By It’s been close to a decade since VAR first arrived in football. Back then, believe it or not, the mood was cautiously optimistic. Fans had spent decades watching match-defining decisions go against them, including one infamous World Cup semifinal goal. And after all, video assistance had proven successful in a few other sports. Surely VAR would add the fairness the game had always deserved?
As we now know, the optimism didn’t last.
The Renters’ Rights Act is facing the same moment that VAR did in 2016. Some are holding out hope. But even in its infancy, some cracks are already starting to show. If football history is anything to go by, it suggests we know roughly where this is heading.
Removing the Referee
When VAR first arrived, it was touted as a true assistant: technology that would improve decision-making. What wasn’t realised, was how significantly it would alter the referee’s relationship with the game.
Decisions that were once made confidently became subject to scrutiny. Fans were told to be patient. The benefits would become clear.
The Renters’ Rights Act has made the same ‘promise’. The removal of Section 21 no-fault evictions is framed as removing an unfair power. While there’s no denying that in the hands of irresponsible landlords, Section 21 was sometimes abused, it provided many well-meaning landlords with a way to make responsible decisions over their investments.
Now landlords only have access to Section 8: a grounds-based eviction system that can be slower, more complex, litigious, and expensive to navigate. With Section 21 removed, many landlords feel they no longer have the clarity that made responsible property management viable, especially at smaller scales where margins are tight.
The Agony of Delayed Decisions
One of the biggest fears originally surrounding VAR was the wait. Even worldies stopped receiving the level of celebration they deserved – because suddenly, it could be taken away by a brisk walk to the pitch-side monitor. The check could last minutes and by that time, even if the decision went in your favour, you’d feel a bit robbed. Fans were told this was a small price to pay for getting it right.
The same thing is starting to happen in the rental market. A Section 8 notice may now be served with established grounds. But the process is not moving anywhere as quickly as many would hope. Court backlogs tend to stretch to months. Possession orders may get appealed. The Act has also handed tenants the right to challenge any rent increase at the First-tier Tribunal. These are frustrations that chip away at the passion many landlords have for managing their properties.
What was once a defined, albeit imperfect process, is becoming an administrative ordeal in which landlords carry the financial and emotional cost of open-ended uncertainty.
The Margin for Error has Grown
VAR once promised precision. But inevitably, many would argue, it has created new categories of controversy. Rules were now subject to a new level of subjectivity.
Even in its infancy, the Renters’ Rights Act is already producing legal grey areas and procedural complexity that benefits nobody (except perhaps solicitors). The landlords best equipped to survive are not small, independent operators who characterise much of the private rented sector. They are the large portfolio landlords with a legal team on speed-dial.
The Fans Aren’t Celebrating Yet
One of the ironies that emerged from VAR’s early years was that the fans turned most vocally against it. Not immediately, but steadily, as they realised that what they lost was worth more to them than what they gained.
The Renters’ Rights Act’s equivalent is renters themselves. Landlords are exiting the market in meaningful numbers. Fewer properties means upward pressure on rents. Landlords who remain are applying more stringent tenant selection criteria to offset increased risk. The renters who were already most vulnerable, those with uncertain income, adverse credit history, or non-standard employment, are finding it even harder to rent or buy a home.
VAR did not change football overnight, but decision by decision, the compounding effects became impossible to ignore. The rental market is earlier on that same curve. But the trajectory is visible for those willing to look.
The property sector needs this conversation now, not in a decade’s time. Hope is not a policy. And time, as both landlords and renters are already discovering, is in very short supply. And it’s one of the reasons why specialist property finance is in higher demand.
It’s been close to a decade since VAR first arrived in football. Back then, believe it or not, the mood was cautiously optimistic. Fans had spent decades watching match-defining decisions go against them, including one infamous World Cup semifinal goal. And after all, video assistance had proven successful in a few other sports. Surely VAR would add the fairness the game had always deserved?
As we now know, the optimism didn’t last.
The Renters’ Rights Act is facing the same moment that VAR did in 2016. Some are holding out hope. But even in its infancy, some cracks are already starting to show. If football history is anything to go by, it suggests we know roughly where this is heading.
Removing the Referee
When VAR first arrived, it was touted as a true assistant: technology that would improve decision-making. What wasn’t realised, was how significantly it would alter the referee’s relationship with the game.
Decisions that were once made confidently became subject to scrutiny. Fans were told to be patient. The benefits would become clear.
The Renters’ Rights Act has made the same ‘promise’. The removal of Section 21 no-fault evictions is framed as removing an unfair power. While there’s no denying that in the hands of irresponsible landlords, Section 21 was sometimes abused, it provided many well-meaning landlords with a way to make responsible decisions over their investments.
Now landlords only have access to Section 8: a grounds-based eviction system that can be slower, more complex, litigious, and expensive to navigate. With Section 21 removed, many landlords feel they no longer have the clarity that made responsible property management viable, especially at smaller scales where margins are tight.
The Agony of Delayed Decisions
One of the biggest fears originally surrounding VAR was the wait. Even worldies stopped receiving the level of celebration they deserved – because suddenly, it could be taken away by a brisk walk to the pitch-side monitor. The check could last minutes and by that time, even if the decision went in your favour, you’d feel a bit robbed. Fans were told this was a small price to pay for getting it right.
The same thing is starting to happen in the rental market. A Section 8 notice may now be served with established grounds. But the process is not moving anywhere as quickly as many would hope. Court backlogs tend to stretch to months. Possession orders may get appealed. The Act has also handed tenants the right to challenge any rent increase at the First-tier Tribunal. These are frustrations that chip away at the passion many landlords have for managing their properties.
What was once a defined, albeit imperfect process, is becoming an administrative ordeal in which landlords carry the financial and emotional cost of open-ended uncertainty.
The Margin for Error has Grown
VAR once promised precision. But inevitably, many would argue, it has created new categories of controversy. Rules were now subject to a new level of subjectivity.
Even in its infancy, the Renters’ Rights Act is already producing legal grey areas and procedural complexity that benefits nobody (except perhaps solicitors). The landlords best equipped to survive are not small, independent operators who characterise much of the private rented sector. They are the large portfolio landlords with a legal team on speed-dial.
The Fans Aren’t Celebrating Yet
One of the ironies that emerged from VAR’s early years was that the fans turned most vocally against it. Not immediately, but steadily, as they realised that what they lost was worth more to them than what they gained.
The Renters’ Rights Act’s equivalent is renters themselves. Landlords are exiting the market in meaningful numbers. Fewer properties means upward pressure on rents. Landlords who remain are applying more stringent tenant selection criteria to offset increased risk. The renters who were already most vulnerable, those with uncertain income, adverse credit history, or non-standard employment, are finding it even harder to rent or buy a home.
VAR did not change football overnight, but decision by decision, the compounding effects became impossible to ignore. The rental market is earlier on that same curve. But the trajectory is visible for those willing to look.
The property sector needs this conversation now, not in a decade’s time. Hope is not a policy. And time, as both landlords and renters are already discovering, is in very short supply. And it’s one of the reasons why specialist property finance is in higher demand.
Comments