After a five-month delay, the renters reform bill is back. In a debate lasting more than five hours, tenants' rights groups protested outside Parliament, there were speeches and speeches and speeches, most MPs seem to slay off to the pub for a bit, and it ultimately passed. But before the debate even started, the government conceded some major points that are good news for landlords, while holding firm on others that will definitely lead some to decide it's time to get out. So I'll summarize what we now know, what's happening next, and at the end I'll give my opinion, and remember I'm a landlord and a tenant, so you can feel free to violently disagree with me from both sides. So a few days ahead of the debate, the government responded to a select committee report, and it included this line. They pledged to speed up the court's process so landlords can quickly regain possession of their property if a tenant refuses to move out. The government will not commence the abolition of section 21 until stronger possession ground and a new court process is in place. In other words, the removal of the ability for landlords to evict tenants for no reason, which is a core plank of the bill and a conservative election manifesto, could be delayed for an unknown amount of time even once the bill has become law, because it's now contingent on the courts being improved. This is being painted in the media as a victory for landlords, and it kind of is because this is the core issue that landlords are worried about. At everything in the bill, the removal of section 21 without court reform was basically what everyone was concerned about. As we said in this video, the government was advised to do this by a cross-party committee report. Yet it's still pretty stunning that they've actually done it, but what exactly comes to shoots a new court process? And will this be included in the legal wording of the bill, or can they or a future government decide to just go ahead with it anyway, even with the courts, exactly as they are? There's a lot we don't yet know. There's also a big change announced for student tenancies, and this is something else that landlords were very concerned about, because if tenancies just run on forever, they're not of any fixed length, then you can't sign up the next set of tenants in advance because you can't guarantee the property will be available. The government reacted to this, and they said, we recognise that the student market is cyclical, and that landlords must be able to guarantee possession each year for a new set of tenants. And we will introduce a new ground for possession to facilitate this. So they still won't allow for fixed terms for student tenancies, but it does seem to have some kind of mechanism in there to make sure that tenants do have to leave before the next set come in, which is great as long as it can happen fast enough. Landlords still might not be entirely happy, because the lack of fixed terms means that it's still easier for tenants to leave, if for example they drop out of their course, and it can be difficult for a landlord to find a replacement mid-year. At the moment, landlords typically release a tenant from their tenancy, once they've marketed the property and found a replacement, which means the tenant can still leave early, but the landlord isn't left with potentially a few months of no income. But even so, this change is a significant one that's a big improvement on what was in the original white paper. So those are some big changes, but the government is holding firm on some other proposals that landlords really don't like. The big one is that tenants can still move in and immediately give two months notice to leave. Landlords wanted there to be some minimum period, say, six months the tenants were knocked in for, because they can send that they could have all the costs of finding tenants, only for them to effectively use it as cheap short-term accommodation and move out quickly. The government is framing it as consumer protection, so if tenants move in and immediately find out it's not what was advertised, they're free to move back out. And I can see that argument too. And will it be abused that much in practice? It's hard to say, but some landlords still will not be happy with this at all. Landlords will also be unhappy about the property portal that's been suggested that stays with the requirement to upload all kinds of information about the property, which could be a good thing if it's done properly, but there's not a lot of detail, and it sounds like it's just going to be yet more legislation to comply with. They've also refused to consider a proposal to reconsider the removal of mortgage interest tax relief, and landlords still won't be able to refuse permission for tenants to get a pet. Although the government's response does list several examples of when consent could be refused, like if a pet is clearly too big for a property, or if landlords only with a freeholder prohibits it. So what do I think? Well, I do think it's right to sort the courts out first, because if they don't do that, it'll seriously endanger rental supply. No fault of actions in England between April and June this year, increased by 41% compared to the previous year, and surely this is not a coincidence. This is going to be landlords getting out tenants that they're not sure about before this new law comes in. And this isn't an early sign that if landlords have no faith that they'll be able to remove tenants who don't pay or cause trouble, supply will fall, and they'll only rent a tenant who have the squeaky-scleaned reddit history and references. And I think it's fair to recognise this, because otherwise politicians will be falling into their usual trap of solving one problem and creating another one in the process. But I also think that renters can rightly be angry. The proposal to ban no fault evictions is 4 years old, and clearly it's going to put more pressure on the courts. So what did they be doing all this time? They could have been making these changes already, so the courts were ready when the law comes in. Can it rights organisations also won't be happy? Because the government has refused to strengthen several provisions on the tenant side of things, including longer-natured periods and a longer minimum period before tenants could exercise their right to sell the property or move back in. And I see that point. Ultimately there's a big opportunity to get this right and produce a win-win. It is possible to give tenants more protection and longer tenences of good use for landlords too. As long as everyone's protected against the minority of bad landlords and troublesome tenants, but will the government pull it off? Well, it all depends on what happens next. So the bill will now move to the committee stage, where MPs get to go through it line by line and ask for amendments. Labour MPs have said that they're going to be pushing for an increase in notice periods from two to four months and limit to the amount of advance rent that can be requested and legally binding decent home standards and a ban on refusing to rent to people who are on benefits or have children. So now the bill is moving again and it seems like it will be going through in this Parliament. Both sides are going to be stepping up their efforts to get what they want. And remember we'll have all the updates on that in our free newsletter, the link is below. But how did the rental market end up in such a mess in the first place? Well, watch this video next where I explained. And the answer isn't as simple as you might think.