"The landlords most at risk are the ones who are well-informed but believe that simply being aware of these changes is enough."
- Mark Dawson - AST Assistance
The Renters’ Rights Act has generated significant media coverage, mostly from the tenant’s perspective. For landlords, particularly those managing multiple properties without professional support, the challenge doesn’t come from knowing the legislation but from carrying out all of the required actions correctly and on time. Compliance requires documentation, process, and conduct; it cannot be achieved with a single action.
There is a prevailing assumption that non-compliance is a problem for bad landlords. However, the greater risk lies with the well-intentioned landlords who read the headlines, set out to update their tenancy agreement, but never quite got around to it. For these landlords, liability should not be considered a distant risk; it’s an immediate and ongoing issue.
Liability arises from the gap between knowing the legal requirements and putting them into practice. Most landlords are not intentionally breaking the law; they are just behind.
Where the operational gap lives
The transition to the new legislative framework creates a range of immediate compliance risks for landlords. Many tenancy agreements that were legally compliant when drafted are now out of date because they do not comply with the new legal requirements. Existing notice procedures may continue to reference Section 21, while their tenancy agreements may contain rent increase rules that no longer comply with the new limits.
In addition, gaps in record-keeping can significantly weaken a landlord’s position by undermining their ability to rely on Section 8 grounds if a claim is challenged. These issues illustrate how existing documentation and operational practices can become sources of legal liability unless they are reviewed and updated to reflect the new regulatory framework.
Non-compliance risk is not evenly distributed; the structural characteristics of the UK’s private rental sector mean the most exposed landlords are also the ones who are least supported.
The accidental landlord profile
The UK rental landscape is largely characterised by small-scale landlords, with 83% of landlords having fewer than 4 rental properties. A significant proportion of these landlords only have one or two properties and manage their properties without a letting agent.
Unlike larger portfolio landlords, these small-scale landlords don’t have a professional intermediary to flag documentation failures or update tenancy agreements. This can therefore result in a stronger risk of unintentional non-compliance.
Portfolio landlords are not automatically safe from non-compliance, simply because they operate on a larger scale or have greater resources. In fact, the size and scale of their property portfolio can create additional challenges, particularly when outdated practices are repeated across multiple properties.
The widespread use of standardised tenancy documents can create a contingency risk if those templates have not been reviewed to update legislative changes. A single non-compliant clause, when used across an entire property portfolio, can expose a landlord to significant legal challenges.
Similarly, legacy tenancies entered into before the start of new legislation have since become statutory periodic tenancies, while containing terms that don’t align with the new legislative changes. Unless these documents have been reviewed and updated where appropriate, they can present ongoing compliance risks for landlords.
Appointing a managing agent does not transfer a landlord’s legal responsibilities under the Act. Although property letting and management agents have their own compliance obligations, ultimately it is the landlord who is responsible for making sure their property is compliant with the law. The legal duty cannot be fully handed to a managing agent.
The cost of getting it wrong: the consequences of non-compliance
Simply understanding the rules of the Renters’ Rights Act is not enough. Landlords must be able to consistently implement the correct processes, as small compliance failures can quickly become costly legal and financial problems.
Failure to follow the correct procedures can affect a landlord’s ability to manage a tenancy, recover possession, or defend their actions.
In many cases, possession claims fail due to the incorrect legal procedures being followed, such as when serving notice to tenants. This may involve using the wrong forms, not providing the specific grounds and reasoning for eviction within a notice or being unable to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the correct notice period and steps were followed when reclaiming access to the property.
Even when a landlord has followed the correct procedures for possession, procedural errors can result in delays and a claim being unsuccessful.
Non-compliance can result in more than a failed tenancy management process; it can also lead to financial penalties and enforcement. Local authorities have the ability to investigate landlord breaches and take action when legal standards are not met. Local authorities can enforce civil fines for serious or repeated non-compliance.
Furthermore, the Private Rented Sector (PRS) Landlord Ombudsman will provide a formal route for tenant complaints and dispute resolution. This will involve a phased rollout with initial stages beginning in late 2026. While landlords won’t be required to register until 2028, it’s advisable to prepare now by implementing clear processes, record-keeping, and thorough evidence collation so you can easily demonstrate compliance should it be required.
The financial impact of compliance failures
For landlords, a single procedural mistake at the beginning of a tenancy can impact the entire eviction process and lead to escalating costs. For instance, delayed or failed possession proceedings can accumulate significant costs through legal fees, court delays, re-serving notices and additional administrative costs.
This is worsened by the loss of rental income during the eviction process. It is illegal to force a tenant out of accommodation during this process, so typically tenants remain while issues are corrected. In some cases, eviction proceedings can last up to 6 months due to delays, resulting in a significant amount of lost income.
