Polanski calls out housing minister praised by UK’s biggest landlord

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook has told parliament that the Starmer government does not support rent controls. The reason was that doing so would “make life more difficult for renters”.

Since then, Pennycook has received the praise of – you guessed it – not renters:

Labour's housing minister's opposition to rent controls welcomed by the country's largest private landlord.

Who's side are Labour on? Renters or landlords. The answer is here. pic.twitter.com/olVzEIVTki

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) April 15, 2026

Land of the landlords

Pennycook told parliament:

The government does not support the introduction of rent controls, which we believe could make life more difficult for renters.

There is sufficient international evidence from countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from individual cities such as San Francisco, as well as the recent Scottish experience, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent controls on tenants.

There are reasons why rent controls can make things worse. Mostly the issue is they make it harder for landlords to make obscene profits from renters, which forces them to throw their toys out of the pram.

In a nutshell, this is why something as essential as shelter shouldn’t be in the hands of money grubbers.

Pennycook also said:

I have looked at a wealth of evidence, particularly international evidence, of what the impact of first and second-generation rent controls are, as well as more subtle forms of rent control, which can have differential impacts on different groups.

Such controls typically benefit settled and better-off tenants more than those looking for a home or needing to move.

As Polanski noted, Pennycook’s inaction plan has gone down well with landlords:

Pennycook’s opposition to rent controls was welcomed by Kurt Mueller, director of corporate affairs and executive committee member at Grainger, Britain’s largest listed private landlord.

Mueller, highlighting the housing minister’s comments on the LinkedIn social media platform, said: “It’s good to see continued support from the UK Government for common sense with their steadfast commitment against rent controls and the damaging impact they would have for renters and the market generally.”

Not everyone agrees, though.

Living Rent

Living Rent have sought to dispel myths on this topic. They go into further detail on their site, but in a nutshell:

1) Isn’t the only problem supply?

Not really. Firstly, supply isn’t really as big of an issue as it’s made out to be – for instance, there is a higher proportion of empty bedrooms in the UK than at any time since the Great Plague (!). The ratio of rooms to people has never been higher in modern history. We’re not against new builds, especially not new social housing, but the supply question is kind of a red herring.

…

2) All landlords would leave the sector and tenants would have nowhere to live.

Landlords threaten to leave the sector if regulation is increased, but a quick glance across Europe is enough to dismiss this: the most heavily regulated private rented sectors are consistently the biggest. Germany, with the biggest PRS in Europe, is easily one of the most heavily regulated.

…

Lest we forget, we don’t actually need landlords to have houses.

These unnecessary middlemen offer nothing and take everything.

People claim that capitalism eliminates inefficiencies, but these people are waste personified.

Failures

Living Rent also noted:

3) Didn’t they fail when we had them last time?

Landlords insist that the various rent controls which existed in the UK between 1915 and 1988 were disastrous for tenants. They point out that, over those 70 years, we went from almost nine in ten people renting privately to fewer than one in ten. They claim this is proof that rent controls devastate the private rented sector (PRS).

Oh no, not the private rented sector – won’t somebody think of the landlords?

Living rent continued:

This argument, in fact, was a favourite of David Cameron, who told the House of Commons in 2013: “I do not support the idea of mass rent controls because I think we would see a massive decline in the private rented sector, which is what happened the last time we had such rent controls.”

But that change, by absolutely any measure, was an enormous success of public policy. The reduction in the private rented sector can be explained in three obvious – and positive – ways:

• Millions of council homes were built to give people a secure, safe, affordable place to stay outside the PRS.
• Millions of people were able to buy their own homes through real-terms increases in wages and the expansion of mortgage availability.
• Millions of the properties that landlords were renting out were demolished in slum clearances because they were, well, slums.

Without rent controls, it seems, slum-like conditions have once more returned. As writer Bob Lynn notes:

In 21st century Britain, a shocking reality lurks behind closed doors. Families are living in conditions that harken back to the squalor of Victorian slums — damp walls, mould-infested rooms, and overcrowded spaces unfit for human habitation. …

The word ‘slum’ conjures images of Dickensian London, with its overcrowded tenements and disease-ridden streets. Yet, for many low-income families today, this grim picture is not far from their daily reality. In 2022, around 3.8 million people in the UK experienced destitution, unable to afford basic necessities like food, warmth, and shelter. This figure has more than doubled since 2017, pointing to a rapidly worsening crisis.

But yes, the real crime would be if rent didn’t leap up by obscene amounts every year.

Do something

Living Rent finished:

4) All economists agree that rent controls are bad

You’ll often hear comments bandied around claiming that all economists agree rent controls are unambiguously bad. There is a grain of truth to this – a poll from 1992 showed a surprising degree of consensus that rent controls would have negative effects.

But here’s the hitch. Nobody is proposing the type of rent controls that this supposed unanimous opposition is directed at. During the first world war, what are now called ‘first generation rent controls’ were brought in across most countries involved in the conflict – these were blunt caps or freezes on rent, and are rightly criticised for having negative side effects. But now we have 70 years of evidence from across the world about how to implement rent controls without unintended consequences.

Now, as Housing Today have reported:

The Green Party said its members elected in May will “use their voice to pressure the Labour government to give local authorities the power to introduce rent controls to curb overheating rents in their area.” The party has also pledged to “totally” abolish leasehold and introduce rent controls nationally if it gets into government.

Leasehold (and the truth) is another sensitive area for Pennycook, as we reported:

Oh… right. https://t.co/orvrBLe28D pic.twitter.com/lYnHBtjJmV

— cladtrap (@cladtrap) March 27, 2026

Systems

Sometimes well-meaning ideas can have unintended consequences. The solution isn’t to give up on fixing things; the solution, like Polanski argued, is to adapt until you get the right results.

Labour’s solution to most issues is to bury their heads in the sand. The problem is that while they ignore the world and its problems, the world is moving on without them.

Featured image via Parliament