Real Estate Focus: November 2025

The Renters’ Rights Act: Roadmap and latest guidance explained

Introduction

On 27 October 2025, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the Act) received Royal Assent and became law, marking a significant shift in the operation of the private rental market in England. We explored the key provisions and their practical implications on stakeholders in greater depth in Real estate focus: October 2025.

Within weeks of the Act becoming law, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has released its implementation roadmap (the Roadmap) for reforming the Private Rented Sector (PRS) outlining the timeline for implementing the reforms under the Act.

MHCLG has also published several pieces of guidance under the Act. Whilst most of this is aimed at local authorities, the following guidance is particularly relevant to stakeholders in the rental market:

• Investigatory Powers Guidance for Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the LA Guidance) – this clarifies how local authorities can exercise their new powers under the Act to investigate landlords or letting agents they suspect are breaking the law.
• Guide to the Renters’ Rights Act – this sets out the details of the various measures contained within the Act which will become law, in a more user-friendly way, including frequently asked questions and implementation information.
• Grounds for Possession Guidance – this lists the reasons or grounds and notice periods for landlords and letting agents seeking to end a tenancy, as amended by the Act. Landlords should review the guidance carefully to understand the mandatory and discretionary grounds available, as well as the minimum notice tenants must be given before proceedings can begin.

The Grounds for Possession Guidance simply lists the grounds and notice periods for each - please click on the link above for more information. We provide a summary of the Roadmap and the LA Guidance below.

The Roadmap

The key provisions in the Act will come into effect in three separate phases, giving time for stakeholders to prepare for the changes so that they work well from day one. The phases will be introduced as follows:

• First phase: the majority of reforms will come into force on 1 May 2026, as follows:
  
  • The new tenancy regime, at which point fixed term tenancies will be abolished and the vast majority of new and existing PRS tenancies will become assured periodic tenancies.
  • Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions will be abolished.
  • Possession grounds will be reformed so that landlords will only be able to evict tenants when they have a valid reason as set out in the amended schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 (the 1988 Act), and the Grounds for Possession Guidance.
  • Rent increases will be limited to once a year and must be in accordance with the revised procedure under section 13 of the amended 1988 Act.
  • Rental bidding will be banned.
  • Discrimination against renters who have children or receive benefits will be illegal.
  • Landlords will be required to consider tenant requests have a pet.
  • Local council enforcement and rent repayment orders will be strengthened.
• Second phase: The roll out of the PRS Database will commence in late 2026. All landlords will be required to sign up and to pay an annual fee. Details of the annual fee and the key information to be provided by landlords will be confirmed at a later date through secondary legislation. The PRS Ombudsman will also be established during Phase 2. The development of the Ombudsman will happen in two stages: first, a scheme administrator will be appointed and scaled up, then landlords will receive advance notice requiring them to join the new service.
• Third phase: The key reforms focusing on raising standards in the PRS (namely the Decent Homes Standard and Awwab’s Law) will be implemented during Phase 3. Details of the policies and the timescales for implementation will be subject to consultation, although MHCLG intends to bring the Decent Homes Standard into force in either 2035 or 2037. In addition, the Roadmap refers to government’s consultation on plans to require all domestic privately rented properties in England and Wales to meet Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards of EPC C or equivalent by 2030, subject to certain exemptions. Further details will be set out in MHCLG’s response to the consultation.

The Roadmap also outlines the key requirements and timelines for landlords to provide tenants with information about their tenancy agreements:

• New tenancies in the PRS created on or after 1 May 2026: Landlords will be required to provide tenants with specific information about their tenancy in writing, likely through a written tenancy agreement. The exact details will be set out in secondary legislation, which will be published in time for landlords to update their new tenancy agreement templates ahead of the May 2026 deadline. A draft will be published in January 2026 so that landlords can begin preparing.
• Tenancies created before 1 May 2026: Landlords will not need to update or issue new agreements for existing PRS tenancies that already have a written agreement. They must, however, provide tenants with the government’s published ‘Information Sheet’ by 31 May 2026, which explains the Act’s changes. The Information Sheet will be published online in March 2026. For verbal agreements, landlords must give tenants a written summary of the main terms of the agreement by the same deadline.