Many buy-to-let mortgage agreements require landlords to comply with relevant housing legislation. Therefore, significant compliance failures may place landlords at risk of breaching their mortgage conditions, leading to increased interest rates or penalty fees. Non-compliance can also have a huge impact on insurance policies, affecting their coverage and complicating insurance claims.
Additionally, the potential fines landlords face are particularly significant. For instance, failing to protect a tenant's deposit in a government-approved scheme and provide them with the prescribed info within 30 days could result in the landlord being liable to pay up to three times the amount of the deposit back to the tenant if the tenant were to pursue a claim. Councils also now have the authority to give on-the-spot £7k fines if they deem a property unfit.
Compliance failures are often connected, so one issue can reveal multiple others. For instance, if an incorrect notice is served to tenants, they may file a complaint that requires further investigation. In many cases, these investigations can identify issues such as an outdated tenancy agreement, missing deposit information, poor record-keeping and incorrect prescribed documents.
A compliance issue can result in increased costs through correcting documentation, re-serving notices and getting legal advice. It also results in the delay of possession proceedings, adding additional time before the property can be recovered and a continued loss of rental income. Furthermore, if wider compliance issues are identified, possible claims can arise from these breaches, resulting in significant reputational damage.
The four operational areas creating the greatest compliance risk
Most landlord compliance failures occur in four practical areas. These are not necessarily caused by bad intentions; they often result from outdated documents, changing legislation, or poor systems.
Existing tenancy agreements may no longer reflect current legal requirements, following changes in legislation. These outdated clauses may become unenforceable and can create wider compliance risks, including potential financial penalties where statutory obligations have not been met.
A common issue arises when older agreements containing fixed-term clauses no longer reflect the periodic tenancy model. New and existing tenancies automatically convert to rolling agreements, without the strict end dates, break clauses and old rent reviews that are in fixed-term clauses. References to previous processes, rights, or possession procedures may also create confusion and lead landlords to follow outdated practices.
Another area of concern is missing or incorrect prescribed information. Landlords have specific obligations to provide tenants with required documentation, and failure to do so can create legal exposure even where the tenancy itself is otherwise valid. Without accurate records demonstrating compliance, landlords may struggle to defend their position if challenged, highlighting the importance of regularly reviewing tenancy agreements and ensuring that all documentation reflects current legal requirements.
Deposit compliance also remains a common area where administrative mistakes create legal exposure for landlords. Although deposit protection is often viewed as a routine responsibility, failures in the process can have wider consequences, particularly where landlords cannot demonstrate that they have met their legal obligations.
Landlords must ensure that tenant deposits are protected within the required timeframe and that the correct prescribed information is provided. It is not enough for landlords to have protected the deposit; they must also be able to prove that the correct information was provided and the necessary steps were completed correctly.
Deposit failures can directly impact a landlord's ability to take possession of a property. In the event that deposit obligations have not been properly met, landlords may face restrictions on using certain possession procedures until the issue has been resolved. This means that an otherwise valid possession claim could be delayed or challenged because of an earlier administrative failure.
Thirdly, the changes introduced through the Renter’s Rights Act mean that landlords can no longer rely on previous possession procedures. Minor administrative errors can invalidate the entire process, so it is essential that landlords have a full understanding of the new legal requirements.
The abolition of Section 21 'no-fault' evictions means landlords must now rely on the appropriate Section 8 possession grounds. This places greater emphasis on selecting the correct ground for possession and ensuring that all statutory requirements have been met before serving notice.
Landlords must understand the difference between mandatory and discretionary grounds, select the correct ground for possession, and serve the appropriate forms within the required notice periods. Strong evidence, including tenancy records, rent statements and relevant correspondence, will also be essential to support possession claims.
To avoid legal challenges, landlords must also keep a record of all documentation that proves they are complying with the updated legislation. This involves maintaining records of rent payments, repairs and maintenance required, deposit communication and notices served. It is also important that landlords keep a record of all communications with tenants, including text and email exchanges.
Poor record-keeping can risk landlords having no proof of compliance, weakening their position in legal disputes and invalidating possession claims. This lack of evidence and record-keeping can result in financial penalties.
How landlords can stay compliant moving forward
The Renters’ Rights Act is an operational law, so for landlords who have not updated their processes, liability may exist in their current documentation. Non-compliance can easily be fixed by updating tenancy agreements and deposit procedures, keeping thorough records and correctly handling notice procedures.
A proactive compliance audit is the most cost-effective risk management tool available to private landlords in 2026. The landlords most at risk are the ones who are well-informed but believe that simply being aware of these changes is enough. Taking proactive steps to comply with these legislative changes is crucial, or they risk legal exposure.
