How the Renters’ Rights Act Impacts Fee Structures & Transparency Rules

When the Renters’ Rights Act first made headlines, most letting agents zoomed in on the big-ticket changes: Section 21, open-ended tenancies, stronger standards. But as the dust settles, a quieter realisation is emerging - one that touches the core of how agencies present themselves, communicate value and set expectations.

The reforms are being introduced in stages rather than in one dramatic moment, but they’re already changing the context in which agents operate. Fee structures that once felt entirely ordinary may now be questioned. Descriptions that used to pass without comment can suddenly feel vague. A renewal charge that made perfect sense in a fixed-term world can look out of place in a system built around rolling tenancies.

This is not about a brand-new “fees Act”. It’s about the fact that transparency is no longer just good practice - it is increasingly the baseline against which agents are judged.

A Changing Context for How Agents Charge

To understand why fees are under a sharper spotlight, it helps to step back and look at the broader direction of the reforms. The Renters’ Rights Act is moving the sector towards a model that is more open-ended, more structured and more accountable. In that kind of framework, anything ambiguous - from how tenancies end to how agents describe their charges - becomes more noticeable.

At the same time, existing rules like the Tenant Fees Act still apply. That legislation continues to govern what agents can charge tenants; the Renters’ Rights Act does not replace or rewrite those restrictions. What it does do is contribute to a wider environment in which clarity, fairness and visibility are expected, especially where landlords are concerned.

You may already be seeing this play out in everyday conversations. A landlord who once skimmed a fee schedule now reads it slowly, asking whether the structure still fits a world without fixed-term expiries. A tenant who once accepted an administrative charge now wants to know exactly what is being administered. And regulators, looking at the private rented sector as a whole, are paying close attention to how agents present both rights and costs.

Some of these expectations will come not from the text of the Act itself, but from updated industry guidance, consumer protection principles and a policy push towards higher standards. The law is shifting shape - and the way fees are perceived is shifting with it.

When Familiar Fees Start to Feel Out of Step

One of the clearest examples of this shift is the traditional renewal fee. In the old model, where fixed-term tenancies began and ended on predictable dates, charging a fee for renewal work was easy to understand. There was a new agreement, a calendar end point, and a clear sense that something was being “renewed”.

In a world of open-ended, periodic tenancies, that moment is less obvious. A tenancy may simply continue, with no formal renewal at all. Against that backdrop, a line in your terms that refers to a “renewal fee” can raise questions. Is anything actually being renewed? What work is being done? Does this fee reflect a real service, or is it a relic of a previous era?

This doesn’t mean you can’t charge for work you genuinely do at certain milestones. It does mean that the fee and its description need to make sense in the new tenancy structure. A charge that was once labelled “renewal fee” might now be better explained as a review or agreement-update service - if that is in fact what your agency provides.

Possession-related support raises similar issues. Older terms might include language such as “we will serve Section 21 notices where appropriate”. Under a reason-based possession framework, that wording is no longer accurate. Agents will still help landlords navigate difficult situations, but the nature of notices, grounds and documentation has changed. If the language in your agreements hasn’t changed with it, expectations can easily become misaligned.

What agents are discovering is that while the numbers on the page may not have changed, the system around them has. Fees haven’t become inherently problematic; they simply need to be reframed so that they honestly and clearly reflect the services now being provided.

The Transparency Expectation: A Higher Bar Than Before

Transparency in fees is not a new idea, but the Renters’ Rights Act gives it a stronger backdrop. A more regulated, more structured rental system naturally prompts more questions about who is doing what and what they are charging for it.

Tenants, informed by public discussion about rights and standards, are more likely to query anything that looks like a surprise cost. Landlords, adjusting to new possession rules and tenancy structures, want to see exactly what they’re paying for and when. And from a regulatory perspective, opaque or inconsistent fee information can quickly look out of place in a sector that is being nudged towards greater accountability.

That does not mean you need to dismantle your pricing model. It does mean that phrases which used to sit quietly in small print - “standard administration”, “notice support”, “renewal” - deserve a second look. An unclear phrase can undermine trust more than the fee itself.

When the sector changes shape, vague language stands out. Clear, confident language stands out in a much better way.

The Real Compliance Risk: Not the Fee, But the Ambiguity

Most formal complaints about fees don’t start from a regulator’s spreadsheet. They start from a conversation where one party feels blindsided.

The risk for letting agents is rarely that a particular landlord fee is outright unlawful. It’s that a landlord believes the fee covered something the agent never intended to provide.

Perhaps the landlord thought a management fee included extensive possession work because the contract was written in the Section 21 era. Perhaps they believed a periodic tenancy continuing on the same terms would not attract any additional charge, because the fee was labelled as a “renewal”. Perhaps your website, your printed terms and your explanatory emails all describe the same fee in slightly different ways.

In each case, the problem is not necessarily the presence of the fee, but the gap between what was written and what was understood. Under the emerging framework, where documents carry more weight and transparency is expected, those gaps become risk hotspots.

Nothing in the Renters’ Rights Act stops agents from charging fair, reasonable fees to landlords that reflect real work. The key shift is that those fees - and the services they relate to - need to be explained with more care.

How Agents Can Approach Fees in This New Landscape

A sensible response for letting agents is to treat fee structures as part of their wider documentation refresh.

That might start with sitting down and reading your own fee schedule as if you were a new landlord client. Does the language still make sense in a world of periodic tenancies and reason-based possession? Would a landlord understand what they are getting in return for each cost? Are there any lines that refer back to the old framework, even implicitly?

It also means checking that what you say in one place matches what you say elsewhere. If your terms of business describe one set of fees, your website another, and your team use a third set of phrases in conversation, the potential for misunderstanding grows. In a more transparent environment, that inconsistency can itself be a source of tension.

Updating your fee structure doesn’t have to be dramatic. Often, it’s a case of tightening the language, removing assumptions that no longer hold, and making sure that each fee can be clearly linked to a real, recognisable service.

Modernising your fees isn’t about charging less or more. It’s about making sure that what you charge is easy to understand and easy to justify.

The Strategic Upside: Clarity as a Competitive Advantage

There is also a positive side to all of this. In a period where landlords may feel uncertain about possession, standards and legal reforms, a letting agent who can explain both their services and their fees with clarity stands out.

Being able to say, “We’ve reviewed our documents and updated our fees to reflect the new regulatory environment,” carries weight. It shows you are paying attention, that you respect your clients’ need for transparency, and that you are prepared to adjust as the sector evolves.

In a competitive market, those qualities can be just as valuable as the precise percentage you charge.

How Sprintlaw Can Support You

Sprintlaw can help you take your existing terms, fee structures and client materials and bring them into line with the expectations that come with the Renters’ Rights Act and the wider regulatory landscape.

We look at how your fees are described, how they map onto the services you actually provide, and where landlords might misunderstand what they are paying for. We can help you refine the language, remove outdated references, and build a coherent set of documents - from terms of business to website wording - that all tell the same clear story.

The goal isn’t to reinvent your agency. It’s to make sure your documents reflect the professionalism and clarity you already aim to deliver in practice.

What Comes Next: Assessing Risks Across the Whole Agency

Fee clarity is only one part of the broader risk picture for letting agents. As the Renters’ Rights Act continues to roll out, expectations around documentation, communication and process management are all rising.

To explore these wider issues in a practical way, read: Letting Agent Risk Checklist (2025 Edition)

There, we look at the habits, systems and documents that can help agencies stay protected, organised and confident in a more regulated rental landscape.

If you would like a consultation on the Renters Rights Act, you can reach us at 08081347754 or team@sprintlaw.co.uk for a free, no-obligations chat.