Blog

The Renters Rights Act 2025 came into force on 1st May 2026 and represented the biggest change in the private rented property sector since ASTs were introduced in 1989. It has introduced new rent controls and abolished s21 "no fault" evictions - but are all tenants really more secure?

Procedural Difficulties with S21 

The rationale for abolishing s21 was that it was thought unfair that good tenants, who pay on time and look after a property, could be uprooted at the whim of the landlord, who might "abuse" the right to evict in order to secure a higher rent, or maybe to confirm the property to yet another HMO. It was also used as a simple, fast route to ending a tenancy where the tenant was regularly in arrears or who didn't look after the property or was a nuisance. It's easy to understand the argument (as well as the counter argument). But the truth is, over the years it had become increasingly difficult to actually exercise s21 successfully because of regulations requiring a landlord to have complied with certain obligations such as:

• providing a tenant with a valid gas safety certificate prior them going into occupation;
• providing a "How to Rent Guide" before commencement of the tenancy; and
• providing a current EPC (rated E or above) prior to commencement of the tenancy

The onus was on the landlord to prove that these obligations had been complied with when attempting a s21 eviction and if landlords were unable to do so, the application would fail and, as long as the tenants continued to pay the rent, they could stay as long as they pleased. Many landlords, not being professionals and therefore being unaware of the need to keep the relevant paperwork found that whilst they may have always been good, compliant landlords, their inability to prove it meant that they were suck with bad tenants, were unable to sell the property vacant (or even to other landlords who would not be prepared to adopt the problem) or to remortgage, if the necessary steps to allow lenders to rely on ground 2 schedule 2 had also not been taken).

Where we Are Now

The Renters Rights Act, while removing s21, introduces a new mandatory ground for possession, which can be used where a landlord plans to sell the property. A landlord can now serve notice on a tenant advising that they intend to sell and the tenant must vacate within 4 months. It does not matter whether the landlord has complied with its regulatory obligations. An intention to sell will not necessarily result in an actual sale of course. Circumstances change and it remains to be seen how the obvious risk of the abuse off this provision will be policed. 

Further, ground 2 Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988, which previously relied on the tenant having received notice that the property is mortgaged, has been relaxed so that a mortgagee can always terminate a tenancy on the giving of 4 months' notice. 

The net effect seems to be that landlords may no longer be trapped in unfavourable tenancy agreements despite failing to comply with their regulatory requirements, albeit punishments may ensue for obvious cynical attempts to game the system.

The Government has just announced a new white paper to look at "reinvigorating" commonhold (though as far as I was aware it was yet to be invigorated). There is a long way to go from here to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act mark 2 receiving Royal assent and even further to it being implemented on a meaningful scale, given the failure of its predecessor - and we know how Starmer loves a u-turn - but it does feel like there is a bit more momentum this time, so we better take it seriously.

The advocates point out that it will bring an end to the adverse effects of a diminishing lease term and will abolish "unfair" ground rent as well as giving flat owners greater control over service charge spend and what repairs are carried out. Its objectors point out that many flat owners will be reluctant to self-manage - not being comfortable with negotiating with insurers and contractors or taking risky and expensive legal proceedings against their neighbours. So what of the respective arguments?

Lease Terms & Ground Rent

The main argument in favour seems to be that flat owners will be placed on a par with house owners - they will own their property outright and forever. A lease, however long, will ultimately come to an end if not extended and will revert to the landlord, with the leaseholder's initial investment lost. There is a statutory right to extend almost any residential lease but there is a premium to pay which is often expensive, sometimes prohibitively so. Furthermore, most leaseholders pay an annual ground rent. Although often a nominal amount, there are some leases with unreasonable escalator clauses that can lead to a rent which as a percentage of the property value is disproportionate.

On rent, there is already legislation in place that means on new leases, no ground rent can be charged and it will soon be the case that all existing rents will be capped at £250 per annum, with those being reduced to £0 over a 40 year period. So the rent problem is solved. Diminishing terms re still an issue. Longstanding tenants who have paid a market value price to acquire their properties can find themselves facing the possibility the choice of paying a premium they cannot afford in order to remain in their home, or losing it altogether with no compensation. It would be easy enough to change the law so that the minimum term of any new lease is, say, 999 years. It would be more difficult to apply that retrospectively to existing leases as it would rob freeholders of the value in their assets - but introducing commonhold for new developments would affect existing leases anyway. 