MHCLG will continue to publish guidance, communications and advice to help the PRS prepare for the changes. MHCLG will also work with local enforcement and the justice system to ensure that those responsible have sufficient capacity and capability to uphold the new requirements effectively and that landlords and tenants can have swift access to justice (although concern remains as to whether this is achievable given current pressures on courts’ time).

LA Guidance

The key points arising from the LA Guidance are as follows:

• Asking for information – a local authority will have the power to request information from any person or a “relevant person” (which includes landlords, agents, licensors, or a marketer in connection with the accommodation) to use as evidence when investigating whether someone has broken the law in relation to certain pieces of legislation. Before requesting information, the local authority must notify the relevant person in writing setting out the statutory basis for making the request and outlining the consequences of failing to comply.
• Power to enter a business premises – local authorities will have the power to enter a rental sector business premises to request documents and seize evidence if there is a reasonable belief that the “relevant person” is running a rental sector business there. This power can only be exercised if there is a reasonable suspicion that a breach or an offence has been committed under certain rented accommodation legislation. The LA Guidance sets out the requirements for entering the business premises with or without a warrant, including what the local authority is permitted to do upon entry, and the process for requesting or seizing and detaining documents once the local authority has accessed the premises.
• Power to enter a residential premises – local authorities will also have the power to enter a residential property to investigate whether there has been an offence committed under section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 or certain database provisions in the Act. A local authority must be specifically authorised by a chief officer or their superior to exercise this power and must reasonably suspect the property is being privately rented as a home. The LA Guidance sets out the process and requirements for entering a residential premises with or without a warrant.

Local authorities will be able to exercise these new powers from 27 December 2025.

Comment

With the phased implementation of the Act now underway, landlords should be taking proactive steps to prepare to comply with the new requirements as they come into force. This is particularly important given that local authorities will be able to exercise their investigatory powers before the year end. Engaging early with the reforms, transitional provisions and accompanying guidance will be essential for landlords to confidently navigate the evolving regulatory landscape and ensure compliance with the Act.

The swift publication of the Roadmap suggests that these reforms are a priority for the government, and further guidance and policy updates are therefore expected in the coming months. This is a fast-moving area, and we will continue to monitor developments and report on the key updates as they are introduced.

When appropriate assessments are required and how this may impact your next site: The Supreme Court’s decision in C G Fry & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Somerset Council

On 22 October 2025, the Supreme Court’s handed down its unanimous ruling in the case of C G Fry & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Somerset Council [2025] UKSC 35. The decision has implications for both developers and protected sites across the UK by reversing the decision of the lower courts, which had supported the non-determination of pre-commencement conditions without an appropriate assessment.

Executive summary

The main takeaway from the case is that an appropriate assessment pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations) is not required at the discharge of conditions stage where a site is only protected by national policy, such as Ramsar sites (wetland sites of international importance), but can be required where there may be impacts on European sites (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)) and such approvals “authorise” the project to proceed.

New national policy (such as Natural England’s advice on nutrient neutrality combined with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeking to elevate Ramsar sites to the same status as European sites) cannot override a right to develop pursuant to an extant permission, and therefore cannot be used to withhold approval to the discharge of conditions. If the conditions in question had related to nutrient loading on the Ramsar site, or promoted the protection of the Ramsar site, it would have been a different matter. In this case, the conditions which Somerset West and Taunton Council (the Council) had refused to discharge were for an unconnected purpose and it was therefore unlawful for the Council to refuse to discharge the conditions.

Whilst the conditions in question would also have been for an unconnected purpose, if the site had been a SPA or SAC the difference is that the law, not policy, would prevent the grant of a consent that would harm such a site, whereas no legal protection exists for Ramsar sites.

