THE PROPERTY FILTER TAKE
The Renters' Rights Act replaces assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) with assured periodic tenancies (APTs), requiring landlords to rebuild their standard agreements from scratch.
In-tenancy guarantor clauses are now problematic: most guarantees lapse if the rent increases, meaning a protection many landlords rely on may not hold up under the new framework.
If you use a document automation system for tenancy agreements, you may wish to audit your clause set and consider whether student portfolios need a separate, tailored agreement.
Drafting a Renters' Rights Act tenancy agreement is harder than it looks - and one legal expert's experience using AI to do it reveals a guarantor clause trap that many landlords have not yet spotted.
Tessa Shepperson of Landlord Law Blog has been publishing her progress building a new standard tenancy agreement for the post-RRA world, where the traditional assured shorthold tenancy (AST) is replaced by the assured periodic tenancy (APT). In part three of the series, she shares what happened when she used ChatGPT to review her draft clauses, tackled the thorny question of in-tenancy guarantees, and began the technical work of rebuilding her document generator.
The AI verdict on her draft was broadly positive. ChatGPT described it as fair, transparent, and professionally drafted, with good alignment to the Renters' Rights Act 2025 framework and 2026 Regulations. Shepperson notes, though, that the tool has a tendency toward sycophancy, peppering its feedback with phrases such as "you are very close to a fully compliant and market-leading clause set."
The Guarantor Clause Problem
The most substantive issue to emerge from the exercise was the in-tenancy guarantee. Under the old AST framework, landlords could include a guarantor clause directly in the tenancy agreement. Under the RRA, that approach is problematic: most guarantees lapse if the rent increases. ChatGPT's advice was to remove the in-tenancy guarantee entirely - some of the most critical feedback in an otherwise encouraging review.
For landlords who rely on guarantors to manage tenancy risk, this is a meaningful change. From your tenants' perspective, a guarantor is often what makes a tenancy possible in the first place - particularly for younger renters or those with limited credit history. Removing the guarantee from the tenancy document does not mean abandoning the protection altogether; it means moving to a separate deed of guarantee. That separation does, however, create more administration on both sides.
Student Landlords: A Different Calculation
The challenge is most acute for student landlords. One Landlord Law member, referred to as Daphne, explained why the in-tenancy guarantee matters so much for her portfolio: chasing separate deeds of guarantee from students and their parents is, in her words, like "herding cats."
Shepperson and Daphne worked through the practical implications together and arrived at a pragmatic conclusion. Because students very rarely stay longer than one year - and with the RRA's new right to give notice at any time will almost certainly end the tenancy over summer and sign a new one the following academic year - the rent increase problem largely disappears. In practice, the guarantee would not lapse because the tenancy would not run long enough for a rent rise to occur.
The working plan is a separate student tenancy agreement that accommodates the in-tenancy guarantee, a Ground 4A notice (the RRA provision for recovering student properties at the end of the academic year), and other student-specific terms. That work comes after the standard APT is finalised. If you manage student lets, you may wish to consider whether a tailored agreement built around these realities would reduce your administrative burden and lower void risk between academic years.
Rebuilding the Document Generator
Beyond the legal substance, Shepperson gives an honest account of the technical work involved in updating a document automation system to reflect the new agreement. Cloning the existing form, updating field references, checking every line of code, and creating new supporting FAQ pages took far longer than anticipated. This is worth noting for any landlord using a document generator: compliance work does not stop at the legal clauses.
Your tenants will ultimately interact with whatever document comes out of this process. A well-structured, clearly explained agreement - one that sets out the reasoning behind key terms - is more likely to be signed without confusion and less likely to generate disputes later. From a yield impact standpoint, fewer disputes and clearer expectations at the outset reduce void risk at renewal time.
Key takeaways
The Renters' Rights Act replaces assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) with assured periodic tenancies (APTs), requiring landlords to rebuild their standard agreements from scratch.
