Scott Goldstein opened the discussion with a look at the impact of the new “no fault eviction” system, which is a central feature of the reform. It represents the biggest change in over thirty years and is a major shift from a model in which many landlords could recover possession through relatively straightforward statutory mechanisms to one in which possession is almost invariably dependent on litigation grounded in specific statutory criteria. He also looked at the ending of assured shorthold tenancies and their replacement with indefinite periodic arrangements which will not only have a legal but a practical impact on how landlords calculate deposit amounts, for example.
Matthew Spring commented on strategic choices facing landlords. He looked at the wider implications for the rental market because of the new rules , and the readiness of the justice system to deal with a potential tidal wave of disputed possessions and indeed rental amount calculations. Housing possession claims constitute a significant proportion of the existing civil caseload, with delays already prevalent. The Act does not incorporate any statutory requirement for additional judicial appointments, resourcing, or administrative support, with foreseeable risk that the volume and complexity of claims will outstrip the system’s capacity to provide timely adjudication.
In particular, the perverse incentive on a tenant to challenge a rent increase due to the provisions in the Act that cap any increase to the figure the landlord proposes and dates any increase only from the time of the tribunal’s determination, rather than back to that of the landlord’s actual proposal, with resulting likelihood of tenants almost literally seeking to buy time by lodging a challenge.
We looked at the stages of the Act’s implementation. The new tenancy framework takes effect before the full operationalisation of the Private Rented Sector Ombudsman and the national database. While these institutions are not substitutes for judicial determination of possession claims, they are intended to offer early-stage dispute resolution and information alignment. Their absence during the initial period of reform will likely increase reliance on the courts at precisely the moment when the system is least prepared to absorb additional pressure. It is also regrettable that the Ombudsman regime is intended only to address complaints by tenants, not landlords.
There is additional uncertainty as to whether specialist housing tribunals—long proposed by commentators—should assume a greater role in possession adjudication. The absence of such structural reform leaves the burden squarely on the existing system, whose existing delays risk undermining the effectiveness of the new statutory regime.
In summary, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 represents a significant recalibration of tenants’ and landlords’ rights, but its long-term success hinges on procedural capacity. Without parallel investment in judicial infrastructure, the reforms risk generating a system in which legal rights proliferate, but legal remedies stagnate.
Our thanks to the panel and to our guests, whose interventions and questions made for not only a lively debate, but also shed light on some practical ways forward as this major change takes effect.
