Tenants whose rent exceeds £100,000 face a lack of protection in the Renters’ Rights Act, according to a top property lawyer.

David Smith, partner at Bishop & Sewell, explains that those who pay less than £100,000 per year are protected by the Housing Act 1988 as amended by the Renters’ Rights Act - however, this protection ends as soon as the rent hits £100,000.

The issue impacts a growing number of tenants, especially in London, where paying £8,333 a month is not uncommon. LonRes reports that average rental values in the capital's prime market rose by 2.4% on an annual basis in June, meaning that current values are now 37% above their 2017-2019 average. Almost one in eight properties across prime London let so far in 2026 were above the £100,000 threshold.

Minimal

Non-Housing Act tenants have minimal statutory protection and only gain protection and certainty of term through their tenancy agreement, explains Smith. Historically this would not have been a problem because they would have had a fixed term tenancy as an AST and this would have carried over.

“That is no longer a possibility,” says Smith. “There will be no fixed terms in assured tenancies so once a tenancy drops out of protection because of the rent going over the £100,000 threshold then it will have no real protection at all.

Serve

“The only protection will come from the Protection from Eviction Act and so a landlord will have to serve not less than four weeks’ notice, although usually one month to align with the rental periods, and the tenancy can then terminate.”

Smith suggests that the government could increase the £100,000 threshold or dispense with it altogether, which is what happened in Wales under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act.

“Some will say that these are marginal cases for the very wealthiest of tenants, usually resident in London,” he adds. “But the London market is the biggest rental market by far and there are tenancies pushing up against the threshold as a pretty routine basis. And why should people be deprived of rights simply because they have more money?”

‍