By DSS Select | Property Market Commentary | November 2026
What happens when a government makes renting more secure for tenants, but some of the people providing those homes decide the risks are no longer worth taking?
That is one of the most uncomfortable questions facing England's private rented sector.
Tenants deserve secure, decent homes. They should not have to worry about losing their accommodation simply because they complain about repairs. Equally, landlords need confidence that they can recover possession when there is a legitimate reason, deal with rent arrears and earn a reasonable return on their investment.
Neither position is unreasonable.
Yet the debate increasingly treats tenant protection and landlord confidence as competing objectives.
After nearly 30 years working in property, I would argue that this is where housing policy risks going wrong. A successful rental market needs both. Protecting one side while undermining the confidence of the other is not a sustainable solution.
The Real Problem Isn't Just Regulation
The Renters' Rights Act 2025 represents a significant change to private renting in England. Its first major phase took effect on 1 May 2026, including the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions, the move to assured periodic tenancies and changes to rent increases and possession grounds.
For tenants, these reforms offer greater security and clearer protections.
For landlords, they require a different approach to managing property and recovering possession.
But regulation is only part of the problem.
Many landlords are already dealing with higher borrowing costs than they experienced a few years ago, expensive repairs, insurance premiums, tax pressures and increasingly complicated compliance requirements.
Consider a landlord receiving £1,500 per month in rent. That sounds like £18,000 a year. But mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, safety checks, management fees, void periods and tax can leave a surprisingly modest return.
Now introduce uncertainty over how quickly a possession case might be resolved.
For a heavily mortgaged landlord with one property, that uncertainty can matter as much as the legislation itself.
Tenants, meanwhile, face a different financial reality. Rents absorb a substantial share of household income, suitable properties are difficult to find and moving home can be expensive.
Letting agents sit between these pressures, expected to satisfy landlords, protect tenants and navigate increasingly detailed rules.
The fundamental problem is that housing policy is being asked to deliver security, affordability and investment confidence without adequately addressing the shortage of suitable homes.
Legislation can change how the market operates. It cannot, by itself, create the additional housing that the country needs.
Three Uncomfortable Questions We Need to Ask
What happens if landlords sell?
Not every landlord who sells removes a home from the housing stock. Some properties are bought by other landlords. Others become owner-occupied, which may benefit first-time buyers.
But if a rented property becomes owner-occupied, the number of homes available to rent falls unless another property enters the rental market.
That distinction matters.
A reduction in private renting may help some aspiring homeowners while making life harder for households that cannot yet buy.
The question is not simply whether landlords are leaving. It is who replaces them, and what happens to the tenants who still need rented accommodation.
Can tenants have meaningful security without an effective possession system?
A landlord should not be able to remove a tenant without a lawful reason.
Equally, a landlord facing serious rent arrears or substantial property damage needs access to a fair, functioning legal process.
The abolition of Section 21 does not prevent landlords from recovering possession. It changes the grounds and procedures they must use.
But rights on paper depend on how effectively they operate in practice.
If possession proceedings become excessively slow, landlords may respond by becoming more selective about applicants.
That could disadvantage precisely the households the reforms are intended to protect.
Are we confusing landlord confidence with landlord entitlement?
Landlords should not expect guaranteed profits, automatic rent increases or protection from normal investment risk.
Property investment has always carried risk.
However, asking landlords to accept commercial risk is different from expecting them to operate within an unpredictable system.
We need to distinguish between landlords resisting reasonable standards and responsible landlords asking for workable rules.
They are not the same thing.
What Needs to Change?
First, improve the practical operation of the possession system.
Government should monitor court waiting times, publish meaningful performance data and ensure sufficient capacity to handle possession cases fairly.
This is not about making eviction easier without justification. It is about ensuring that both landlords and tenants can rely on timely decisions.
A tenant defending an unfair claim deserves an effective hearing. A landlord with a legitimate claim deserves one too.
Second, make responsible investment more attractive.
Housing policy should encourage landlords who maintain properties, comply with safety standards and provide stable tenancies.
That requires proportionate regulation, clearer guidance and serious consideration of how taxation and improvement costs affect investment decisions.
It also requires increasing housing supply rather than relying on private landlords to compensate indefinitely for shortages elsewhere.
Third, modernise tenant assessment.
This is an overlooked opportunity.
When landlords become nervous about risk, they often tighten their selection criteria. Applicants with straightforward salaries and conventional employment histories may find it easier to pass automated referencing.
But income source alone does not establish whether someone will pay the rent reliably.
A tenant receiving Universal Credit may have a strong rental history, manageable outgoings and a proven record of maintaining a home.
A high earner may have substantial debts and little disposable income.
The Renters' Rights Act 2025 prohibits discrimination against prospective tenants simply because they receive benefits or have children. Fair affordability checks remain permissible.
Landlords and agents should therefore examine actual affordability, relevant rental history and suitability rather than rely on assumptions.
Better assessment could reduce unnecessary exclusions without requiring landlords to ignore genuine financial risks.
The DSS Select Perspective: Fairness and Confidence Must Work Together
At DSS Select, we believe the rental market needs a more practical conversation.
Tenant protection matters. So does the confidence of the people providing rental accommodation.
Our approach is not to ask landlords to abandon their standards. It is to encourage better, fairer ways of applying them.
That thinking also informs the proposed DSS Passport: a tenant-controlled profile that could help applicants present relevant affordability information, rental history and supporting evidence more clearly, while respecting privacy.
No digital platform can solve the housing shortage or remove the financial risks of letting property.
But better information, clearer communication and more consistent assessments can help landlords make informed decisions and give suitable tenants a fair opportunity.
The objective should be a market where responsible landlords want to remain and responsible tenants have a genuine chance of finding a home.
Conclusion: Protection Without Supply Is Not Enough
The government is right to address insecurity and poor standards in private renting.
But stronger tenant rights should not be judged by legislation alone. They should also be judged by whether tenants can still find suitable, affordable homes.
Equally, landlord confidence should not be measured simply by whether every investor is happy with the rules.
The real test is whether responsible landlords can operate successfully while tenants receive fair treatment and meaningful protection.
A rental market that protects tenants but discourages responsible investment risks solving one problem while creating another.
The question policymakers should be asking is not whose side they are on.
It is whether their policies are making the entire rental market work better.
