Nearly half of renters who dealt with a letting agent in the past three years faced rule-breaking behaviour, according to fresh Citizens Advice research, with zero-deposit selling, illegal fees and unresolved emergency repairs all flagged as recurring problems.
The charity says 48 percent of renters who dealt with an agent reported rule-breaking conduct. Among tenants with an emergency repair, 68 percent waited more than 24 hours for action and 29 percent said urgent or emergency issues were left unresolved altogether.
For landlords, the headline is not just reputational. If an agent is mishandling repairs, pushing banned charges or steering tenants into products they do not need, the fallout rarely stops with the agent. Complaints, disputes and enforcement risk tend to come back to the property owner as well.
Zero-deposit selling and illegal fees stand out
Citizens Advice says 51 percent of renters using a zero-deposit product were told, misleadingly, that they had to use the scheme to secure the property. Others reported being charged outlawed inventory check-in or check-out fees.
That is awkward reading for landlords who have leaned on agents to manage the front end of compliance. The sales pitch around alternative deposit products may be aimed at applicants, but if the product is being presented as compulsory when it is not, landlords could end up associated with a practice they never intended to approve.
The report also says 55 percent of renters who had moved out waited more than two weeks to get all or part of their deposit returned. That raises a second practical issue for landlords: sloppy post-tenancy administration can turn a routine move-out into a complaint that consumes time, damages reviews and risks scrutiny.
Renters’ Rights Act will put agents under harder scrutiny
Citizens Advice argues that weak enforcement could blunt the intended effect of the Renters’ Rights Act. That matters to landlords because the Act increases the value of clean records, clear processes and audit trails when a tenant dispute turns formal.
This follows Landlord Knowledge’s earlier warning that tenant swaps could create new paperwork risks for landlords, highlighting how administrative failures are becoming more costly under the new regime. The same pattern applies here: when an agent cuts corners, the landlord still inherits the risk.
There is also a deposit angle. Landlords weighing alternative products may want to revisit LK’s recent coverage of Goodlord’s exclusive tie-up with Reposit, because product choice only helps if the explanation to tenants is accurate and optionality is genuine.
What this means for landlords
- If you use a managing agent: review how emergency repairs, zero-deposit products and inventory charges are being explained and documented.
- If you self-manage but outsource lettings: make sure the agent’s move-in and move-out scripts match the law, not just the sales target.
- Watch for: more pressure for tighter agent regulation and tougher enforcement of existing rules.
- Bottom line: landlords cannot assume compliance risk disappears just because an agent sits between them and the tenant.
Editor’s view
The lazy response is to treat this as an agent problem. It is not. Landlords who outsource the customer-facing side of the tenancy still carry the commercial and legal cost when that service goes wrong.
Author: Editorial Team – UK landlord & buy-to-let news, policy, and finance
Published: 4 June 2026
Sources: Citizens Advice
Related reading: Tenant swaps raise new paperwork risk for landlords
