The Renters' Rights Act is usually discussed as legal reform, but its most practical consequence is that rent reviews become operational, evidence-led, and contestable. That is a workflow change as much as a legal one, and the industry was not set up for it. MarketRent exists to give agents a rent review process that is consistent, well evidenced, and able to stand up if it is questioned.
Duncan and I built MarketRent because we could see a problem coming.
The Renters' Rights Act is often talked about in terms of legal reform, tenant rights, and the end of the old tenancy cycle. All of that matters. But from our perspective, one of the most important changes is more practical than political: rent reviews are becoming a much more operational, evidence-led, and contested part of residential letting.
That has big implications for agents and landlords.
In the old world, rent increases often sat alongside renewals, fixed terms, and fairly established habits. In the new world, that falls away. Periodic tenancies become the norm. Rent increases move onto a clearer statutory footing. The process becomes more formal. The likelihood of challenge becomes more real.
That is not just a legal change. It is a workflow change. And in our view, the industry was not set up for it.
The problem we could see
Most agents know the rules are changing. The more important question is what that means in practice.
What happens when rent reviews have to be run at scale across a portfolio, in a world with no renewals, greater tenant scrutiny, more formal process, and a clearer route to challenge?
At that point, this stops being a simple pricing exercise.
The proposed rent has to be supportable. The process has to be right. The communication has to be clear. The evidence has to be retained. Negotiation has to be handled properly. And if the matter is challenged, the file needs to stand up.
That is hard to do consistently across a real agency business. Different landlords have different expectations. Different negotiators and property managers have different instincts. Different branches develop different ways of working. Too much sits in inboxes, spreadsheets, CRM notes, and individual judgement.
That may have been tolerable in a less formal world. We do not think it will be good enough in the one we are moving into.
Why this matters commercially
This is not just about getting the process right. It is about landlord outcomes, agency value, and income protection.
Rent reviews sit right at the intersection of landlord expectation, tenant affordability, legal process, and operational execution. When they are done badly, they create friction, delay, and wasted time. When they are done well, they help protect and enhance yield, strengthen the landlord relationship, and reinforce the value of professional management.
That matters even more now because agencies are having to rethink the economics of their service.
With renewals disappearing, many agencies also lose the associated renewal fee income. That means fully managed service has to stand on a stronger footing. In our view, that means it has to move closer to what other sectors would recognise as asset and yield management.
Not just collecting rent. Not just handling maintenance. Not just paperwork.
It means helping landlords manage performance from their asset over time. It means helping them navigate a more complex tenancy lifecycle. And it means being able to handle rent reviews in a way that is evidence-led, commercially sensible, and professionally run.
We think that is going to become an increasingly important part of the managed service proposition. In other words, rent review capability is not only a defensive necessity. It is part of the shift from property management as admin to property management as asset and yield management.
Why process matters more than opinion
A lot of the market conversation focuses on the rent itself. Is this the right number? What are the comparables? How far can a landlord push?
Those questions matter, of course. But we think the bigger issue is the process around the number.
In a more regulated and more contestable environment, instinct on its own is not enough. Agents need to be able to show their workings. They need a process that is clear, repeatable, and defensible.
That becomes even more important if challenge volumes rise and tribunal capacity comes under pressure. Delay starts to matter. Weak process starts to have a direct commercial consequence. And landlords start asking harder questions about what exactly they are getting for their management fee.
Our view is that the winners in this market will not just be those with strong market knowledge. They will be those with the best process for turning that judgement into something consistent, well evidenced, and capable of standing up to scrutiny.
What we set out to build
That is why we built MarketRent.
We did not set out to build a tool that simply spits out a number.
We set out to build something that helps agents run rent reviews properly: with a clearer basis for decision-making, a more consistent workflow, better communication, stronger evidence, structured negotiations, and an audit trail that is actually useful if the review is questioned.
The aim is not to make rent reviews more aggressive. It is to make them more robust.
Better for agents, because it helps them operate more consistently and more professionally. Better for landlords, because it helps protect income and supports better decision-making. Better for tenants, because it makes the basis for a proposed increase clearer, gives them a structured way to respond with counter-evidence, and creates more scope to resolve disagreements without the cost, delay, and friction of going to the First-tier Tribunal. And better for the sector, because a clearer and more evidence-led process should mean better conversations and fewer avoidable disputes.
Why now
We built MarketRent now because this is a moment where the market is changing.
The private rented sector is becoming more process-driven. Across regulation, communication, arrears, repairs, and rent reviews, the direction of travel is the same. Informal practice is giving way to greater expectation of transparency, consistency, and evidence.
We do not see that as a temporary feature of one Act. We see it as part of the ongoing professionalisation of the sector.
For agents, that creates both risk and opportunity. The risk is that old ways of working start to creak under a more demanding regime. The opportunity is that agencies who adapt well can build a stronger proposition for landlords: one based not just on service, but on judgement, process, and yield management.
That is the problem Duncan and I could see. That is why we built MarketRent.
This article is general information for letting agents in England, not legal advice.
