After Angela Rayner’s resignation, what's next for the Renters’ Rights Bill?

Resignation, political upheaval, and widespread uncertainty – but the question, as always, is what happens next? Angela Rayner’s departure as Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing has created a new layer of uncertainty around the Government’s flagship Renters’ Rights Bill. Central to that Bill is the long-promised abolition of section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, and with it the elimination of ‘no fault’ evictions.

For years, s.21 abolition has been trailed as the panacea of tenant protection. Labour went into the last election with a clear commitment to delivering it, with Rayner positioning herself as the political champion determined to see it through. Her departure, however, may expose the fragile coalition of political will, legislative time, and practical readiness that underpins reform.

Rayner’s shock departure raises two immediate questions: political will, and timing. Firstly, it’s unclear whether Rayner’s successor, Steve Reed, will have the same drive to press ahead with s.21 abolition in the face of sustained lobbying from landlord groups, and warnings from the legal profession about the readiness of the aged court system. 

While Reed has already come out publicly with his priorities (‘BUILD, BABY, BUILD’), which don’t indicate a focus on the rental sector, Minister of State Matthew Pennycock recently gave an unwavering and, perhaps overly bullish, defence of the Bill in the Commons after facing amendments from the Lords.

Secondly, on timing, even before this resignation, the parliamentary timetable for reform was already tight. Any loss of momentum could see s.21 reform kicked into the medium, or even long, grass.

The loudest objections to s.21 abolition have never really been about the principle, rather the practical objections of the reality of the County Court system, which practitioners know is under considerable strain. A Parliamentary Report in July 2025 found that the County Court is “a dysfunctional operation that has failed to adequately deliver civil justice”. This, twinned with the latest Ministry of Justice statistics from August 2025 showing the average time for a possession had increased yet again this quarter, to over 27 weeks, demonstrates that delays are causing real hardship for both landlords and tenants. 

Were s.21 to be abolished before the courts are ready, the consequences would be felt on both sides. Landlords would face extended waits for possession, deterring investment and exacerbating supply shortages. Tenants could find themselves trapped in protracted litigation, with all concomitant stress and cost.

S.21 operates, for better or worse, as a ‘pressure value’ within the creaking Court system, by allowing simple cases to proceed without contested hearings which would otherwise be channelled into the overwhelmed judicial diary. Against that backdrop, there is increasing speculation that the Bill could be passed into law with the commencement of the abolition of s.21 'shelved' until the courts are reformed, and the system better equipped to responsibly deal with a rise in hearings.

That said, political realities may yet drive the opposite outcome. In the wake of a high-profile resignation, the Government may look for policies to reset the narrative. Announcing the end of s.21 could provide exactly that – a win of substantial symbolic weight for tenants, and a means of diverting attention from internal upheaval while delivering a manifesto commitment. Yet arguably, the emergency re-shuffle has done the job, and there is more political capital to be gained from delaying, rather than rushing, s.21 abolition.

Given Rayner’s personal interest in the Bill, and the abolition of s.21 being a policy far more aligned to her personally than the Prime Minister, it may well even be that appetite for that specific element of reform no longer exists.

A former Senior Parliamentary Researcher said: “When Government policy becomes aligned too closely to fractious party politics, as with the resignation of Angela Rayner, voters will inevitably bear the cost of wasted scrutiny and debate, which when translated across to the legal sector makes preparation for legislation an uncertain and costly venture.”

This tension – between the practical necessity of delay and the political temptation to expedite – lies at the heart of the uncertainty facing practitioners. Practitioners need to consider now how clients will manage tenancies in a post s.21 landscape, even if abolition is delayed. 

However, the abolition of s.21 still appears inevitable – the only question is when. Much will depend on whether Reed has the political will to prioritise reform, and whether the courts can be made fit for purpose in time. Until then, landlords and tenants are left in a holding pattern, with clarity still desperately needed.

My view is that shelving remains the more responsible course, but we cannot discount the political calculus that favours speed over substance. For landlords, tenants, and practitioners alike, the absence of clarity is the most damaging feature. Until clarity is provided, we are left advising in the shadow of uncertainty – an uncertainty that grows with every twist in the political narrative.