In practice, the judgment means that local authorities can continue to require developments to demonstrate nutrient neutrality at the discharge of conditions stage where European sites may be affected, but not Ramsar sites, although this distinction is likely to be short-lived as Schedule 6 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would make Ramsar sites legally equivalent to European sites.

The key issues

The Supreme Court was asked to determine two main issues:

• Can councils rely on revised policy to impose new requirements not contained in an original permission?
• On a Ramsar site, is an appropriate assessment (under the Habitats Regulations) required prior to the discharge of conditions including the approval of reserved matters?

Facts of the case

• Outline permission and reserved matters
  In December 2015, the Council granted outline planning permission to C G Fry & Son Ltd (C G Fry) for a mixed-use housing development of up to 650 dwellings, and commercial and community uses in eight phases. The development site was located within the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site.
  Habitat Regulation 63(1) sets out a duty to conduct an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of that site's conservation objectives. Regulation 63(5) states that “the competent authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site…”.
  Ramsar sites are not protected under the Habitats Regulations but are given similar levels of protections through paragraph 181 of the NPPF.
  In June 2020, C G Fry received reserved matters approval subject to certain pre-commencement conditions.
  An appropriate assessment was not carried out at either the outline or reserved matters stage (given that the project site was not a European site for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations).

• Nutrient advice
  In August 2020 (after the grant of outline permission and reserved matters, but prior to the discharge of conditions), Natural England issued scientific advice warning that the development’s phosphate emissions could harm the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site.
• Discharge of conditions refused
  In June 2021, C G Fry requested discharge of the pre-commencement conditions to enable construction. The Council declined, arguing that an appropriate assessment was required under both the Habitats Regulations and NPPF to evaluate potential impacts on the Ramsar site. C G Fry appealed the Council’s decision.
• Appeals and lower court decisions
  A planning inspector dismissed the appeal. The High Court and Court of Appeal upheld that decision, finding that a Habitats Regulations assessment could be required at the later stages (even after outline permission) due to the new advice from Natural England about nutrients and policy considerations for Ramsar sites.

Supreme Court ruling

• Ramsar sites and National Policy
  Protection of Ramsar sites derives solely from national policy (see NPPF paragraph 194), not from the Habitats Regulations which is statutory law.
  Once outline permission has been granted, it cannot be revisited. Considerations during the discharge of conditions are confined to the matters of the specific conditions contained in the outline permission. Ramsar status therefore cannot be considered at conditions stage unless the condition relates to it, for example, its protection.
  The Supreme Court held that policy in the NPPF could not be applied to subsequently override the grant of planning permission. C G Fry’s outline permission and reserved matters approval had both been granted before Natural England had produced its advice and no appropriate assessment had therefore been undertaken at the earlier approval stages.
• Habitats Regulations (Regulation 63) and European sites
  The Supreme Court confirmed Regulation 63 applies at later stages, including reserved matters approval and condition discharge, if the decision “authorises” implementation of a project.
  The protective appropriate assessment duty remains alive throughout the planning process for European designated sites. Protection would be undermined if an appropriate assessment could not be undertaken at later stages

The Supreme Court allowed C G Fry’s appeal, declaring that the Council unlawfully withheld discharge of conditions on grounds relating to the Ramsar site alone.

Essential takeaways

• Appropriate assessments are ongoing duties only for European sites
  For European conservation sites (SPAs and SACs), Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations applies not only at the grant of outline permission, but also during reserved matters approval and the condition discharge stage. Responsible authorities need to carry out appropriate assessments at these later stages where new information emerges (e.g. nutrient neutrality advice from Natural England).
• Ramsar sites: policy vs. statute
  Ramsar site protection is policy-based (NPPF), not statutory. Once the principle of a development is resolved via outline permission, national policy alone does not enable authorities to reject or delay approvals of detailed matters and discharge of conditions.
• Limiting local authority cope
  Local authorities must stay within the scope of the specific matters tied to conditions. They cannot use condition discharge processes to re-examine earlier consented principles.
• Impacts on Development Delivery
  Developers should now expect:
  
  • the requirement to carry out Habitat Regulation Assessments during implementation phases whenever European sites are affected; and
  • greater certainty on detail-stage approval and discharge of conditions in cases involving Ramsar sites, provided the outline permission is valid and comprehensive.
• Anticipated legislative changes
  The Supreme Court signalled potential legal reform. Schedule 6 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill elevates Ramsar sites to the same statutory status as European sites covered by the Habitats Regulations, meaning developers and planners should anticipate new compliance burdens.

