By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Longer tenancies - government to reveal more details imminently

The government says it will shortly respond to over 8,700 responses it received about its suggestions for longer standard tenancies in the private rental sector.

In a statement over the holiday season, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Our consultation on Overcoming the barriers to longer tenancies in the private rented sector closed at the end of August. Over 8,700 responses were received, which are being analysed and discussed with ministers. We expect to publish a response in the New Year and will consider the findings in parallel with the responses from our call for evidence on the case for a Housing Court.”

The consultation which formally closed in late August invited views and comments on the benefits and barriers of landlords offering longer tenancies in England. 


In the consultation the government claimed some 80 per cent of tenants currently had contracts of six or 12 months - and that many wanted longer tenancies. 

Communities Secretary James Brokenshire said at the time: "It is deeply unfair when renters are forced to uproot their lives or find new schools for their children at short notice due to the terms of their rental contract. Being able to call your rental property your home is vital to putting down roots and building stronger communities."

However, much of the lettings industry was concerned at the proposals which were considered to be weighted against the rental sector and did not offer sufficient incentives to landlords willing to risk longer tenancies.

The response from ARLA was typical of many revealed at the time. 

It argued that the idea of a three-year tenancy with a six-month break clause - as proposed by government - was unworkable for three reasons.

“Firstly, they will reduce flexibility and control for tenants. Secondly, the proposals will not provide parity for both tenants and landlords. Thirdly, automatic rent increases will likely cost tenants more money” said ARLA.

“The main barrier to landlords offering longer-term tenancies is that demand for this type of tenancy is low. The other main barriers are the time taken to gain possession of property, and mortgage conditions. In addition, letting agents want well-maintained tenancies as void periods and renewals reduce agent’s fees.”

  • icon

    It is very strange when a comment is passed about tenants being uprooted at short notice and Rental property is your home when in actual fact 2 months notice is given by the Landlord, 1 by the tenant and the rental property is the home until the tenants leave. If a tenant wants a long term tenancy then find one that will sign up for a long term, most tenants are short term and do not want to be tied to a property just in case their circumstances change. It is pretty narrow minded on the Communities Secretary to put all the ills of the rental market on Landlords and not on to the local authorities that do not have the housing stock themselves to assist in the market. It will also be a great possibility that with the tax changes looming, landlords will sell up, those who brave it out will have a captive market and will be able to push up rents and pick and chose who they want as a tenant. So tough luck to the tenants on low incomes!! tough on those without an income unless it's Housing Benefit - then the Tax Payer will have to pay. We may have a housing 'crisis' but is this a way to sort it out?

    Build for rent only, make local authorities build or acquire stock, put a genuine choice element in the market and possibly change will happen.

  • S l
    • S l
    • 10 January 2019 09:13 AM

    the council had approved plenty of corporate build to rent. so why are they pressing on the prs and put pressure on tax payer. surely it is common sense that one have to be responsible for their own decisions and home that they chose without putting the burden on yet another unsuspecting landlord. its just like a case in court many years ago where a parents sue the state school for her child's failure in academics and place the burden on the school especially when these parents absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their own childs academic and future let alone financial needs in the future.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up