Why the Standard Rent-to-Rent Model Will Struggle Under the New Renters’ Rights Bill

Rent2Rent has taken the rental market by storm, offering landlords a handsfree option with guaranteed rent, but has time run out for the standard R2R model as we know it?

The Renters’ Rights Bill represents a significant shift in the legal framework governing the relationship between landlords, tenants, and rent-to-rent (R2R) operators. These changes introduce a range of new liabilities and challenges, making the standard R2R model increasingly less viable for landlords. The Bill, which seeks to improve tenant protections, is poised to dramatically alter the way landlords can operate within the R2R space, potentially exposing them to increased risks and financial liabilities.

Here are the key reasons why the standard Rent2Rent model will likely struggle under the new Renters’ Rights Bill.

1. No Legal Right to Vacant Possession After Agreement Ends

One of the most significant changes under the new Renters’ Rights Bill is the removal of a landlord’s automatic right to vacant possession at the end of an R2R agreement. In a standard R2R arrangement, an operator rents a property from a landlord, sublets it to tenants, and provides guaranteed rent to the property owner. However, under the new Bill, when the R2R agreement comes to an end, landlords will no longer have an automatic right to reclaim their property if tenants are still occupying it.

This means landlords could be left “holding the baby,” inheriting tenants from the R2R operator, whom they cannot easily evict. If tenants remain in place after the R2R agreement ends or if the operator goes out of business or worse still, does a moonlight flit, landlords may find themselves legally unable to remove the occupants, complicating the transition of getting the property back into their control.

This new rule substantially heightens the risk for property owners, who could be left with tenants they didn’t personally select and have no legal route to remove them without the protection of s21.

   2. Increased Landlord Liability: Overruling Rakusem vs Jepson

Another major concern for landlords is that the Renters’ Rights Bill will override the Supreme Court ruling in Rakusem vs Jepson. In this case, the court had previously established that R2R operators responsible for tenant-related issues and acted as immediate landlord and would face any penalty for breach, leaving the property owner or superior landlord safe. However, the new Bill changes this dynamic by making property owners directly responsible for the failings of R2R operators.

For example, if an R2R operator breaches its obligations regarding property management, tenant safety, or legal compliance, it is now the landlord who will face the consequences. This exposes landlords to fines, legal action, and other penalties, even if they had no direct involvement in the R2R operator’s management of the property. This increased liability makes the R2R model far less appealing, as landlords will be held accountable for the shortcomings of third-party operators, even when they are not directly managing the tenants.

    3. Extended Rent Repayment Orders: Up to 24 Months

Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, tenants will have the right to claim back up to 24 months of rent via Rent Repayment Orders (RROs) if a landlord or R2R operator is found to have breached legal obligations. This is a significant increase from the current limit of 12 months, doubling the financial risk to landlords.

Given that R2R operators are responsible for managing properties and ensuring legal compliance, a breach by the operator could result in tenants seeking large sums of compensation from the property owner. If an R2R operator fails to adhere to safety regulations, licensing, or other legal requirements, landlords could find themselves liable for up to two years of rent repayments, despite not being involved in the day-to-day management of the property or receiving the rent payment directly.

    4. Heavier Fines and Penalties for Non-Compliance

The Bill also introduces a sharp increase in financial penalties for non-compliance. Fines for landlords will rise from £5,000 to £7,000 for minor offences and from £30,000 to £40,000 for more serious or continued breaches. These increased penalties further highlight the financial risk for landlords in a R2R arrangement, where they have limited oversight but are still held responsible for legal compliance.

This substantial increase in fines could push many landlords to reconsider whether R2R is a financially viable option, as the risks of non-compliance by an inexperienced R2R operator could lead to severe financial penalties for the property owner.

    5. Stricter Eviction Grounds: Rent Arrears Threshold Increased

One of the most contentious aspects of the Renters’ Rights Bill is the change to rent arrears thresholds for eviction under Ground 8. The threshold for serving notice of eviction due to rent arrears will increase from 2 months to 3 months, and the notice period will extend from 2 weeks to 4 weeks. For R2R operators, this means that if tenants fall into arrears, they will have to wait longer before they can take legal action to evict, meaning R2R operators may struggle to meet their obligation for paying guaranteed rent to the landlord

This change places further pressure on the R2R model, as operators are now required to have more cash reserves to provide guaranteed rent to landlords if their tenants fail to pay. The extended arrears threshold also raises the risk that landlords will be left without rental income for longer periods while being unable to remove defaulting tenants.

Without sufficient financial backing, many R2R operators may struggle to provide this level of security, particularly if they face tenants with rent arrears for up to three months. As a result, landlords may become more wary of entering into R2R agreements unless operators can provide more substantial guarantees, further complicating the viability of the model.

    6. Need for Larger Deposits

Given the increased risks, landlords may begin demanding more substantial deposits from R2R operators to protect themselves against potential losses. These larger deposits would act as a safeguard against the financial risks posed by extended arrears, the higher fines under the new Bill, and the risk of inheriting tenants. For smaller R2R operators, raising this kind of capital could prove difficult, limiting their ability to enter into new agreements with landlords.

    7. Social Landlords and Charities as the Preferred R2R Operators

With the introduction of stricter regulations, R2R operators that are not registered social landlords, charities, or social interest companies will likely struggle to convince landlords that R2R remains a viable option. These types of organisations are more likely to have the financial backing, regulatory knowledge, and legal protections necessary to operate successfully under the new Bill. In addition these types of organisations will be covered by the mandatory requirement to provide the property back to the landlord with vacant possession.

Private R2R operators, particularly smaller ones, may find it difficult to compete in this new landscape. Landlords may prefer to work with registered social landlords or other social interest entities, as they are more likely to offer the security and compliance needed to mitigate the risks of an R2R arrangement.

The Renters’ Rights Bill is the biggest change in legislation for over 30 years, it introduces a host of new challenges for landlords and R2R operators alike, fundamentally altering the dynamics of the standard R2R model. With landlords no longer guaranteed vacant possession at the end of agreements, increased liability for the actions of operators, and heightened financial risks through extended rent repayment orders and fines, many property owners will likely reconsider their involvement in R2R arrangements.

For the R2R model to survive, operators will need to demonstrate greater financial security, compliance expertise, and the ability to mitigate the risks posed by the new legal landscape. Otherwise, the standard Rent2Rent model as we know it may soon become obsolete.

Share This Article