Pre-emptive comment for the economists reading this: “inverse bidding war” was the best description we could think of for this process which is really maybe a sort of “capped Dutch auction that can reverse direction and go back up again”.
Another unintended consequence of landlords inflating the advertised price is rent increases for existing tenancies. Landlords and lettings agents are using the advertised asking price of nearby properties to justify an increase up to that level (despite those properties actually being rented out for less). What makes it worse is if you want to dispute the rent increase, you go to the tribunal system whose primary method of evaluating if your rent is fair is looking at the price of advertised properties in your area…
Every landlord and agency uses the 'local market rates' justification and its infuriating. When I moved to London just over 20 years ago, you typically kept paying the same rent with an increase every few years of 50 or 100 a month. Now it's a race to increase them as often and as much as possible on the pretence that they're somehow 'losing out' if they're charging less than the flat next door.
How is that any different from a coffee shop increasing its prices because the other coffee shops on the street have increased theirs?
If a tenant goes to the tribunal to challenge a rent increase, they can provide evidence (e.g. from neighbours) of what people are actually paying for similar properties, rather than just comparing to asking prices (which is obv not ideal, as agreed rents are a more accurate measure).
I expect the reason you've seen this change over the years, with landlords feeling more of a necessity to increase rents to market levels rather than be good to long-term tenants, is just because of vastly higher interest rates. A landlord who had a moderately profitable rental property five years ago is likely to be sitting on annual losses now (especially after Section 24 mortgage interest relief changes, which mean landlords are taxed on revenue not profit). That's obviously their problem, but it will often be what drives the decision to put up the rent (of course, now using the Form 4A Section 13 rent rise notice, which is the only legal form allowed in most cases). Interest rate rises have had a massive negative impact on tenants.
Imagine you're a tenant. Your neighbour comes to you asking how much you pay for your flat and you establish you're paying £300 per month less than them. Do you:
a) advertise your lower rent to the world (and your landlord) by supporting them with their tribunal case; or
Most landlords won't be looking at rent tribunal decisions, so it's unlikely to be a problem to do a). In any case, that landlord probably already knows they are charging £300 under market rent and is continuing for a reason (e.g. the tenant is great, or they aren't under any financial pressure and don't want to risk rocking the boat).
It is far from ideal that data on agreed tenancies is not collected by the government, though perhaps longer term the upcoming government "Register Your Rental Property" service, which will require all of them to be registered, with safety certificates, etc could collect more data on tenancies entered into. Asking prices (especially those inflated to comply with rental bidding rules) are not as reliable as the £ on a tenancy agreement. A market can't work well if market prices are secret.
Re increased advertised rent, this is absolutely true. Our 4 bed was listed at £4k per month (way over market value for SE London with 2 of the bedrooms barely in the legal HMO size guidance), and we were advised by the estate agent to bid under asking price, agreeing £3.5k total.
I've also been keeping an eye on one beds for when I move out of this shared house, and flats in SE which were advertised for £1.5k or less pre-May, are now always £1.75k AT LEAST, often for a flat with no outside space, joint kitchen/living room.
Although it can be beneficial to student renters to terminate before the summer, that reduction in profitability, or knocking the rental property off the usual annual student cycle, seems likely to lead to fewer student properties on the market, reducing choice for students and not helping rent levels.
And similarly, although the ban on taking more than a month rent up front protects many, it is a problem for others, especially the self-employed and those from abroad (including students) who in the past paid a lump up front because they could not pass the usual affordability/income checks. Those prospective tenants may find it harder to rent now.
Another side to the new rules is that many tenants will find that to give notice they now need to give two full months notice to leave, not one, aligned with the rent due date. So a renter paying on 1st of each month giving notice today would likely be stuck in the tenancy until 31st October. I suspect some tenants will be surprised to find their notice is now longer, which makes it harder to move.
I suspect one of the biggest winners from all this is providers of purpose-built student accommodation, and might help to explain the flood of planning applications I've noticed to build thousands of student units (tiny studios with access to communal kitchens) just in and around SE1, within striking distance of King's College London, University of the Arts London and London Southbank University. But on the plus side those new student units will free up capacity in the rental market for non-student renters.
