RB: The Labour Government’s Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is one of the biggest changes to England’s private rented sector for generations. How does it change things for you?
Edward: I couldn’t agree more with the abolition of Section 21 – I’ve never used it in all my time at the Benyon Estate and in previous roles – but I don’t think reform has gone far enough on security for tenants.
For me, the legitimate reasons why a landlord might need possession of a property are fairly straightforward: if the tenant is behaving antisocially, if they aren’t paying the rent, if the landlord genuinely wants to move into the property, or if they need to sell it. All of those circumstances still exist under the Renters’ Rights Act. That’s one reason why I don’t think the reforms have gone far enough.
A second reason is that it limits the kinds of tenancies we’re able to offer. People talk about the abolition of Section 21 as though it’s automatically increased tenant security, but I don’t think it’s that simple. Before the Act, if tenants wanted a three-year fixed-term tenancy, we were perfectly happy to offer them because we are a long-term business. Families knew where they were going to live and what rent they were going to pay, so they could plan ahead and have their children settled happily in schools. To me, that’s an important kind of security. We’re no longer able to offer that.
I don’t think the Renters’ Rights Act has changed very much for us in practice, and there’s very little in the Act that worries us. I do have some concerns about how parts of the new system will work. Tenants can challenge rent increases at the First-tier Tribunal, and the increase can be delayed while the case is considered. There are also already long delays in the courts when a landlord has a legitimate reason to regain possession. We’ll have to see how that works out in practice.
What I think is more interesting is where reform goes from here. If you look back before the Housing Act 1988, tenants had a huge amount of security and landlords had very little control. The 1988 reforms swung the pendulum completely the other way. What we should be trying to do now is establish more of a middle ground.
RB: How can we build long-term security into the private rented sector?
Edward: I think the Government should spend less time thinking about what it wants to ban and more time thinking about what it wants to encourage. Suppose landlords had the option of offering ten-year tenancies, and the Government created the right incentives to encourage that model. That could be transformative for families living in the PRS.
Ten years is long enough for a family to build a life. Children can stay in the same school. Parents have certainty. People know where they’re going to be. That starts to feel like genuine housing security.
I think there could be a bargain here between landlords and government. If you’re prepared to commit a home to the private rented sector for the long term and give a family ten years of security, government could give you something in return.
RB: How could policy encourage a better private rented sector?
Edward: Take VAT. At the moment, if you build a house to sell, the development is zero-rated for VAT. You can recover the VAT you’ve paid during construction. Whereas if you’re building or improving property that will remain in the private rented sector, you can’t reclaim that VAT.
The same applies when we’re repairing or improving our existing homes. Whatever the construction cost is, we effectively have to add another 20 per cent because we can’t recover the VAT. I’ve never understood why the tax system treats investment in homes for sale and investment in homes for rent so differently. When you combine that with licensing costs and everything else landlords now have to absorb, investment becomes significantly more expensive.
Now, I fully accept that what I’m about to suggest costs money, and the Treasury’s instinctive answer to that is usually ‘no’. But suppose the Government wanted to encourage much longer private tenancies. One answer would be to say: “If you’re prepared to commit your property to the private rented sector on a genuinely long-term basis, we’ll allow you to reclaim VAT on repairs.”
That would create a real incentive for landlords who want to invest in secure homes for the long term. Landlords would be taking on some risk, because if you were to sell a property with a tenant in place on a long lease, it would typically be worth perhaps 20 or 25 per cent less than if it were vacant. My proposal wouldn’t completely compensate for that reduction in value, but if you’re genuinely a long-term landlord – if your intention is to keep renting that property for decades rather than selling it – it matters much less.
RB: What’s the balance for you between affordability, security and quality in your stock?
Edward: Our day-to-day challenge is creating contemporary living within period properties. People live differently today than they did twenty years ago, and we’ll need to continue adapting our homes to reflect that. Fundamentally, though, we want to keep the portfolio together and continue managing it for the long term.
Our objective isn’t to advertise a property at the absolute highest rent we think somebody might eventually pay. We advertise at a rent we think is fair and achievable because we want somebody to move in quickly, be happy there and stay for as long as possible.
The thing we as a landlord really want to avoid is voids: empty properties cost money. Long-term tenants are good for us. They’re good for the business. They’re good for the community. They’re good for the property.
I sometimes wonder whether that’s one of the differences between long-term landlords and some smaller buy-to-let investors. A private individual may genuinely need to move back into a property, or decide to sell it, or simply change their plans. That’s perfectly understandable. But businesses like ours – and, I suspect, most institutional landlords – don’t want to do those things. We want long-term, stable occupation.
One thing I would add is that successive governments have introduced legislation aimed at dealing with rogue landlords. There are rogue landlords who deserve to be dealt with robustly, but the overwhelming majority of landlords are decent people trying to provide good homes for good tenants. Measures such as Awaab’s Law are absolutely right and we fully support them. I think we’d get much better outcomes if government worked more closely with landlords who are genuinely trying to invest for the long term.
The private rented sector isn’t going away, so let’s work out how to make it better.
Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)