Management of the Building

Where a block is managed by professionals, who acquire freehold reversions in order to make money from the fees they can charge for providing block management services (as well as ground rents and premiums for lease extensions) there is plenty of scope for abuse (excessive fees, kickbacks form contractors etc) and it happens. There is already legislation in place to protect tenants and it has been in place for decades, but the process of enforcement can be daunting. It can be costly and protracted and leaseholders are understandably reluctant to take the risk, especially if others in the block do not want to join in. If the flat owners self manage then in theory all charges will be commensurate and fair. Another common leaseholder complaint is they are sometimes presented with major works bills - one off demands in addition to the usual annual service charges to cover the cost of major repairs or improvements. Again, it would be up to the unit holders in a commonhold system to decide which works will be carried out and which won't. In theory. But here's the rub - in larger blocks the unit holders will still likely need to employ an agent to organise the collection of service charges, the insurance, enforcement action against defaulting unit holders, maintenance etc, and that agent only makes money from the fees it charges or providing those services. It cannot supplement its income with lease extension premiums or rents. So the fees will necessarily be higher. As for major works, although painful they are generally necessary and for the good of all of the flats. Put them off and the problem is likely to get worse and therefore more expensive. Even so in a large block there is likely to be at least one dissenter. What then? Presumably everyone suffers.

For every rogue landlord who takes bids for major works and instead of accepting the best quote, chooses the one who pays the best incentive, there are many more who, through their experience, skill and large buying power secure much better deals than novice unit holders could hope to achieve.

And what happens when unit holders don't pay their share? Freeholders have the ultimate weapon - forfeiture. That is, the right to terminate the delinquent tenant's lease and sell the property on the open market, using the money to cover the debt (and generate a nice windfall for themselves). In fact what often happens, where the flat is mortgaged, is that the landlord will contact the mortgagee, who will settle the debt so as to avoid forfeiture. Unit holders/commonhold associations won't have that option. Instead they will only be able to sue for the debt - but if the unit holder cannot afford to pay that achieves nothing.

Increased Conveyancing Costs and Delays

Whenever there is such a major change to a part of the conveyancing process there will always be a number of firms that choose not to deal with matters affected by the change, so that those that do can and will charge a premium - just look at the impact of the  Building Safety Act on the cost of conveyancing on high rise flats. Cases will take longer whilst conveyancers grapple with the unknown. Lenders will be reluctant to lender because underwriters and valuers will not understand the security. That may be a temporary problem but it will affect a lot of people over a period of years. That matters.

Conclusion

It is right that parliament should be looking at leaseholds and the imbalance between leaseholders and freeholders, but you do not demolish a block of flats if there is scope to repair and we should not abandon the leasehold system if there is scope for reasonable reform. Commonhold, in my opinion, creates as many problems as it solves and it would be simpler an more effective to:

1. Continue with planned ground rent reforms;
2. Oblige landlords to grant all new leases for a minimum term of 999 years;
3. Set the new term for a statutory lease extension to 999 years; and
4. Introduce an Ombudsman style service to replace the current First Tier Tribunal system for challenging landlords

The Housing Act 1988 created Assured Tenancies, to replace Rent Act Protected Tenancies. It was never intended to have any impact on long residential leases. Unfortunately the definition of Assured Tenancy did not exclude them. It simply says that a tenancy was an Assured Tenancy if:

• the tenant is an individual (not a company);
• the property is the tenant's only or principal home; and
• none of the exemptions in part 1 schedule 1 of the Act apply.

The relevant exemptions are that:

• the lease was in existence before the coming into force of the Act (on 15th January 1989);
• the annual rent is more than £100,000; or
• the annual rent is less than £1,000 in Greater London or £250 elsewhere.

There is no exemption for leases over a certain term of years. It may be that in 1988, the low rent limits were deemed sufficient to exclude long leases but where the leases contained an RPI/CPI linked rent multiplier, more and more have become Assured Tenancies. This anomaly was brought into focus in the case of Richardson v Midland Heart Ltd [2008]. That was a shared ownership property where the landlord, Midland Heart, sought a possession order for non-payment of rent citing ground 8 of schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. Ground 8 requires the landlord to demonstrate that the rent is 2 months or more in arrears. It is a mandatory ground, so if proven the court has to order possession. It had been thought that the grounds for possession in schedule 2 Housing Act 1988 only applied to short leases where no premium had been paid by the tenant however the Midland Heart case showed it could apply equally apply to long leases, where the landlord had received a premium. 

This created a problem for leaseholders and conveyancers, because whereas the possibility of termination on forfeiture had always existed, relief from forfeiture could be sought, and generally obtained, by a mortgagee whose security was lost as a result of the lease being brought to an end. No such remedy exists for leases terminated under any of the grounds of schedule 2. This led to a flurry of requests to vary leases, whether by removing the right to rely on ground 8 or by buying out ground rents as well as arguments about whether the Midland Heart case, which was decided in the County Court and was never appealed because the Housing Association compensated the tenant in the end, was even such a big deal anyway.

