King's College London

Britain’s political history contains many references to a sense that people should adhere to sometimes unwritten, often imprecise, codes of conduct. From the “good chap” theory of government to Tony Blair’s “pretty straight guy”, there is a British sentimentality about fellows doing the right thing, playing with a straight bat, etc.

Elsewhere, there are turns of phrase in actual governing documents that seem to suggest some uniquely British standard of decency applies. To own a football club, you must be a “fit and proper person”. Allegedly pass market-sensitive information to your friends, either to allow them to take bets on the date of an upcoming election, or to exploit market turmoil following EU bailout announcements – what most countries would call corruption – and you’ll be arrested for the genteel sounding “misconduct in public office”.

This also echoes in the process of judicial review, by which the decisions or actions of a public body can be challenged in court. Among the criteria under which a judicial review might be brought is that the policy is “unreasonable” or irrational – that people in their right mind would not have done this thing.

This is all very well and good. Most people want to consider themselves reasonable, and this is generally seen as a virtue, but we have seen recently that government might do better if it was to be unreasonable, specifically in the case of the Renters’ Rights Act.

The act reflects a change in the rights of people renting their property that, among other things, shields them from no-fault evictions and means their rent can only be increased once a year. Whether you agree with it or not, its intentions are clear. Because the government is reasonable, they passed the bill, setting it up to come into effect from May 2026. This gives everyone a chance to plan.

Unfortunately, as we have seen anecdotally, and at industrial scale with London Centric’s coverage of the mass evictions of entire buildings’ worth of tenants, the government’s desire to be reasonable has led to some unintended and clearly unreasonable behaviour. The lead-in time, basically saying “You can do this thing we disapprove of as much as you like until this date, but never thereafter”, is exploited to a tragic extent by those with extreme power under the current regime, whose power will be slightly curtailed by the change in the rules. This is both unintended and, sadly, wholly predictable.

Government should therefore consider just how reasonable it needs to be in future. If a law is to be changed, and there is a clear opportunity to exploit a window before implementation of the new rules, then they should declare that the law comes into effect exactly when it receives Royal Assent or, if they are feeling especially brave, six months previously, allowing wrongfully evicted tenants an opportunity for recourse.

This might been seen as unreasonable – particularly by those who can afford to bring a judicial review (although this could be overcome by legislating to prevent judicial review in this case), but we must recognise that there is a choice, not between unreasonableness and reason, but of who must fall victim to unreasonableness. Is it to be a small number of landlords, or a much larger pool of tenants? Framed this way, and in the context of what the law seeks to achieve, the choice is obvious.