Affordability needs a supply-led response
Rent controls appeal because they appear to offer a quick response when tenants are struggling. The scale of the affordability problem cannot be ignored. Across London, for example, the average rent for a one-bedroom home is equal to 52% of median pre-tax pay, compared with 42% across the rest of England.
Tenants need secure, good-quality homes at prices they can afford. Achieving that requires coordinated action to address the root causes of high housing costs.
We continue to call for the UK and devolved governments to:
- increase the supply of homes across the private and social rented sectors
- review taxes which discourage landlords from entering or remaining in the market
- restore and retain Local Housing Allowance rates so that support reflects real rents
- bring empty homes back into use
- use grants and tax incentives to support energy efficiency and wider property improvements
- provide stable, proportionate regulation which gives responsible landlords confidence to invest.
These recommendations are set out in our policy paper, The Future of Renting. They would support tenants who need help now while also tackling the underlying shortage. Rent controls may change what some tenants pay, but only more homes and sustained investment can improve affordability and choice across the market.
Short-term protection can carry a longer-term cost
Recent debate has focused on whether a carefully designed system could avoid the problems seen under strict rent freezes. One proposal for England recommends a national ‘double lock’, linking rent increases to wages and the Consumer Price Index, with exemptions for new homes and controls applying both within and between tenancies. Its supporters acknowledge risks to supply, quality, and mobility but argue that these can be managed through the scheme's design .
Those safeguards do not eliminate the central problem: even a moderate cap changes the expected return from providing a rented home. Landlords may sell, move property into another tenure or market, delay improvements, or become more selective about applicants. Exemptions can soften one effect but create new boundaries and incentives around which properties are controlled.
The international evidence shows why policy makers should be cautious.
Supply can fall even when existing tenants benefit
A study of San Francisco’s 1994 expansion of rent control found that it reduced tenant mobility by 20% and helped limit displacement among those already protected. However, affected landlords reduced the supply of rental housing by 15% through conversion to owner-occupation and redevelopment. The researchers concluded that the loss of rental stock was likely to raise market rents over time, working against the policy’s original aim.
Berlin’s much stricter rent freeze also brought rents down for controlled homes, but the number of homes being advertised for rent fell sharply. Academic analysis found that weekly rental listings dropped over 50%; from more than 600 before the policy was announced to fewer than 300 after it was implemented.
Design matters, but it does not remove uncertainty
Two studies of Catalonia’s 2020 controls illustrate why claims about rent regulation must be treated carefully. One study found that rents fell by around 4-6% and found no evidence of a short-term reduction in rental supply. Its authors stressed, however, that the policy was short-lived, so they could not identify longer-term effects on new housing delivery.
A separate study of the same policy found an average rent reduction of around 5%, alongside an estimated 10% fall in rental supply. It also found that prices fell most at the top of the market but rose at the bottom as demand shifted towards lower-priced homes.
The differences between these findings reflect different data, measures, and methods. It does not justify assuming that supply risks can be designed away. Instead, it shows the need to assess the whole market over time, including who gains access to a controlled home and what happens to people searching for one.
Long-run evidence points in the same direction. A study covering almost a century of rental regulation in Argentina found that strong controls slowed real rent growth only during two relatively short periods. The authors warned governments against relying on controls because strong regulation produces negative side effects, while weaker regulation has little effect on rent increases.
Scotland shows how confidence can change quickly
Propertymark has challenged rent control proposals in Scotland since they formed part of the Scottish Government’s New Deal for Tenants. In 2022, we held member roundtables, submitted a detailed consultation response and met Patrick Harvie MSP, then Minister for Tenants’ Rights, to explain the risks to investment and supply
The Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 then introduced a temporary in-tenancy rent freeze and eviction restrictions . Our follow-up survey of Scottish letting agents showed the effect on confidence: 93% reported more landlords expressing a wish to withdraw property from the private rented sector because of the extension, whilst 83% had seen an increase in landlords serving notice to sell.
Together with the Scottish Association of Landlords and Scottish Land & Estates, we sought a Judicial Review of the emergency legislation. Although the challenge was unsuccessful, it put members' evidence before the Court and publicly challenged measures we believed unfairly transferred rising costs to housing providers without addressing supply.
We made the case throughout the Housing (Scotland) Act
When longer-term controls returned in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we continued to press for the proposals to be withdrawn and for affordability policy to focus on housing supply. During the Bill’s passage, we:
- gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament twice
- met Scottish Government officials and MSPs
- convened working groups with members and our Regional Executives
- worked with other housing organisations
- drafted amendments which were tabled in Parliament.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 still creates a framework under which Ministers can designate rent control areas following local authority assessments. Councils must complete their first assessments of local rent conditions by 31 May 2027, and the main controls are not expected to operate before 2028.
We remain opposed to the policy, but sustained engagement helped secure important changes and safeguards. The permitted annual increase in a rent control area will be CPI plus 1%, subject to a maximum of 6%, rather than an unspecified or more restrictive cap. We also successfully pressed for impacts for rural and island to be assessed. The commitment to exempt build-to-rent homes is welcome, although we continue to argue that the exemptions regime must not favour large institutional providers over individual landlords.
We have also called for flexibility when a landlord has kept rent consistently below market level or invested significantly in improving a home. Without this, the rules could penalise responsible behaviour and weaken the case for upgrades. These details will be set throughout secondary legislation, so our engagement is continuing.
