Writing in LeftFoot Forward, Tom Darling, director of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, positions a potential exodus of landlords from the market as an opportunity for creating a more professional and regulated rental system. However, there are several notable issues with his argument and the claims he makes in the article.

1. Quality of Rented Homes: Darling points out that despite the growth in rented homes since 2000, rental affordability has reached historically high levels, and the quality of these homes has not significantly improved. This observation is meant to argue that buy-to-let landlords haven’t done enough to raise standards. While there are certainly problems in the rental market, Darling neglects to mention that the majority of tenants end their tenancies voluntarily (77%), and many are satisfied with their homes (English Housing Survey 2021 to 2022: private rented sector) . This counters the claim that landlords are primarily at fault for poor housing quality or affordability.

2. Supply and Demand: Darling’s suggestion that the rental market is not like other markets overlooks the importance of supply in addressing housing needs. If landlords were to sell their properties, reducing the available rental stock, it could push more people into homeownership, but it would likely cause a further strain on the housing supply in the short term, particularly for those who cannot afford to buy. The assumption that selling properties would lead to increased social housing development is overly optimistic and doesn’t account for the complexities of housing development or funding limitations.

3. Corporate Landlords vs. Buy-to-Let Landlords: Darling implies that landlords selling their properties could lead to larger, more professional landlords or buyers taking on properties, but fails to address the fact that corporate landlords typically charge higher rents than individual buy-to-let landlords. This could worsen affordability for tenants, especially when considering that larger institutional landlords may not provide the same level of flexibility or commitment to affordable housing as smaller, individual landlords do.

4. Student Housing: The claim that selling buy-to-let properties could provide opportunities for first-time buyers and reduce demand for private rented accommodation does not consider that a significant portion of the rental market is students. Private rentals are often far cheaper than purpose-built student accommodation, which would not necessarily be available if landlords sold their properties off.

5. No Supporting Statistics: One of the most concerning aspects of Darling’s article is the lack of statistical evidence to back up the positive outcomes he envisions. For example, while he refers to the idea of reducing the number of landlords as a way of improving the system, he doesn’t provide data on how this would actually happen or the broader effects of such a change on tenants. On the contrary, government figures reveal that a large percentage of landlords intend to sell their properties, and many of them do not plan to replace the rental units they are selling. This suggests that Darling’s vision may not be as feasible as he presents it.

In short, while Darling argues that a reduction in private rental properties could lead to a more professional and regulated sector, the evidence he presents is not comprehensive or convincing. The potential consequences of a mass exodus of landlords would likely exacerbate the housing crisis, particularly in the short term, and lead to further complications for tenants.