Pretty much every renter in Britain has a horrible landlord story. Whether it’s a mouldy bathroom, exaggerated damage costs after a tenancy, delayed repairs, surprise rent increases or shock evictions, there is no shortage of horror stories. The Government’s newly unveiled renters reform measures are meant to tackle ‘rogue’ landlords by banning ‘no fault evictions’ and discrimination against prospective tenants who claim benefits or have children.

Many will consider these changes to be compassionate – but policymaking cannot be based on good intentions alone. It is essential to assess whether policies will have their intended outcome or lead to unintended consequences. 

Banning no-fault evictions may boost security for existing renters, but there are significant trade-offs for those who want to move or enter the rental market for the first time. Making it harder for landlords to evict will ultimately make it harder to rent, as they exacerbate the risk of renting out properties. 

For example, the ban on evictions unless the tenant has fallen two months behind on rent explicitly incentivises renters to stay just below the threshold. This leaves landlords short of cash, but without any recourse to reclaim what they are owed. While the Government’s proposals would make it easier to evict anti-social tenants, landlords could only seek relief from the costs of anti-social behaviour after the fact.

Ultimately, these measures will force landlords to be more selective with who they rent to in order to minimise the risk of incurring those costs in the first place. This benefits applicants who have been renting for longer and can prove their reliability, as well as those with higher incomes and steady jobs, reducing their long-term risk to landlords.