Fortunately the Renters Rights Act 2025, which comes into force on 1st May 2026, appears to have solved the problem by introducing, via section 31, a new clause 3D to Part 1 Schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988. 3D adds fixed term tenancies for a term of more than 21 years to the list of tenancies that cannot be assured tenancies. So it seems, 37 years after Parliament accidentally created a problem which placed tens of thousands of leaseholders and their lenders in jeopardy, caused any number of transactions to fail and ran up probably hundreds of thousands in additional legal fees, they have finally put it right.

What is Impersonation Fraud?

In residential conveyancing terms, impersonation fraud occurs when a person pretends to be the true owner of a property in order to sell or mortgage it and steal the proceeds. It's a serious risk to residential conveyancers, and it's on the rise. Between 2020 and 2025 HM Land Registry prevented frauds against property with a total value of £194,000,000 but £59,000,000 of that relates to the most recent year, 2024/25. It is still extremely rare - of the more than 4,000,000 transactions processed by HMLR in 2024/25, only 86 were identified as fraudulent. Nonetheless the consequences can be crippling for homeowners and for the conveyancers that get duped.

What Sorts of Properties are Being Targeted?

There is no specific type - no property is "safe", but as with any criminal whose motive is to make money, the fewer crimes fraudsters have to commit the better chance they have to avoid getting caught, so to maximise their returns they will typically target reasonably high value, mortgage free properties. Mortgage free is important because you can easily establish the value of the property but not the amount of any debt secured against it, which the conveyancer is going to pay before handing over the remaining proceeds even if the fraud is successful. The fraudster will usually need to give an estate agent or a valuer access, so empty or rental properties are a safer bet. If a property rented the fraudster may pose as the landlord or an agent for the landlord, or may rent it themselves and pose as an owner occupier. Finally, properties with a sole proprietor will be an easier target, otherwise there will need to be more than one fraudster (one for each owner). Increased complexity equals increased risk of being caught.

What are the risks?

For clients, the risk is that they will either lose their property, have to make payments on a mortgage they never got the benefit of in order to keep it or in the best case, face an expensive and risky legal battle to get the property back free from incumbrances. From the conveyancer's point of view, the sale proceeds (or mortgage advance) is paid over to them on trust on terms that they will secure a charge in favour of a lender, or else pay the funds over to the person genuinely entitled to receive them. Even if a conveyancer has done nothing wrong therefore, the starting point is they have committed a breach of trust and are liable to the lender/owner to reimburse the stolen money. It is possible to  make an application for relief but existing case law suggests that might be unlikely. If it is to have any chance of success, the conveyancers will have to show that their due diligence process was flawless.

How Can Conveyancers Protect Themselves?

All conveyancers need to be aware of the "red flags" of impersonation fraud. Employers should provide regular training and should as part of the fee earner supervision process monitor to ensure that these flags are being spotted and properly considered. There should be a reporting channel and staff should be aware of it. So what are the red flags?

• unencumbered properties - as mentioned above, these are targeted because the fraudster can easily establish the value, and so the amount of equity they can steal;
• properties with old mortgages - less obvious, but fraudsters know what the red flags are and might try and slide under the radar by picking on a property with a mortgage that was taken out a number of years ago, especially if it is in an area that has experienced a sharp increase in property values since the mortgage was taken out;
• the amount of capital being raised is above some arbitrary figure set by the firm - the fraud has to be worth it. Most fraudsters wouldn't risk their liberty for, say, £20,000. Most would for £2,000,000. Where to draw the line is up to each firm to decide but having a figure for staff to use may help them focus on the genuinely risky matters;
• new or recent identity documents - fraudsters will sometimes obtain identity documents in the name of the owner. If they do, they will likely have been issued in the last 12 months. Once the fraud begins they will need to conclude it as quickly as possible;
• bridging finance - fraudsters will sometimes use bridging loans for two reasons, first the lenders tend to be more relaxed in their due diligence and second, these cases are always urgent, which helps disguise any urgency to the transaction that would otherwise be unexplainable;
• client has changed their name - a fraudster will sometimes change his or her name to match the property owner;
• client has changed solicitors - if a fraudster has instructed a conveyancer who has become suspicious (of they think they have become suspicious) they will be quick to disinstruct and instruct someone else, with good reason. If a conveyancer has suspicions that something is off but hasn't positively identified any criminal activity then they will have no grounds to pursue and once disinstructed will simply close the file;
• unexplained urgency - a fraudster's matter will usually be urgent because a) they want the cash; b) the longer the matter goes on, the more risky it is for them; and c) by putting pressure on the conveyancer to act quickly there is a better chance that corners will be cut.

