Copy article

Is the Renters’ Rights Act changing what landlords buy?

19H 2M 11S

until end

For Bridging Loan Directory, I’m examining whether the Renters’ Rights Act is affecting property investment decisions.

From 1 May 2026, assured tenancies generally became periodic, allowing tenants to end a tenancy at any point with at least two months’ written notice, subject to the required timing. One specialist lender has reported a “notable rise” in demand for assets offering diversified income, but I want to test whether this is visible more widely.

If you are a landlord, property investor, broker, lender or letting agent:

  • Are investors moving away from single-tenancy properties towards HMOs, multi-unit blocks, semi-commercial property or larger portfolios?
  • Is this appearing in conversations and enquiries, or in applications, purchases and completed lending?
  • Are lenders changing void assumptions, affordability assessments, reserve requirements or leverage?
  • What indicates that the Renters’ Rights Act is influencing the decision rather than yields, mortgage costs or other pressures?
  • Can you provide a recent figure or anonymised example?

Please distinguish what you have seen first-hand from what you expect may happen.

Responses of around 100–200 words by 12pm on Tuesday 8 September would be very welcome.

6 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Editor
Tony Sanchez
Founder at Bridging Loan Directory
Test
Copy

Editor
Iain Thompson
Director at Evolve Finance
The transition to periodic tenancies has completely reshaped buy-to-let risk profiles, driving a visible shift away from single-tenancy units. Landlords are terrified of the revolving-door risk where a tenant exits after a few months, leaving them with painful void periods and zero structural income protection.

We are seeing a distinct surge in applications for Multi-Unit Freehold Blocks (MUFBs) and specialist Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). Landlords are actively choosing to diversify their income streams within a single building; if one tenant leaves, the remaining rooms or flats keep the asset cash-flowing and prevent an absolute coverage breach.

Lenders have reacted sharply to this regulatory pressure, tightening void assumptions and increasing multi-unit stress testing. This isn't just a search for yield; it is defensive asset re-alignment. Investors are using corporate SPVs to pool risk, moving away from vulnerable single-let liabilities entirely.
Copy

Editor
Nouran Moustafa
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Yes, I am seeing the conversation shift. Investors are asking far more questions about HMOs, multi-unit blocks and semi-commercial property because one tenant leaving no longer means the whole income disappears.

But I would be careful blaming the Renters’ Rights Act alone. Higher mortgage costs, tax pressure and tighter margins were already pushing landlords towards assets with stronger or more diversified cashflow. The Act has accelerated that thinking because periodic tenancies make income feel less predictable.

For lenders, that means more focus on void assumptions, rental resilience and whether the deal still works if one unit or one tenant disappears.

The clearest sign the Act is influencing behaviour is when an investor says: “I do not want all my income tied to one tenancy anymore.”

That is not panic. It is portfolio engineering. Investors are adapting to a market where income certainty matters more than ever.
Copy

Editor
Mark Alexander
Founder at Property118.com
The Act is encouraging landlords to think more carefully about income resilience, but I am not seeing a wholesale move from single lets into HMOs or multi-unit blocks. Diversified accommodation retains some income when one tenant leaves, whereas a vacant single let produces none. However, these properties bring additional planning, licensing, management and lending risks. Mortgage costs, taxation and wider regulatory uncertainty remain at least as influential as the Act.
Copy

Editor
Jamie Elvin
Director at Strive Mortgages
The Renters’ Rights Act is definitely changing the conversation, but I see it as accelerating an existing trend rather than creating a new one. Landlords are becoming much more focused on income resilience. HMOs, multi-unit properties and mixed-use assets are attracting greater interest because they spread vacancy risk across multiple income streams rather than relying on a single tenancy. That said, the Act is only one part of the equation. Higher mortgage costs, taxation and tighter affordability have already pushed investors to scrutinise every purchase much more carefully. The biggest shift I’m seeing is investors asking, “How resilient is this property if a tenant leaves?” That mindset is influencing buying decisions just as much as yield.
Copy

Editor
Guy Skinner
Financial Planner and Director at Citygate Financial Planning
In my experience, landlords aren’t buying, they’re selling. Although rents are rising as there is fear the new rules will make it more costly to move on bad tenants, the appetite is greatly reduced.