and strong references
Many landlords may decide that void is a safer commercial decision.
Who Loses Out?
The unintended consequence is that the very tenants the Act aims to protect may find themselves facing greater barriers at the application stage.
The modern labor market is increasingly fragmented. Gig-economy workers, freelancers, contractors, carers, and those returning from financial difficulty are no longer outliers; they are a growing proportion of the workforce. Yet these applicants often fail to meet traditional referencing criteria, despite being perfectly capable of sustaining a tenancy.
As landlord caution increases, these groups risk being squeezed out of the private rented sector altogether because they don’t fit a narrow definition of “low risk,” even though they are good tenants.
The Landlord Trade-Off: Security vs Flexibility
For landlords, the trade-off is stark.
On one hand, the Renters’ Rights Act promises a fairer and more stable system for tenants. On the other, it removes key tools landlords previously relied on to manage risk efficiently. Without confidence that possession can be regained swiftly in genuine problem cases, many landlords are reassessing their exposure.
Some may respond by:
- tightening tenant selection criteria
- increasing initial rents to price in perceived risk
- favouring longer voids over marginal applicants
- or exiting the sector entirely
None of these outcomes were the stated aim of reform, but they are rational responses to a system where flexibility has been reduced without corresponding improvements in court capacity.
The Myth of the “Perfect Tenant”
The idea of a “perfect tenant” has always been something of a myth. Most successful tenancies are built on communication, pragmatism, and mutual understanding rather than flawless paperwork.
However, under the new regime, landlords may feel compelled to prioritise certainty over potential, opting for applicants who tick every box rather than those who could, with flexibility, become excellent long-term tenants.
The risk is a rental market that becomes more rigid, less inclusive, and ultimately more expensive, even as it seeks to offer greater security.
A Sector in Transition
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is a landmark reform, and its core objective, protecting tenants from arbitrary eviction, is clear and understandable. However, not everyone will experience its ripple effects equally.
Tenants gain stronger rights during a tenancy, yet may face tougher scrutiny before securing one.
Landlords lose a key mechanism for managing risk and may respond by becoming more cautious, not less.
The sector is currently undergoing a period of transition, as practitioners continue to refine the balance between fairness, risk, and accessibility. Whether the market adapts in a way that genuinely benefits both sides will depend not only on legislation but also on how courts, enforcement bodies, and landlords themselves respond over time.
For now, one thing is clear: the question is no longer whether the perfect tenant exists, but whether the system inadvertently encourages landlords to keep looking for one.
