As the Renters’ Rights Bill casts its legislative shadow over the private rental sector (PRS), concerns are already emerging—well in advance of its formal enactment. Greg Tsuman, former president of Propertymark, has sounded the alarm, cautioning that the mere anticipation of the bill’s implementation is already creating tangible disruptions within the market.

According to Tsuman, a noticeable uptick in early surrender agreements is unfolding, a trend driven by tenants who—mistakenly or prematurely—assume that the bill’s provisions are currently enforceable. Many renters, he observed, now believe that simply providing two months’ notice suffices to terminate a fixed-term lease.

Tsuman explained: “Because the Renters’ Rights Bill means that any tenant can leave a fixed-term tenancy with two months’ notice, this may give tenants more freedom of movement without any fees, but it will also increase landlords’ costs.

“This could then push more landlords out of the private rental sector because it is yet another cost they would need to consider, alongside how much rent they are going to charge.

“This could then lead to fewer properties for tenants to rent.”

Early surrender agreements—typically invoked in the absence of a break clause—allow tenants to exit their lease obligations prematurely, avoiding full liability for the remaining term. While such arrangements can be mutually beneficial in rare cases, Tsuman urged caution, emphasizing that landlords should reserve this option for only the most exceptional of circumstances.

He stated: “In the meantime, there must be a valid reason why landlords may want to waive their rights before they lose their rights.

“For example, if a landlord is selling in the future, it may suit their plans to agree to an early surrender agreement.

“Agreeing to an early surrender increases their risk of getting fined, experiencing loss of revenue, and additional expenses which they may not be able to cover.”

The aftermath of these agreements, Tsuman warned, can be volatile. Once released from contractual obligations, some tenants—freed from the legal framework that previously governed their behaviour—have acted out in troubling ways.

He added: “We have seen tenants turn on their landlord as soon as the early surrender agreement was signed.

“Once tenants are no longer contractually bound, some may feel emboldened to act unreasonably or even make threats.

“It’s a good reminder to document everything and, where possible, ensure mutual surrender terms include clauses about post-surrender conduct or settlement of disputes.”

Another layer of complication comes from the interaction between these agreements and the Tenant Fees Act 2019. That legislation significantly restricts the types of fees landlords are permitted to charge tenants, further muddying the waters around early exits.

Tsuman warned that recent tribunal rulings have introduced a level of uncertainty: even if a landlord offers an early surrender agreement that ultimately benefits the tenant financially, they could still face punitive consequences.

He said: “A landlord putting forward an early surrender agreement even if this is financially better for the tenant than holding them to the existing contract, could land them with a significant fine and an inability to recover their costs, and that is the unintended consequence of the Tenant Fees Act.”