For years, the private rented sector has operated with an underlying contradiction. Most tenancies progress without major difficulty, yet the system largely relied on Section 21 in the background as a route to recover possession. Now the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is in force, that route has gone and periodic tenancies are the default. The headlines have moved on, but the practical implications are still emerging. A few weeks in, the question is no longer whether the Act is a good idea in principle. We caught up with Neil Hogbin, a partner in our rural property management team, to learn more about how it is influencing behaviour, risk and decision making across tenants, landlords and agents.
Strip it back and the change is simple. Time alone no longer ends a tenancy, and a landlord who needs possession must show a lawful ground backed by robust evidence. Rent decisions are pushed into clearer, challengeable processes and court backlogs may affect how straightforward those processes feel in practice. It’s become significantly more technical, and it reshapes the culture of letting. Supporters see that as a necessary shift towards a more transparent and professional system, while others are concerned about how the added process may affect confidence, costs and the availability of homes to rent.
One of the most immediate impacts is on confidence and expectations. Longer notice periods to obtain possession, combined with delays in securing a court judgement, are significant concerns for many landlords, particularly where rent arrears or persistent issues arise. In the most difficult cases, regaining possession can be a lengthy and costly process. At the same time, for many tenants the new framework does however offer greater security and a clearer sense that they cannot be asked to leave without a lawful reason. That does not mean tenancies become effortless. The new stability makes the relationship more managed. We are seeing a sharper focus on written communication, clearer reporting routes for issues, and tighter record keeping around notices and timelines. For many households this feels like a more professional service. For some landlords and agents, it feels like a more formal rulebook than before. Either way, less formal arrangements are being replaced by fully documented ones. That is a significant shift in the rental market. At its best, the legislation supports what both sides want: landlords value reliable tenants who care for the property and pay rent on time, while tenants want secure, stable homes that they can make their own and from which they can become part of the local community without fear of being made homeless. The strongest landlord and tenant relationships still tend to be the long-term ones, built on mutual respect and compliance with the terms of the agreement. The market has no place for poor practice on either side, and the Act is intended to create a framework in which professionalism is easier to expect and enforce.
For landlords, the story is not that everything has changed. Many were never quick to rely on Section 21. The point is that it existed as a fallback when circumstances changed or relationships broke down. For some, questions remain about whether staying in the sector still feels workable given the open-ended nature of periodic tenancies and growing compliance obligations. Others are testing whether the additional operational burden still makes commercial sense. Equally, for many renters there are clear advantages in a system that offers greater stability and more formal routes to challenge unfair treatment. Much will depend on how well the sector adapts and whether the wider system, particularly the courts, can support fair and timely outcomes for everyone involved.
Agents sit closest to the moving parts, so they feel the shift first. The Act changes the rhythm of management. Fewer renewals mean fewer natural reset points, but it also means more continuous oversight. Small errors now carry bigger consequences because the ability to exit has shifted so greatly.
The agencies coping best have treated this as a service redesign, not a compliance scramble. Templates are tighter, audit trails clearer, and staff can explain the new rules in plain English. The ones struggling tend to have inconsistent habits between teams, legacy paperwork, and processes that depend on individual judgement rather than repeatable standards. Under the new regime, that variation becomes a liability quickly.
In rural property management, the impact has its own flavour. Rural portfolios often include a mix of cottages, farmhouses and estate properties where tenancies sit alongside wider land and business objectives. The move to periodic tenancies and the removal of Section 21 makes long-term planning more important, particularly where owners may need flexibility for succession, refurbishment programmes, or changes in how an estate is run. It also puts a brighter spotlight on practical realities that can be harder in rural areas, such as access for inspections, the logistics of repairs, and the need to evidence persistent issues like damp or heating performance over time rather than treating them as one-off jobs. The upside is that well-managed rural landlords can differentiate themselves quickly, because good communication and good records travel fast in small communities.
The biggest uncertainty is not the wording of the Act, but the system around it. The reformed grounds for possession may be clearer, but outcomes will hinge on evidence thresholds, judicial interpretation and court capacity. If the process feels slow or unpredictable, pressure will build where you would expect, particularly around rent arrears, persistent anti-social behaviour, and cases where relationships break down faster than the paperwork can keep up.
Three themes are coming through. First, landlords and agents are moving from a renewal mindset to a stewardship mindset, aiming to prevent disputes because exits are now more formal. Second, documentation is a competitive advantage, because evidence underpins confident decisions. Third, the tone is shifting towards negotiation, because everyone understands that escalation can be slow and costly.
Sentiment is mixed. Many tenants feel safer. Many landlords feel less in control. Agents sit in the middle, translating statute into day-to-day decisions while managing higher expectations on both sides. The sector already feels more rules-based, but it is too early to call it simpler.
This is where experience makes a difference. In the immediate term, the priority is control: pressure-test tenancy documents, make sure teams understand the new notice and rent processes, and agree what good evidence looks like before a case goes wrong. We also help reset expectations. Landlords need a realistic view of timelines and proof requirements, and tenants need clear routes to report issues and get responses. Good tenant selection also becomes an even more important factor.
Over the next six to twelve months, the goal is resilience. That means training, quality assurance and clear escalation routes so advice is consistent and defensible. It means organising portfolio and compliance records for a more transparent enforcement environment. And it means a planned approach to rent reviews that is commercially realistic, evidence-based and communicated well. Good systems do not just support compliance. They help create clearer expectations and more consistent outcomes for landlords, tenants and agents alike.
So far, the Act is delivering its central promise with tenants feeling more secure, but with many landlords leaving the sector, and this trend likely to continue further, privately rented properties will become scarcer and with that, rents will be pushed upwards further impacting most of all on those people where renting is their only option.