Fixing facades: No “relevant defect” needed to prevent recovery of cladding replacement costs

On 16 September 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT) decision in Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No. 1 Ltd & Anor v De Valk & Ors [2025] UKUT 298 (LC), preventing the freehold landlord from recovering from qualifying leaseholders the costs of replacing the original 1960s façade on Centre Point House. This was on the basis that such works constituted the replacement of unsafe “cladding” under paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 (the BSA), and the prohibition on the costs of this being charged to qualifying leaseholders was not contingent on there being a “relevant defect”. This decision provides some clarity on the extent to which landlords can recover service charges for cladding works.

Background and key provisions

Generally, under Schedule 8, qualifying leaseholders are protected from paying service charges for the remediation of “relevant defects” (as defined in section 120(2) of the BSA). This requires the defects to have arisen from works completed in the 30-year period ending on 27 June 2022.

Almacantar, as the freeholder landlord of Centre Point House, sought to recover from its leaseholders the costs of replacing the property’s deteriorated 1960’s timber-framed façade (the Proposed Scheme). The FTT held that Almacantar was barred from such recovery from qualifying leaseholders by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the BSA, which provides:

(1) No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in respect of cladding remediation.

(2) In this paragraph “cladding remediation” means the removal or replacement of any part of a cladding system that -

(a) forms the outer wall of an external wall system, and

(b) is unsafe.

Decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT)

Almacantar appealed on the primary basis that the FTT erred in determining that the Proposed Scheme engaged paragraph 8. The appellants specifically disagreed with the interpretation that this provision requires no “relevant defect”, arguing that paragraph 8 should be read in the context of the entirety of schedule 8, with the definitions of “relevant works” and relevant defect” being key to the construction of the schedule. The UT disagreed and made the following findings:

• No requirement for a “relevant defect”: paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 contains no reference to “relevant defects” and should be treated as a distinct protection which is not contingent on there being a “relevant defect”.
• The meaning of “cladding” is a question of fact: Almacantar argued that the façade did not form “the outer wall of an external wall system” as it formed the exterior of the building itself, and therefore did not constitute “cladding” under paragraph 8 of schedule 8. Citing RICS Guidance and expert evidence heard by the FTT, the UT agreed with the first-instance tribunal’s analysis and found that the façade constituted cladding.
• The meaning of “unsafe” is wide: Almacantar attempted to put forward a narrow and specific interpretation of “unsafe”, suggesting that the cladding would have to be “inherently defective upon installation because it creates a fire risk”. The UT rejected this construction, adopting the “ordinary and natural meaning” of the word and concluding that the cladding was “unsafe”.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The Proposed Scheme fell within the ambit of paragraph 8, and the qualifying leaseholders of Centre Point House were found to be exempt from paying service charges relating to the cladding works.

Key takeaways

• No “relevant defect” required under paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the BSA: Leaseholder protection from paying service charges for the removal and replacement of cladding is distinct from other protections in Schedule 8. In other words, paragraph 8 can apply to the remediation of unsafe cladding systems regardless of their age.
• Broad and purposive interpretation of leaseholder protections: Landlords should be aware that the BSA’s provisions are intended to cover a wide range of scenarios. Courts are willing to consider the omission of certain requirements for leaseholder protections (like a “relevant defect” in paragraph 8) as deliberate decisions, and not the result of “inadvertence or careless drafting”.

Permission to appeal

Almacantar has been granted leave to appeal. A judgment from the Court of Appeal could have a significant impact upon the scope of paragraph 8A. It could also provide insight into judicial trends regarding the interpretation of leaseholder protections more generally.