DSS Select | 23 October 2026
The private rented sector is under pressure. Landlords are reviewing their portfolios, tenants are struggling to find affordable homes, and letting agents are dealing with an increasingly complicated regulatory environment.
The Renters’ Rights Act has become a central part of that conversation.
Some landlords see it as another reason to sell. Others believe the reforms are overdue and will finally address long-standing problems in the rental market.
But there is a more important question than whether landlords like the new legislation.
Can we improve tenants’ rights without making it less attractive for responsible landlords to provide rental homes?
At DSS Select, we believe we have to achieve both.
Because protecting tenants is essential. But so is ensuring there are enough properties available for them to rent.
Landlords Were Leaving Before the Act
Let's establish something from the outset.
Not every landlord selling a rental property is doing so because of the Renters’ Rights Act.
Landlords sell for all sorts of reasons.
Some are retiring. Others are releasing equity, dealing with higher mortgage costs, responding to tax changes or simply deciding their investment no longer delivers an acceptable return.
For some, the property has become more trouble than it is worth.
These pressures existed long before the latest legislation.
However, the Renters’ Rights Act adds another consideration to an already difficult commercial decision.
The question is not whether the legislation is solely responsible for landlords leaving.
It is whether the combined effect of regulation, taxation, costs and uncertainty is making more landlords question why they should stay.
That distinction matters.
The Problem Is Confidence, Not Just Cost
When people discuss landlord exits, the conversation usually turns to money.
Higher mortgage payments. Maintenance costs. Licensing fees. Insurance. Taxation. Compliance.
All legitimate concerns.
But there is another issue that receives less attention.
Confidence.
A landlord needs confidence that rent will be paid, that problems can be resolved within a reasonable period and that there is a workable legal process when a tenancy genuinely breaks down.
The Renters’ Rights Act has changed how landlords recover possession.
Section 21 has been abolished in England, with landlords now relying on specified legal grounds when seeking possession.
For tenants, removing no-fault eviction provides greater security.
For landlords, it places greater importance on the effectiveness of the remaining possession process.
That is not necessarily a problem if the system works efficiently.
But if a landlord experiences serious arrears or persistent breaches of tenancy and then faces lengthy delays in recovering possession, the financial consequences can be substantial.
A right written into legislation is only as effective as the system responsible for enforcing it.
That applies to tenants and landlords alike.
Regulation Is Necessary. So Is Proportionality.
There is no serious argument for allowing unsafe properties or irresponsible landlords to operate without consequences.
Tenants should expect safe accommodation, reasonable standards and protection from unfair treatment.
Responsible landlords should support those principles.
In fact, landlords who invest in maintaining their properties have every reason to want effective enforcement against operators who ignore their obligations.
But regulation should distinguish between deliberate misconduct and genuine mistakes.
A landlord who knowingly lets an unsafe property should face appropriate consequences.
A landlord who misses an administrative deadline while attempting to comply should have a reasonable opportunity to put matters right, where the law allows.
The objective should be better housing standards.
Not simply more paperwork.
And certainly not a system so complicated that small landlords feel they need a legal adviser every time they make a routine decision.
Small Landlords Matter More Than We Admit
Much of the private rented sector is made up of individuals with relatively small portfolios.
They are not necessarily professional property companies with compliance departments, legal teams and dedicated maintenance staff.
Some own one rental property.
Others have two or three.
They may have invested their savings, inherited a property or retained a former family home.
These landlords still have the same legal responsibilities as larger operators.
But they do not have the same resources.
Every new requirement means another process to understand, another deadline to monitor or another professional service to arrange.
Individually, those obligations may be manageable.
Collectively, they can become overwhelming.
And when a landlord decides that selling is easier than continuing to let, the impact is not limited to that landlord.
A rental home may disappear from the available market.
A Property Sold Is Not Always a Home Lost — But It Can Be a Rental Home Lost
We need to be precise about this.
When a landlord sells a property, the building does not disappear.
It may be purchased by another landlord and remain available to rent.
It may be bought by an owner-occupier.
It may even become a better home for the household purchasing it.
But where a previously rented property moves into owner-occupation, it reduces the stock available to private tenants.
That matters when rental demand is already intense.
A family looking for a three-bedroom rental property cannot simply substitute the opportunity to buy one.
Their circumstances may not allow it.
Likewise, a council trying to move a household out of temporary accommodation needs an available property and a landlord willing to let it.
Housing supply is not just about how many buildings exist. It is about which households can actually access them.
The Government Needs Landlords to Stay
This is where the discussion becomes practical.
