Research suggesting that more than half of tenants experienced a rent increase after the Government announced its rental reforms has revived an important question: has legislation intended to protect tenants actually made renting more expensive?
The answer is not as simple as blaming every increase on the Renters’ Rights Act. Rents were already rising because of insufficient rental supply, higher mortgage costs, taxation and landlords leaving the market.
However, there are credible reasons to believe that the Act has added further pressure and encouraged some landlords to review rents sooner than they otherwise would have done.
What Does the Evidence Show?
Research reported by The Negotiator found that 53% of tenants surveyed had experienced a rent increase since the reforms were announced in September 2024. The researchers suggested that landlords may have been increasing rents before the new restrictions and tenant protections took effect.
That finding demonstrates correlation, but it does not prove that the legislation caused every reported increase. Tenants may have faced higher rents during the same period for several different reasons.
Official figures nevertheless confirm that rents have continued to rise. According to the Office for National Statistics, the average UK private rent reached £1,388 per month in June 2026, an increase of 3.3% over the preceding year.
It is also important to recognise that rental growth is not uniform. Separate London research found that rents rose by just 0.7% during the five months after the Act received Royal Assent — the same increase recorded during the comparable period before Royal Assent. That suggests landlords have not responded in exactly the same way in every market.
The fairest conclusion is therefore that the Act has probably influenced the timing and size of some rent reviews, but it cannot reasonably be held responsible for every rent increase.
Why Might the Act Push Rents Higher?
Landlords can now increase rent only once a year
Since 1 May 2026, rent increases in England have generally had to follow the formal statutory process and can take place only once in any 12-month period.
This may sound beneficial to tenants, but it can also change landlord behaviour. A landlord who previously left the rent unchanged for several years may now feel pressure to conduct an annual review rather than risk falling substantially behind the market.
In other words, restricting how frequently rents can be increased may unintentionally encourage more landlords to use every available annual opportunity.
The Government’s own guidance confirms that the main provisions of the Act, including the revised rules governing rent increases, came into force on 1 May 2026. (GOV.UK)
Tenants have greater scope to challenge increases
Tenants can challenge a proposed increase through the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal will consider the market rent for the property and cannot impose a rent above the amount requested by the landlord.
That protection may prevent unreasonable increases. However, it may also encourage landlords to make sure that proposed rents are fully aligned with comparable market evidence.
Some landlords who previously charged below-market rents because they had a reliable tenant may become less willing to maintain that discount. They may believe that the safest approach is to keep rents regularly aligned with the wider market rather than allowing a large gap to develop.
Greater possession risk has a financial value
The abolition of Section 21 has increased the importance of the statutory possession grounds.
Responsible landlords do not routinely evict satisfactory tenants without good reason. Nevertheless, the removal of Section 21 changes the risk attached to owning and letting a property. Recovering possession may take longer, require more evidence and involve greater legal expense.
Where an investment becomes more difficult, expensive or uncertain to manage, landlords are likely to seek a higher return to compensate for that risk.
This does not mean every landlord will immediately increase the rent. It does mean that the required return from residential property may gradually rise.
Compliance has become more expensive
The Act introduces or supports a substantial range of obligations, including the new tenancy regime, a landlord redress scheme, a private rented sector database, stronger enforcement, revised possession procedures and further property-standard requirements.
Some of these measures have not yet produced their full cost because implementation is being phased. Landlords and agents are nevertheless already spending money on training, updated documentation, professional advice, software and revised management procedures.
From 1 May 2026, serious breaches can expose landlords and agents to substantial financial penalties, with fines reaching as much as £40,000 for certain offences.
Those costs ultimately have to be funded. Where they cannot be absorbed from an already reduced margin, they are likely to be reflected in rents.
The More Serious Problem Is Rental Supply
The greatest risk is not that every landlord adds a few pounds to the monthly rent because of a new form or registration fee. It is that more landlords decide the combination of taxation, regulation, mortgage costs and possession risk makes continuing in the sector unattractive.
When a landlord sells to another landlord, rental supply is preserved. When a rented property is sold to an owner-occupier, the number of homes available to tenants generally falls.
