Landlords across England have welcomed a key change to the Renters’ Rights Bill after the House of Lords voted to reduce the controversial 12-month re-letting ban to six months. In a narrow decision — passing by just 213 votes to 209 — the amendment will now allow landlords to re-let their properties six months after a failed sale, rather than being forced to keep them empty for an entire year.
This change directly addresses a clause in the Bill which currently penalises landlords who serve notice to sell but are unable to complete a transaction. Critics had warned the original rule was not only excessive but placed a disproportionate financial burden on responsible property owners. The amendment, tabled by Lord Cromwell, was hailed as a rare but meaningful legislative win for private landlords.
Lords reject ‘unjustifiably penal’ restriction on re-letting
Under the original proposal, if a landlord ended a tenancy to sell but the sale fell through, they would have been prohibited from re-letting the property for 12 months — a clause described by Lord Cromwell as “an unjustifiably penal provision of the bill”.
He told fellow peers: “If a landlord asks a tenant to leave on the grounds that the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell, which happens in about one-third of cases, the landlord will then, in all such cases, be prohibited from renting out the property for another 12 months.”
He argued this would have damaged both landlords and prospective tenants, by creating unnecessary void periods and further tightening already limited rental supply. Dismissing concerns that landlords would abuse the sales route to remove tenants and hike rents, Lord Cromwell pointed out: “If the landlord has a valid claim to increase the rent, the bill already provides for that.”
Extended void periods threaten financial viability
Lord Cromwell also pushed back against the notion that six months of vacancy would be manageable for most landlords, warning instead that even this shorter period poses a real challenge.
“The numbers demonstrated clearly that the supposedly avaricious landlord, even if having the property empty for only six months, as I propose, rather than 12, would have to put the rent up by a very substantial amount, in excess of 200% or even 300%, to recoup their rental losses,” he explained.
He added: “Such a huge rent hike would be impossible. The rent asked would be completely uncompetitive against other properties… In short, being obliged to leave a property empty for six months is more than enough of a financial burden and barrier.”
The risks associated with leaving homes empty — including security, insurance complications, and council tax surcharges — were also raised. Propertymark backed the amendment, saying: “This reduction will help landlords avoid long void periods, prevent unnecessary financial penalties, and keep more properties available to rent.” They added that landlords would still be required to demonstrate genuine attempts to market the property.
Tenant group objects, but data paints a different picture
Not everyone was pleased. The Renters’ Reform Coalition took to social media, stating: “Many landlords will be able to bear a six-month empty period, nearly half own their property outright so have no costs.” But that claim is contradicted by data from the English Housing Survey, which shows that 41% of landlords earn less than £20,000 a year, and many still rely on mortgaged properties to fund their lettings.
The idea that landlords are sitting on vast reserves has repeatedly been proven inaccurate. In reality, many are small-scale investors, often with one or two properties, who face considerable financial strain when forced to cover mortgage payments, tax, and maintenance costs during void periods.
The Government had urged Lord Cromwell to withdraw the amendment, but the House voted through the change regardless. The final version of the Bill — which is still under debate — will likely need to reconcile both pro-landlord and tenant concerns before becoming law later this year.