The rental paradox is that what is best for tenants (choice, quality, value) is best served by encouraging more landlords into the market so that increased supply and competition provide a better tenant experience (when properly regulated). But governments keep pushing landlords out of the market, which actually makes things worse for tenants as there's insufficient supply.
I found it very hard indeed to get rid of an old (and dangerously bloated) lithium battery. Nowhere in my borough would take it and even the hazardous waste service run by the City of London (on behalf of all boroughs) refused point-blank. In the end I bought a special (lead-lined?) battery disposal package and had to go to another borough’s recycling centre where it went in the battery box inside its protective cocoon. If it’s this difficult everywhere, no wonder lith batteries end up in black bins.
Good that HMRC are going to clamp down on dodgy souvenir shops. However, their long-standing assumption that all self-employed people are fiddling their taxes may have as much to do with it as ministerial policy; far easier to go for “low-hanging fruit” than take on the tech companies and online retailers who consider tax an irritant, just make HMRC an offer of an “optional” goodwill payment of a few pounds and have legions of accountants and lawyers to ensure they never have to contribute fairly to UK tax revenue.
Reading about the lithium batteries in the recycling makes me angry but also makes me chuckle in desperation. Our block of flats only has a generic black bin for everything, with no recycling. I couldn't believe it when I moved here, so I checked on the council's website, but it is actually correct. Every other block has recycling bins but now ours, and there's no way to get through to the council regarding this. In 2026, it's hilariously terrible.
Some organisations provide battery disposal bins/containers for blocks of flats and come and empty them periodically. Our building has one (it's shaped like an enormous battery!), making it easier to keep batteries out of the main bins. I don't think there's any charge, as they make income recycling the battery materials.
Exactly.. instead of the government intervening to *create* this market failure and then intervening again with the usual unintended consequences, get out of the way.
It'd require removing the single biggest barrier to adding supply - the Planning Act of 1947 - and replacing it with something much simpler than doesn't give NIMBYs a veto, councils excuses to reject applications, and takes away their power to micro-manage every single new house or change.
Something along the lines of you can build anything up to 4-5 floors automatically, that doesn't significantly block sunlight for neighbours, and min basic safety standards.
Probably sounds a bit bonkers 🤪 but the parks could maybe invest in those rollers with spikes used for aerating lawns, and use them instead of the currently presumably redundant sit on mowers…
That might help a little, but doesn't alleviate the underlying issue which is that water has high surface tension. In damp ground this surface tension is already partially broken in between individual particles of soil. This is not the case in bone-dry soil so it makes it much harder for water to sink in. (I believe!)
Evidently it’s in the ‘every little helps’ category and not a panacea. But every little does help, like eg French drains at the edge of patios, and drainage built into driveways. The bonus to aeration would be, I think, that grass and vegetation might regenerate more quickly .
A la lanterne with all estate agents and their awful polyester suits. Up there with budget airlines in their incompetence and the sheer frustration they needlessly inflict on normal people every single day.
When I was looking for a flat a couple months ago (post-reforms), I noticed that Foxtons in Tooting were uploading every rental listing twice with vastly different prices. I’m not sure if they, or other estate agents, are still doing this but I took some screenshots at the time… seemed very obviously a way to flout the bidding rules and not very subtle!
Blame partly the americans/asians coming to freshly gentrified parts of the city (Elephant and Castle for instance) with no knowledge on the London housing market and deep pockets to splash whatever priced is advertised
OH Christ, NO. So you had a ‘very fun’ time researching these stories??!! Is it obligatory to use this meaningless Americanism in reporting? Maybe ‘enjoyable’, ‘interesting’, ‘enlightening’ are not woke, or posh sounding? I’ve subscribed to this to get away from junk. Worse than dealing with Camden Council.
I can assure you we had ZERO fun researching these stories. We toiled and cried and etc in a bid to enlighten you.
We have, however, been working on something "very fun" for next week. If you prefer, I'll accept perhaps we will shift the style guide to "a lot fun" in future. (Note: still no fun had by us, the individuals, in the production of this fun item.) If it comes off, I promise you'll agree or your money back.
Pre-emptive comment for the economists reading this: “inverse bidding war” was the best description we could think of for this process which is really maybe a sort of “capped Dutch auction that can reverse direction and go back up again”.