The country cannot solve its housing problems through new construction alone.
Building more homes is essential, but development takes time.
Meanwhile, there are existing privately owned properties capable of providing accommodation today.
If the objective is to improve access to housing, retaining responsible landlords should be part of the strategy.
That does not mean reversing reasonable tenant protections.
It means recognising that landlords need a viable reason to continue operating.
A landlord who receives reliable rent, has professional support, understands their compliance obligations and can resolve problems efficiently is more likely to view renting as a sustainable business.
Those are areas where policy and the property industry can make a difference.
Give Landlords Practical Reasons to Remain
Rather than treating every additional regulation as a separate exercise, the sector should concentrate on making responsible letting easier.
That could mean simpler compliance systems, clearer guidance and more consistent requirements across local authorities.
It could mean better access to property improvement funding.
It could mean quicker and more reliable possession proceedings where landlords have established legitimate grounds.
And it could mean greater cooperation between councils, letting agents and landlords to reduce void periods and improve tenant placement.
There is also a strong case for expanding suitable deposit support, rent guarantees and early arrears intervention arrangements.
Not every landlord wants the highest possible rent.
Some value certainty more.
A slightly lower rent supported by reliable payment arrangements and professional management may be commercially preferable to a higher headline figure accompanied by greater uncertainty.
The industry needs to offer landlords more than another list of obligations. It needs to offer solutions.
Tenants Also Lose When Confidence Falls
There is a danger in treating the rental market as a contest between landlords and tenants.
It isn't.
Both depend on a functioning system.
If landlords become increasingly selective because they are worried about arrears, legal costs or possession delays, applicants who do not meet conventional referencing criteria can find themselves excluded.
That includes people receiving Universal Credit, applicants without homeowner guarantors and households moving from temporary or supported accommodation.
Some of those applicants have perfectly satisfactory rental histories and sufficient income to sustain a tenancy.
But their circumstances do not fit the standard referencing model.
At DSS Select, we believe better assessment is part of the answer.
Our proposed Tenant Passport brings together information about affordability, rental history, references and available support.
Our Verified Alternative Guarantee Framework (VAGF) is designed to provide an additional evidence-based assessment where a traditional guarantor is unavailable. It is not itself a financial guarantee.
The aim is not to persuade landlords to ignore risk.
It is to give them better information to assess it.
Because rejecting an applicant simply because they receive benefits or cannot provide a homeowner guarantor may mean overlooking someone capable of maintaining a successful tenancy.
Local Authorities Have a Role to Play
Councils are dealing with substantial housing pressures.
Many need private landlords to help accommodate households who cannot immediately access social housing.
Yet landlords are sometimes reluctant to participate in council-supported schemes because they are uncertain about payments, property responsibilities or what happens if a tenancy experiences difficulties.
Those concerns need practical answers.
A clear support arrangement, a named contact, transparent payment arrangements and early intervention can make a real difference.
DSS Select believes closer partnerships between local authorities, letting agents, housing organisations and landlords could help unlock more suitable accommodation.
But these partnerships must work commercially.
Good intentions alone will not persuade landlords to make their properties available.
The DSS Select View: Protect Tenants, Retain Landlords
The Renters’ Rights Act represents a significant change to the private rented sector.
Some of its reforms address genuine problems experienced by tenants.
Others raise legitimate questions about implementation, enforcement and the confidence of property owners.
The effects on landlord behaviour will need to be measured over time rather than assumed.
But one principle should already be clear.
A successful rental market needs both strong tenant protections and landlords who are willing to provide homes.
We should not be forced to choose between the two.
The debate needs to move beyond asking whether landlords are leaving because of the Act.
We should be asking what would encourage responsible landlords to remain, what would give new landlords confidence to enter the market and how we can make existing rental properties more accessible to suitable tenants.
At DSS Select, we believe the answer lies in better information, practical support and stronger partnerships.
Protect tenants from poor practice.
Help landlords meet their obligations.
Make possession processes work fairly and efficiently.
Reduce unnecessary financial uncertainty.
And create more routes into renting for people who struggle with traditional referencing.
The Renters’ Rights Act should not be judged simply by the rules it introduces.
It should also be judged by whether England ends up with a safer, fairer and more sustainable private rental market.
Because tenants need rights.
But they also need homes.
About DSS Select
DSS Select is a UK property platform working to improve access to private rented accommodation by connecting prospective tenants, landlords, letting agents and housing organisations.
Our focus is on better tenant assessment, stronger landlord confidence and practical partnerships that help make renting work for everyone.
