As a business, we often talk about policy in principle. What matters more, in practice, is how it changes behaviour on the ground.
Alongside my role as Managing Director of Plan Insurance Brokers, I also oversee our family’s property investment company. We established it 25 years ago, in a far more predictable and accommodating environment for landlords, with a clear long-term aim: to underpin our retirement planning through disciplined investment and steady stewardship of property assets.
That backdrop matters, because one of the first genuinely tangible impacts of the Renters’ Rights Act has now arrived rather sooner than expected.
The Act received Royal Assent in October 2025, with the core tenancy reforms coming into force from May 2026. Its intention is clear: to improve tenant security and create a more stable private rented sector.
Plan Insurance Brokers can accommodate your Property Owners & Landlord Insurance needs. Just fill in our short call back form, and our professional brokers will be in contact to arrange your insurance.
A once straightforward decision is no longer straightforward
We have a property within our portfolio that, in normal circumstances, I would be minded to sell.
The rationale is simple and commercially sound:
- Release capital tied up in the property
- Redeploy it into other parts of the business
- Support growth, investment, and employment elsewhere
Historically, that would have been a relatively neutral decision. Test the market, pursue a sale, and adjust course if conditions change. Under the new framework, it is no longer neutral.
To regain possession in order to sell, a landlord must rely on Ground 1A, which carries:
- A minimum four-month notice period
- A restriction on using the ground during the first 12 months of a tenancy
- Constraints on re-letting or marketing the property after possession has been recovered using that ground
If a sale proceeds smoothly, none of this presents an issue. The challenge arises when it doesn’t.
The risk that changes the decision
If the market fails to produce a buyer at a sensible price, the landlord may find themselves holding an empty property, with materially reduced flexibility to generate income in the interim.
In a stable market, that is an inconvenience. In a more uncertain environment, it becomes a meaningful financial risk.
We are currently operating against a backdrop of:
- Economic uncertainty
- Elevated borrowing costs relative to recent years
- A more cautious buyer pool
In that context, the prospect of carrying an unlet property for a prolonged period is not a marginal consideration. It is a central part of the decision-making process. And in our case, there is an additional layer.
The refurbishment dilemma
The property in question is not uninhabitable. Far from it. But it is beginning to show its age. To maintain the standard we have always aimed for, accommodation that one of our own family would be comfortable living in, some level of capital investment will soon be required.
That creates a familiar, but now more complex, calculation:
- Invest in refurbishment and extend the holding period
- Sell and redeploy capital more productively elsewhere
The difficulty now is that the exit route carries more downside risk, while the investment case is not obviously compelling in isolation. The rational response, at least for now, is to do neither. Not to invest heavily. Not to exit. Simply to hold.
An unintended consequence?
If this line of thinking is replicated across the market, it raises a broader question. The legislation is clearly delivering on one of its stated objectives. Tenant security is increased, in part because landlords are more cautious about regaining possession and exiting the sector. But there may be second-order effects worth recognising:
- Reduced transaction volume – Fewer properties brought to market, particularly to owner-occupiers
- Slower capital recycling – Landlords less willing to reallocate capital into new developments or alternative investments
- Deferred maintenance and upgrades – Where neither refurbishment nor disposal stacks up commercially
These consequences do not stem from bad faith. It is simply the result of rational decision-making in response to a changed risk profile.
A question of balance
None of this is an argument against stronger tenant protections.
- Stability matters
- Predictability matters
- Minimum standards must be upheld
Those are all reasonable and necessary objectives. The more difficult question is one of balance. At what point does improved security at the front end begin to constrain: the flow of capital into the sector, willingness to invest in existing stock and the overall dynamism of the housing market
From theory to practice
It is too early to draw firm conclusions. What is clear is that the Renters’ Rights Act is no longer a theoretical framework. It is already shaping real-world decisions. In our case, the outcome is simple: we have chosen to do nothing for the time being. Not because it is the most profitable path, but because it is the most rational given the current constraints.
My instinct is that this will not be an isolated outcome. The more interesting question is how widespread this behaviour becomes, and what that means for: housing supply, asset quality and longer-term investment into the sector
We would be interested to hear how other landlords, investors, and advisers are thinking about similar trade-offs. Because it is in understanding these practical decisions, rather than by analysing the legislation itself, that the true impact will become apparent.