Of course, no one these flags on their own are enough to arouse suspicion. The key is to look for a combination of them and if there is combination, look at each one and see if it be explained legitimately. To do that you will need to ask questions, and be robust, there is as yet no criminal property so there should be no tipping off concerns. If you are dealing with a fraudster you may well find that as you start asking questions they get nervous and disinstruct. Concentrate on these three areas:

The Funds

The first question might be what the capital raised is being used for. If it is for an onward purchase, ask for the details of the solicitors acting in that purchase so you can check with them. Offer to send the money to the solicitor directly (assuming they are in England of Wales). If it is for works, ask to see quotes etc. Borrowing money comes with a cost, so there will always be a purpose in mind when the mortgage is applied for. If the client can't explain that then you should be suspicious. 

The Person

Look at the person's name and age and the picture on the ID and see if it marries up. If the client has a Chinese sounding name and is in their 60s but the picture is of a 20 something Northern European, that's odd. Ask to see another form of photo ID (i.e. a passport, if the original ID is a driver's licence, or vide versa). If they are using a passport and it's recently been issued, ask to see their old one. Not everyone will keep their old passports but some do. 

The Property

The fraudster may be able to produce numerous pieces of evidence connecting them to the property but they are likely to be recent. Ask for evidence that is historic, such as the old deeds packet that the conveyancer may sent to the owner on completion of the purchase, or if the property is rented, old bank statements showing rental payments and the tenancy agreement for tenant at the time, or if it is owner occupied, bank statements showing council tax payments. You could obtain from Land Registry a copy of the transfer deed from when the property to compare the signatures against your client's. 

Make sure you carry out your OS1 search before exchange, a couple of days before if possible. That way, if the property owner happens to have subscribed to HMLR's property alert service, they'll be notified in time to contact you/HMLR before it's too late.

How Can Property Owners Protect Themselves?

There are a number of proactive steps that property owners can take to protect themselves and their properties:

• Follow good cybersecurity practices - fraudsters used to go through their victims' rubbish looking for things like bank statements and utility bills to help them impersonate an owner. That may still happen, but more often nowadays the will get information by hacking email and social media accounts etc. So, be mindful of what you put on social media, choose strong passwords, update passwords regularly, don't use the same password for any two accounts etc;
• Keep an eye on empty properties - fraudsters will often need access to the property to effect the fraud, so if you own any that are empty check them regularly for signs of unauthorised access. If you can't do that personally, get someone else to;
• Vet tenants properly - a criminal might rent a property to enable them to pose as the owner, so be careful when choosing tenants. Consider enlisting the help of an experienced letting agent;
• Keep your address for service up to date with Land Registry;
• Use Land Registry's Property Alert Service

HMLR Property Alert Service

One of the simplest ways to protect yourself is to sign up for the HM Land Registry Property Alert Service, a free tool designed to notify you of suspicious or unexpected activity relating to your property.

What the Property Alert Service Does

Once registered, the service will monitor your property’s title and send you an email alert when important activity occurs, including:

• Any attempt to register a mortgage or charge;
• A change to the registered ownership or title details;
• An Official Search (OS1 or OS2) being carried out by a conveyancer.

These alerts give you early warning of any unauthorised attempts to sell, mortgage or transfer your property.

How the Service Protects You

You simply enter the property address or title number when creating your account. If HM Land Registry detects potentially fraudulent activity — such as someone trying to change the owner’s name or secure a mortgage without your consent — you’ll receive an immediate notification. Acting quickly can stop the transaction before it completes. Create your account and read more here: HM Land Registry – Property Alert  

Why Official Search Alerts Are So Important

A key benefit of the service is the alert you receive when an Official Search is made. These searches are carried out just before completion of a property sale, purchase or remortgage. If you receive an Official Search alert and you were not expecting one, it may indicate that someone is attempting to fraudulently transact on your property. Prompt action can prevent the loss of your home or equity.

Choosing Which Properties to Monitor

The system allows you to monitor up to 10 properties, which is typically sufficient for most homeowners and landlords. Creating extra accounts is not permitted and could lead to suspension, so if you own more than 10 properties, prioritise the highest-risk titles. Consider:

1. Property Value - Higher-value homes are more attractive targets for property fraudsters;
2. Whether the Property Is Mortgage Free - Fraudsters can see if a property is mortgaged, but not the outstanding balance. Mortgage free properties appear to have more accessible equity, making them prime targets;
3. Tenant Turnover Properties - with new tenants, short-term lets, HMOs or holiday lets may be at increased risk because criminals often need physical access for viewings or mortgage valuations;
4. Empty or Unoccupied Properties - Vacant properties are much easier for fraudsters to enter, claim ownership of, or use to facilitate a fraudulent sale or remortgage.

Strengthen Your Property Security

The HM Land Registry Property Alert Service offers an effective, free layer of protection against property title fraud. For landlords, second-home owners, investors and anyone with an empty or mortgage-free property, registering is strongly recommended.