A divisionDivision No. 280 · Monday, 8 September 2025· Commons· Renters

Renters’ Rights Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 18

402Ayes
97Noes
Carried · majority 305 · Government won
147 did not vote
Aye403No99DID NOT VOTE · 147

646 Members · Aye 402 · No 97 · DNV 147 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 8 September 2025, MPs voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 18 to the Renters' Rights Bill, which would have reduced from 12 months to 6 months the period during which a landlord who evicts a tenant on grounds of selling the property is barred from re-letting it. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 402 votes to 97, meaning the 12-month restricted period remains in the Bill. The vote determines how strong a deterrent exists against landlords misusing the "selling up" ground for possession to remove tenants and then re-let at a higher rent. Under the 12-month period that the Commons has now confirmed, a landlord who evicts to sell cannot re-let the property for a full year; breaching that restriction carries financial penalties. The shorter six-month period preferred by the Lords would, supporters of the government position argued, make it considerably easier for landlords, particularly those with large portfolios, to exploit the possession ground as a pretext for removing tenants without ever completing a sale. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour MPs voted 325 to 0 in favour of rejecting the Lords amendment. Liberal Democrats voted 62 to 0 in the same direction, as did the Democratic Unionist Party (4 to 0), the Greens (3 to 0), and smaller groupings. Conservatives voted 89 to 0 against the government motion, joined by all 7 Reform UK MPs who voted and 2 independents. The result sits within a broader sequence of Lords amendment disagreements on the same day, in which the government successfully rejected changes to several other provisions of the Bill.

Voting Aye meant
Support keeping the 12-month no-re-let period after a landlord evicts to sell, maintaining a strong deterrent against bogus possession claims
Voting No meant
Prefer the Lords' shorter 6-month restricted period, arguing it is less burdensome on landlords who genuinely wish to sell
§ 01Who voted how.499 voting Members · 147 absent

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 Aye
289
0
72
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
89
27
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
61
0
10
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
36
0
6
Independent
6
2
5
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
7
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
1
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Your Party
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
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

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Matthew PennycookSupportiveGreenwich and Woolwich
Government must reject most Lords amendments as they undermine core Bill principles; supports amendments on agricultural workers and maintains 12-month no-let restriction to prevent abuse.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (4,162 words)
Sir James CleverlyOpposedBraintree
Bill is poorly thought through and counterproductive; will drive landlords out and reduce housing supply; Lords amendments attempt to address real problems the Government has created.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,220 words)
Gideon AmosNeutralTaunton and Wellington
Supports Bill's core aims but backs certain Lords amendments including those on shared owners (19), carers (64), and military housing (39) to improve fairness and accountability.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,366 words)
Antonia BanceSupportiveTipton and Wednesbury
Bill is groundbreaking and must be protected; opposes amendments that weaken discrimination enforcement and the 12-month no-let restriction; urges rapid implementation.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (344 words)
Danny BealesSupportiveUxbridge and South Ruislip
Bill essential to address sector imbalance; opposes amendments on standard of proof (26-27), pet deposits (11), and re-let periods (18) as they undermine tenant protections.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,319 words)
Vikki SladeSupportiveMid Dorset and North Poole
Bill overdue; strongly opposes amendments on pet deposits (11), re-let periods (18), and standard of proof (26); backs military housing standard (39).Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,023 words)
Rachel BlakeSupportiveCities of London and Westminster
Bill's core principles must be preserved; opposes Lords amendments expanding eviction grounds and raising standard of proof; criticises Opposition for abandoning no-fault eviction commitment.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (687 words)
Dave RobertsonSupportiveLichfield
Bill provides critical opportunity for survivors of domestic abuse; opposes amendments that weaken tenant protections and stability.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (197 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0