Inflated rent adverts and upfront bill payments could breach current rules before the Renters’ Rights Bill starts

London landlords do not need to wait for the Renters’ Rights Bill to become law to face compliance trouble over rent adverts and upfront payment demands. The immediate risk comes from existing law: misleading advertising, unlawful fees, weak record-keeping, and tenancy terms that may be hard to defend if a tenant complains to Trading Standards or a redress scheme.

Recent claims reported by Landlord Today, citing London Centric, suggested that some landlords and agents may be trying two tactics ahead of the proposed reforms: asking for a one-off payment said to cover bills for the full tenancy, and advertising a rent at an inflated level before inviting applicants to offer less. On the information reported, these are allegations rather than findings by a court, regulator or government department. Even so, both practices create risk under rules that already apply.

Upfront bill payments can stray into banned fee territory

The Tenant Fees Act 2019 bans most payments from tenants unless they fall within a permitted category. Permitted payments include rent, a tenancy deposit within the statutory cap, a holding deposit capped at one week’s rent, default fees in limited circumstances, and certain payments for variation, assignment, novation or early termination.

A loosely defined one-off payment for "bills" is not automatically lawful because both parties agree to it. If the payment is really a disguised fee or charge outside the permitted list, the label will not cure the problem.

That matters in London, where utility and council tax costs can be high and variable. A landlord may be tempted to collect a lump sum for energy, water, broadband or council tax exposure, particularly on an all-inclusive let. But unless the arrangement is transparent, lawful and properly drafted, it may raise two separate issues: a Tenant Fees Act risk and a consumer protection risk.

The Renters’ Rights Bill may change the tenancy framework if enacted, but it is not yet law on the basis of the information cited here. Landlords should not treat proposed reforms as if they are already in force. Equally, trying to "future-proof" by inventing new payment structures is a poor substitute for checking what is lawful now.

Inflated asking rents can create misleading advert risk

The second reported tactic — listing a rent at one figure and then encouraging offers below it — also deserves caution. The Bill is expected to address rental bidding practices, but current consumer protection rules already require letting information to be clear and not misleading.

An advertised rent should reflect a genuine asking price at which the property is actually available. If a listing is pitched artificially high purely to create a false negotiation process or give a misleading impression of market value, that may be difficult to defend if challenged.

This is particularly sensitive in high-demand parts of London such as Camden, Hackney, Islington and Westminster, where applicants may already assume competitive bidding behaviour. That does not remove the need for the advertised figure to be meaningful.

Complaint risk is as important as enforcement risk

For agents and self-managing landlords, this is also an evidence and process issue. Internal messages matter. If a negotiator is told to advertise at £2,700 pcm but invite lower offers, or a landlord suggests collecting six months of bills upfront to deal with possible future tenancy changes, those records may become highly relevant if a complaint reaches Trading Standards or a redress scheme.

The Property Ombudsman’s Code of Practice for Residential Letting Agents and professional conduct expectations promoted by bodies such as Propertymark both point towards the same core standards: transparency, fairness and no misleading statements. The source reports do not identify any confirmed regulator deadline or national enforcement campaign, so none should be implied.

Four checks landlords should carry out now

1. Audit live adverts

Check whether the asking rent matches the genuine rent you are prepared to accept now. Remove wording that suggests reverse bidding or artificial price anchoring. Keep dated screenshots of corrected listings and portal entries.

2. Stop using non-standard upfront charges without advice

If rent is monthly, state that clearly. If bills are included, specify which bills are covered, whether any fair usage cap applies, and how the rent has been structured. If a tenant chooses to pay rent in advance, document it clearly as advance rent rather than a separate charge. If money could amount to a tenancy deposit, make sure the deposit rules are followed.

3. Record how offers are handled

Keep a written log of the advertised rent, offers received, counter-offers and the final agreed rent. If an offer is rejected, note a legitimate reason such as move-in timing, references or contract terms, rather than anything that could look like an informal auction.

4. Review agreement templates and staff guidance

Check tenancy agreements, payment schedules and branch scripts for vague bill clauses, opaque charges or wording that would be hard to explain to a redress scheme. Landlords operating HMOs or properties in boroughs with active enforcement teams should be especially careful about documentation standards.

Deadlines worth setting internally

A sensible internal timetable would be to review all live listings by the end of this week and then check template agreements and payment schedules within the next 14 days for lump-sum bill clauses or other non-standard charges.

If you use a letting agent, ask for their written policy on rent setting, offer handling and upfront payments before the next instruction goes live.

This article is general information, not legal advice.