Renters' Rights Bill Report Stage: Amendment 57
118Ayes
434Noes
Defeated · majority 316 · Government won99 did not vote
651 Members · Aye 118 · No 434 · DNV 99 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament defeated Amendment 57 to the Renters' Rights Bill on 14 January 2025 by 434 votes to 118. The amendment, tabled as New Clause 3, proposed making it unlawful for a landlord to demand or accept more than one month's rent in advance by treating any excess as a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The vote matters because advance rent demands are a significant barrier for renters on low or irregular incomes. Those who cannot produce several months of rent upfront before a tenancy begins may be excluded from the market entirely. The amendment aimed to set a hard one-month statutory ceiling. The government opposed it not because it rejected the principle but because it had tabled its own competing provisions, specifically Government New Clauses 14 and 15, to address the same issue on different terms. The government's approach allows landlords to take up to one month's rent in advance before a tenancy begins alongside a holding deposit and a tenancy deposit, and Ministers argued this struck the appropriate balance. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines, but in an unusual configuration. Conservatives, the Democratic Unionist Party, and Reform UK voted for the amendment, while Labour, Labour and Co-operative, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party voted against. Two independents voted aye and nine voted no. The Conservatives' support for a stricter cap than the government proposed reflects the broader Report Stage dynamic, in which the Opposition and the government were competing over the form, rather than the fact, of advance rent restrictions. The Bill passed its Third Reading the same day by 440 votes to 111.
Voting Aye meant
Support stricter statutory limits on advance rent payments, capping what landlords can demand upfront to protect renters on low incomes from being priced out of the market.
Voting No meant
Oppose this particular amendment, either because the government's own new clauses already address advance rent restrictions or because tighter caps risk excluding financially marginal renters from the market.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
316
45
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
106
0
10
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
60
11
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
35
7
Independent
—
2
10
2
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
2
0
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
1
0
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Government amendments strengthen tenant protections by capping rent in advance at one month, limiting guarantor liability after tenant death, enabling landlord possession for redevelopment with alternative accommodation, and improving enforcement through database fees and ombudsman provisions.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (9,275 words) →
Bill creates unintended problems: locks out financially vulnerable tenants (poor credit scores, foreign workers, retirees) by removing rent-in-advance flexibility; imposes massive unfunded burdens on councils; lacks impact assessment; risks reducing housing supply as landlords exit sector or use short-term lets instead.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,176 words) →
Supports ending no-fault evictions and key protections, but amendments needed: extend student housing protections to off-street lets; limit in-tenancy rent increases to Bank of England base rate; require landlords to pay alternative accommodation costs; apply decent homes standard to military service family accommodation.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (2,237 words) →
Highlights tenant vulnerabilities in London and south-east where rent-in-advance demands are astronomical (equivalent to home purchase deposits); welcomes reforms but notes enforcement and council capacity are critical.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,943 words) →
Seeks amendment to extend decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation to ensure service families receive same protections as other tenants.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (87 words) →
Warns that landlords are pre-emptively raising rents and terminating tenancies before the Bill takes effect; calls for immediate interim protections during transition period.Independent · Voted no · Read full speech (1,265 words) →
Supports Bill as homelessness charity worker; measures will help charities provide more support to homeless people seeking rental accommodation.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (92 words) →
New clause 22 should require landlords to hold insurance and pay for alternative accommodation when properties become uninhabitable; current situation leaves tenants thousands of pounds out of pocket.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (150 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0