Another unintended consequence of landlords inflating the advertised price is rent increases for existing tenancies. Landlords and lettings agents are using the advertised asking price of nearby properties to justify an increase up to that level (despite those properties actually being rented out for less). What makes it worse is if you want to dispute the rent increase, you go to the tribunal system whose primary method of evaluating if your rent is fair is looking at the price of advertised properties in your area…
Every landlord and agency uses the 'local market rates' justification and its infuriating. When I moved to London just over 20 years ago, you typically kept paying the same rent with an increase every few years of 50 or 100 a month. Now it's a race to increase them as often and as much as possible on the pretence that they're somehow 'losing out' if they're charging less than the flat next door.
How is that any different from a coffee shop increasing its prices because the other coffee shops on the street have increased theirs?
If a tenant goes to the tribunal to challenge a rent increase, they can provide evidence (e.g. from neighbours) of what people are actually paying for similar properties, rather than just comparing to asking prices (which is obv not ideal, as agreed rents are a more accurate measure).
I expect the reason you've seen this change over the years, with landlords feeling more of a necessity to increase rents to market levels rather than be good to long-term tenants, is just because of vastly higher interest rates. A landlord who had a moderately profitable rental property five years ago is likely to be sitting on annual losses now (especially after Section 24 mortgage interest relief changes, which mean landlords are taxed on revenue not profit). That's obviously their problem, but it will often be what drives the decision to put up the rent (of course, now using the Form 4A Section 13 rent rise notice, which is the only legal form allowed in most cases). Interest rate rises have had a massive negative impact on tenants.
Imagine you're a tenant. Your neighbour comes to you asking how much you pay for your flat and you establish you're paying £300 per month less than them. Do you:
a) advertise your lower rent to the world (and your landlord) by supporting them with their tribunal case; or
b) keep as quiet as possible?
Most landlords won't be looking at rent tribunal decisions, so it's unlikely to be a problem to do a). In any case, that landlord probably already knows they are charging £300 under market rent and is continuing for a reason (e.g. the tenant is great, or they aren't under any financial pressure and don't want to risk rocking the boat).
It is far from ideal that data on agreed tenancies is not collected by the government, though perhaps longer term the upcoming government "Register Your Rental Property" service, which will require all of them to be registered, with safety certificates, etc could collect more data on tenancies entered into. Asking prices (especially those inflated to comply with rental bidding rules) are not as reliable as the £ on a tenancy agreement. A market can't work well if market prices are secret.
Re increased advertised rent, this is absolutely true. Our 4 bed was listed at £4k per month (way over market value for SE London with 2 of the bedrooms barely in the legal HMO size guidance), and we were advised by the estate agent to bid under asking price, agreeing £3.5k total.
I've also been keeping an eye on one beds for when I move out of this shared house, and flats in SE which were advertised for £1.5k or less pre-May, are now always £1.75k AT LEAST, often for a flat with no outside space, joint kitchen/living room.
Cry harder, Foxtons!
Although it can be beneficial to student renters to terminate before the summer, that reduction in profitability, or knocking the rental property off the usual annual student cycle, seems likely to lead to fewer student properties on the market, reducing choice for students and not helping rent levels.
And similarly, although the ban on taking more than a month rent up front protects many, it is a problem for others, especially the self-employed and those from abroad (including students) who in the past paid a lump up front because they could not pass the usual affordability/income checks. Those prospective tenants may find it harder to rent now.
Another side to the new rules is that many tenants will find that to give notice they now need to give two full months notice to leave, not one, aligned with the rent due date. So a renter paying on 1st of each month giving notice today would likely be stuck in the tenancy until 31st October. I suspect some tenants will be surprised to find their notice is now longer, which makes it harder to move.
I suspect one of the biggest winners from all this is providers of purpose-built student accommodation, and might help to explain the flood of planning applications I've noticed to build thousands of student units (tiny studios with access to communal kitchens) just in and around SE1, within striking distance of King's College London, University of the Arts London and London Southbank University. But on the plus side those new student units will free up capacity in the rental market for non-student renters.
The rental paradox is that what is best for tenants (choice, quality, value) is best served by encouraging more landlords into the market so that increased supply and competition provide a better tenant experience (when properly regulated). But governments keep pushing landlords out of the market, which actually makes things worse for tenants as there's insufficient supply.