Demand does not disappear simply because the property leaves the private rented sector. The displaced tenant still needs somewhere to live, while the person purchasing the property may previously have been living with family or in a different part of the housing market.
The result is more tenants competing for fewer homes.
This imbalance gives landlords with available properties greater pricing power. Even landlords who do not deliberately increase rents because of the Act may find that the market rent for their property has risen because competing supply has declined.
That is the central contradiction within the reforms: stronger protection for tenants already occupying a property may be accompanied by fewer choices and higher entry rents for people trying to secure their next home.
Upfront Rents and Risk-Based Pricing
The Act also limits the amount of rent that can normally be requested in advance.
The intention is to prevent tenants from being priced out because they cannot provide several months’ rent before moving in. However, rent in advance was sometimes used to reduce risk where an applicant had irregular income, limited UK credit history or could not provide a suitable guarantor.
Removing that option does not remove the underlying risk.
Some landlords may respond by applying stricter referencing criteria. Others may prefer applicants with conventional employment and stronger financial records. Across the wider market, landlords may also seek a higher rent to compensate for the increased possibility of arrears.
A measure intended to improve access could therefore make it more difficult for some applicants to secure a tenancy.
Did Landlords Raise Rents Before the Act?
It is plausible that some landlords brought rent reviews forward before the new system began.
Before 1 May 2026, landlords knew that future increases would be limited to once a year and could be challenged through the revised process. Those with rents substantially below market levels had an incentive to review them before implementation.
Others may have wanted a higher starting rent because new tenancies would become open-ended rather than having a guaranteed fixed term.
That does not mean landlords were exploiting the legislation. In many cases, they may simply have been reassessing whether the income from the property remained sufficient to cover mortgage payments, insurance, repairs, taxation, management and the new regulatory risks.
Rents Were Rising Before These Reforms
Any serious analysis must acknowledge that the affordability crisis predates the Renters’ Rights Act.
Landlords have faced:
- higher mortgage and refinancing costs;
- restrictions on mortgage interest tax relief;
- increased maintenance and contractor costs;
- higher insurance premiums;
- licensing and local authority charges;
- additional compliance requirements; and
- uncertainty over future taxation and regulation.
At the same time, demand has remained strong in many areas while the supply of available rental homes has failed to keep pace.
The Act was therefore introduced into a market where rents were already under sustained upward pressure. It did not create the underlying shortage, but aspects of it may have intensified the consequences.
Correlation Is Not the Same as Causation
It would be misleading to say that rents rose solely because the Government announced the reforms. It would be equally misleading to claim that imposing additional costs and risks on landlords has no effect on rents.
Individual surveys can show what happened to respondents, but proving that one particular law caused a national rent movement requires longer-term data and comparison with other economic influences.
The full effect of the legislation may not become clear for several years. The most important indicators will include:
- changes in the number of private rented homes;
- the number of landlords buying and selling;
- rents on newly advertised properties;
- the frequency of annual rent reviews;
- possession times and court delays;
- landlord compliance costs; and
- the number of prospective tenants competing for each available home.
Protecting Tenants Requires Protecting Supply
The objectives behind the Renters’ Rights Act — better standards, greater security and action against rogue landlords — are understandable.
The problem is that tenant protection cannot be considered separately from the economics of providing rental housing.
If landlords face greater costs, reduced flexibility and higher risk, some will increase rents, some will become more selective and some will leave altogether. Each of those responses can make life harder for tenants, particularly those with lower incomes or less conventional financial circumstances.
The evidence so far does not prove that the Act is solely responsible for rising rents. It does, however, support the concern that the reforms have encouraged some landlords to review rents, price risk more carefully and reconsider whether remaining in the sector is worthwhile.
If the Government genuinely wants to improve affordability, regulation alone will not achieve it. England needs more rental homes, more landlord confidence and policies that encourage responsible investment.
Without sufficient supply, every additional burden risks being reflected either in higher rents or fewer homes from which tenants can choose.
NetRent does not provide legal advice. This article represents our general understanding of the private rented sector and is provided for information only.