Renters
Private renting, tenant rights, and regulation
Based on 13 parliamentary votes
Related Housing Issues
How Parties Voted on Renters
Government alignment shows how often each party voted with the government's stated position. Issue-aligned direction shows agreement with the AI-identified supportive stance.
Voted with government positionVoted in issue-aligned direction
Recent Votes
| Vote | Result | Date |
|---|---|---|
MPs voted on whether to reject a series of changes made by the House of Lords to the Renters' Rights Bill, including Lords attempts to reintroduce fixed-term tenancies, weaken local authorities' powers to hold bad landlords to account, and modify rules around pet damage deposits. The government wanted to keep the Bill's core purpose of moving to periodic tenancies and stronger tenant protections intact. Yes = Support the government's position of rejecting Lords amendments that would have diluted tenant protections, including attempts to reintroduce fixed-term tenancies and make it harder for councils to hold bad landlords to account. · No = Support the Lords amendments, which would have reintroduced fixed-term tenancies, raised the burden of proof for local authorities pursuing bad landlords, and made other changes that critics argue would weaken the Bill's protections for renters. Govt: Aye | 336-162 | 8 Sept 2025 |
The Lords had amended the Renters' Rights Bill to bring military service family accommodation within scope of the new decent homes standard. The Commons voted to reject that Lords amendment, with the government arguing the defence estate spans all four UK nations and should be covered by a separate MOD housing strategy rather than England-focused housing legislation. Yes = Support rejecting the Lords amendment, trusting the government's alternative plan (a defence housing strategy, £1.5bn investment, and annual MOD reports to Parliament) to improve service family accommodation standards without putting them in the Renters' Rights Bill · No = Support the Lords amendment requiring service family accommodation to meet the new decent homes standard enshrined in the Renters' Rights Bill, providing statutory certainty for military families Govt: Aye | 324-173 | 8 Sept 2025 |
The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 26) to the Renters' Rights Bill that would have limited local authorities' enforcement powers over rogue landlords. The Government wanted to preserve strong powers for councils to hold bad landlords to account, and the Commons backed this position by a large majority. Yes = Support giving local authorities strong powers to enforce against rogue landlords, rejecting the Lords' attempt to water down those powers in the Renters' Rights Bill · No = Support the Lords amendment that would have restricted local authority enforcement powers over landlords, viewing it as a necessary safeguard Govt: Aye | 404-96 | 8 Sept 2025 |
The government asked MPs to reject a Lords amendment to the Renters' Rights Bill. Based on the debate, the Lords had inserted amendments that would, among other things, allow fixed-term tenancies and weaken local authorities' enforcement powers against bad landlords — changes the government argued would undermine the Bill's core purpose of moving to periodic tenancies and strengthening tenant protections. Yes = Support the government's position: reject Lords changes that would reintroduce fixed-term tenancies and dilute local authorities' ability to hold rogue landlords to account, preserving stronger tenant protections · No = Back the Lords amendments, supporting greater flexibility for landlords including fixed-term tenancies and a higher burden of proof for enforcement action against landlords Govt: Aye | 338-160 | 8 Sept 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a House of Lords amendment that would have halved (from 12 to 6 months) the period during which a landlord cannot re-let a property after evicting a tenant on grounds of selling. The government argued the shorter period would create a loophole allowing rogue landlords to evict tenants claiming a sale, then re-let at higher rents. Yes = Support keeping the 12-month restricted re-letting period to protect tenants from being evicted under false pretences of a property sale, rejecting the Lords' proposal to reduce it to 6 months · No = Support the Lords' amendment to reduce the restricted period to 6 months, arguing 12 months is excessive or overly burdensome on landlords with legitimate reasons to sell Govt: Aye | 403-99 | 8 Sept 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment that would have allowed landlords to charge tenants an extra deposit worth three weeks' rent (averaging over £900) as a condition of permitting them to keep a pet. The government argued this would be unaffordable for most tenants and far exceeded the average cost of pet-related damage. Yes = Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the existing pet deposit rules without an additional three-week deposit charge for tenants who want pets · No = Support the Lords amendment, allowing landlords to require an extra three-week deposit before permitting a tenant to keep a pet Govt: Aye | 399-95 | 8 Sept 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 53) to the Renters' Rights Bill that would have allowed landlords to charge tenants an additional deposit specifically to cover potential damage caused by pets, giving both parties more security when renting with animals. The government opposed this Lords change, preferring to rely on existing deposit rules and a proposed pet insurance product instead. Yes = Support rejecting the Lords amendment, keeping the existing deposit framework rather than allowing a separate additional pet damage deposit for landlords · No = Support the Lords amendment allowing landlords to require an extra pet deposit, giving landlords tangible financial protection against pet damage and encouraging them to accept pet-owning tenants Govt: Aye | 399-97 | 8 Sept 2025 |
Vote on a Conservative amendment (New Clause 20) requiring the government to publish an impact assessment of the Renters' Rights Bill on the private rented sector, particularly focusing on concerns that the Bill could drive landlords to sell up, reducing the supply of rental properties available to tenants. Yes = Support requiring an impact assessment of the Renters' Rights Bill, arguing that reforms may shrink the rental market and harm tenants by reducing housing supply, particularly in rural areas · No = Oppose the impact assessment requirement, backing the government's Renters' Rights Bill as introduced and rejecting Conservative attempts to delay or scrutinise it further Govt: No | 184-365 | 14 Jan 2025 |
Vote on a government amendment to the Renters' Rights Bill that would cap the amount of rent a landlord can require tenants to pay in advance before a tenancy begins, limiting it to one month's rent. This protects renters — particularly those on lower incomes — from being priced out of tenancies by large upfront rent demands. Yes = Support capping upfront rent in advance to one month, protecting renters from landlords demanding large sums before a tenancy starts · No = Oppose this specific government amendment, either preferring a stricter two-month cap (as proposed in opposition New Clause 1) or opposing the Renters' Rights Bill more broadly Govt: Aye | 372-116 | 14 Jan 2025 |
MPs voted on whether to pass the Renters' Rights Bill at its final stage in the Commons. This landmark legislation overhauls the private rented sector, most notably abolishing no-fault evictions (Section 21), strengthening tenants' rights, and introducing new rules on rent increases and how rent payment dates are set. Yes = Support passing the Renters' Rights Bill, backing stronger protections for private tenants including abolishing no-fault evictions and regulating rent practices · No = Oppose the Renters' Rights Bill in its current form, likely citing concerns about the impact on landlords, housing supply, or the viability of the private rented sector Govt: Aye | 440-114 | 14 Jan 2025 |
How is this calculated?
Government alignment (primary bar) shows how often a party's MPs voted with the government's stated position on this issue. This is the most comparable metric across parties, as it measures the same reference point for everyone.
Issue-aligned direction (secondary bar) shows how often MPs voted in the direction tagged as supportive of this issue by AI analysis. For example, if a vote is tagged “pro-environment”, a Yes vote counts as aligned. This can be misleading when the tagged direction happens to align with opposition amendments rather than government bills.
Why these metrics may differ: Opposition parties often vote against government bills for strategic or procedural reasons, even when they broadly support the policy area. The government alignment metric makes this clearer by showing the actual voting pattern against a consistent reference.
Source: Commons division data from the UK Parliament Votes API. Alignment direction determined by AI analysis of vote stance tags. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.