I found it very hard indeed to get rid of an old (and dangerously bloated) lithium battery. Nowhere in my borough would take it and even the hazardous waste service run by the City of London (on behalf of all boroughs) refused point-blank. In the end I bought a special (lead-lined?) battery disposal package and had to go to another borough’s recycling centre where it went in the battery box inside its protective cocoon. If it’s this difficult everywhere, no wonder lith batteries end up in black bins.
Good that HMRC are going to clamp down on dodgy souvenir shops. However, their long-standing assumption that all self-employed people are fiddling their taxes may have as much to do with it as ministerial policy; far easier to go for “low-hanging fruit” than take on the tech companies and online retailers who consider tax an irritant, just make HMRC an offer of an “optional” goodwill payment of a few pounds and have legions of accountants and lawyers to ensure they never have to contribute fairly to UK tax revenue.
Reading about the lithium batteries in the recycling makes me angry but also makes me chuckle in desperation. Our block of flats only has a generic black bin for everything, with no recycling. I couldn't believe it when I moved here, so I checked on the council's website, but it is actually correct. Every other block has recycling bins but now ours, and there's no way to get through to the council regarding this. In 2026, it's hilariously terrible.
Some organisations provide battery disposal bins/containers for blocks of flats and come and empty them periodically. Our building has one (it's shaped like an enormous battery!), making it easier to keep batteries out of the main bins. I don't think there's any charge, as they make income recycling the battery materials.
I personally never had to dispose of a lithium battery, but I would be very happy to get some recycling bins from the council
Well, well, well - if it isn't the predictable consequences of our legislation. If only there was a proven alternative:
https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/127192/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2026/03/18/austins-surge-of-new-housing-construction-drove-down-rents
https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/new-zealand-shows-how-planning-reform-will-end-britains-housing-crisis/
Exactly.. instead of the government intervening to *create* this market failure and then intervening again with the usual unintended consequences, get out of the way.
It'd require removing the single biggest barrier to adding supply - the Planning Act of 1947 - and replacing it with something much simpler than doesn't give NIMBYs a veto, councils excuses to reject applications, and takes away their power to micro-manage every single new house or change.
Something along the lines of you can build anything up to 4-5 floors automatically, that doesn't significantly block sunlight for neighbours, and min basic safety standards.
Probably sounds a bit bonkers 🤪 but the parks could maybe invest in those rollers with spikes used for aerating lawns, and use them instead of the currently presumably redundant sit on mowers…
That might help a little, but doesn't alleviate the underlying issue which is that water has high surface tension. In damp ground this surface tension is already partially broken in between individual particles of soil. This is not the case in bone-dry soil so it makes it much harder for water to sink in. (I believe!)
Evidently it’s in the ‘every little helps’ category and not a panacea. But every little does help, like eg French drains at the edge of patios, and drainage built into driveways. The bonus to aeration would be, I think, that grass and vegetation might regenerate more quickly .
A la lanterne with all estate agents and their awful polyester suits. Up there with budget airlines in their incompetence and the sheer frustration they needlessly inflict on normal people every single day.
When I was looking for a flat a couple months ago (post-reforms), I noticed that Foxtons in Tooting were uploading every rental listing twice with vastly different prices. I’m not sure if they, or other estate agents, are still doing this but I took some screenshots at the time… seemed very obviously a way to flout the bidding rules and not very subtle!
London landlords stop being evil challenge failed again
Worrying that ‘Michelle’ worked in housing policy and didn’t understand this would be the blindingly obvious consequence of the legislation.
Blame partly the americans/asians coming to freshly gentrified parts of the city (Elephant and Castle for instance) with no knowledge on the London housing market and deep pockets to splash whatever priced is advertised
OH Christ, NO. So you had a ‘very fun’ time researching these stories??!! Is it obligatory to use this meaningless Americanism in reporting? Maybe ‘enjoyable’, ‘interesting’, ‘enlightening’ are not woke, or posh sounding? I’ve subscribed to this to get away from junk. Worse than dealing with Camden Council.
I can assure you we had ZERO fun researching these stories. We toiled and cried and etc in a bid to enlighten you.
We have, however, been working on something "very fun" for next week. If you prefer, I'll accept perhaps we will shift the style guide to "a lot fun" in future. (Note: still no fun had by us, the individuals, in the production of this fun item.) If it comes off, I promise you'll agree or your money back.
Save some punctuation for the rest of us mate.