In-tenancy guarantor clauses are now problematic: most guarantees lapse if the rent increases, meaning a protection many landlords rely on may not hold up under the new framework.
If you use a document automation system for tenancy agreements, you may wish to audit your clause set and consider whether student portfolios need a separate, tailored agreement.
Related Property Filter resources
Drafting a Renters' Rights Act tenancy agreement is harder than it looks - and one legal expert's experience using AI to do it reveals a guarantor clause trap that many landlords have not yet spotted.
Tessa Shepperson of Landlord Law Blog has been publishing her progress building a new standard tenancy agreement for the post-RRA world, where the traditional assured shorthold tenancy (AST) is replaced by the assured periodic tenancy (APT). In part three of the series, she shares what happened when she used ChatGPT to review her draft clauses, tackled the thorny question of in-tenancy guarantees, and began the technical work of rebuilding her document generator.
The AI verdict on her draft was broadly positive. ChatGPT described it as fair, transparent, and professionally drafted, with good alignment to the Renters' Rights Act 2025 framework and 2026 Regulations. Shepperson notes, though, that the tool has a tendency toward sycophancy, peppering its feedback with phrases such as "you are very close to a fully compliant and market-leading clause set."
The Guarantor Clause Problem
The most substantive issue to emerge from the exercise was the in-tenancy guarantee. Under the old AST framework, landlords could include a guarantor clause directly in the tenancy agreement. Under the RRA, that approach is problematic: most guarantees lapse if the rent increases. ChatGPT's advice was to remove the in-tenancy guarantee entirely - some of the most critical feedback in an otherwise encouraging review.
For landlords who rely on guarantors to manage tenancy risk, this is a meaningful change. From your tenants' perspective, a guarantor is often what makes a tenancy possible in the first place - particularly for younger renters or those with limited credit history. Removing the guarantee from the tenancy document does not mean abandoning the protection altogether; it means moving to a separate deed of guarantee. That separation does, however, create more administration on both sides.
Student Landlords: A Different Calculation
The challenge is most acute for student landlords. One Landlord Law member, referred to as Daphne, explained why the in-tenancy guarantee matters so much for her portfolio: chasing separate deeds of guarantee from students and their parents is, in her words, like "herding cats."
Shepperson and Daphne worked through the practical implications together and arrived at a pragmatic conclusion. Because students very rarely stay longer than one year - and with the RRA's new right to give notice at any time will almost certainly end the tenancy over summer and sign a new one the following academic year - the rent increase problem largely disappears. In practice, the guarantee would not lapse because the tenancy would not run long enough for a rent rise to occur.
The working plan is a separate student tenancy agreement that accommodates the in-tenancy guarantee, a Ground 4A notice (the RRA provision for recovering student properties at the end of the academic year), and other student-specific terms. That work comes after the standard APT is finalised. If you manage student lets, you may wish to consider whether a tailored agreement built around these realities would reduce your administrative burden and lower void risk between academic years.
Rebuilding the Document Generator
Beyond the legal substance, Shepperson gives an honest account of the technical work involved in updating a document automation system to reflect the new agreement. Cloning the existing form, updating field references, checking every line of code, and creating new supporting FAQ pages took far longer than anticipated. This is worth noting for any landlord using a document generator: compliance work does not stop at the legal clauses.
Your tenants will ultimately interact with whatever document comes out of this process. A well-structured, clearly explained agreement - one that sets out the reasoning behind key terms - is more likely to be signed without confusion and less likely to generate disputes later. From a yield impact standpoint, fewer disputes and clearer expectations at the outset reduce void risk at renewal time.
Key takeaways
The Renters' Rights Act replaces assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) with assured periodic tenancies (APTs), requiring landlords to rebuild their standard agreements from scratch.
In-tenancy guarantor clauses are now problematic: most guarantees lapse if the rent increases, meaning a protection many landlords rely on may not hold up under the new framework.
If you use a document automation system for tenancy agreements, you may wish to audit your clause set and consider whether student portfolios need a separate, tailored agreement.
