We are the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel. It's our role to scrutinise Jersey's government on matters of public importance, policy and legislation which falls within these three remits.
What is the Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202-?
The Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- is Jersey’s most significant rental reform since 2011. The Minister for Housing has proposed legislation to introduce statutory rent stabilisation, new tenancy models and a restructured regulatory framework intended to address rising housing costs and longstanding concerns about security and fairness in the rental market.
The reforms aim to enhance tenant security, improve transparency in the rental market and introduce more robust mechanisms for dispute resolution. The Amendment Law also tries to rebalance the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants: standardising notice periods and defining specific grounds for notice. Periodic tenancies are made the default tenancy option with fixed terms available only for an initial period of up to three years.
The Panel's Review
The Panel has reviewed the Amendment Law in detail — examining the drafting clarity, policy objectives, legal and financial impacts and how they compare to other jurisdictions. We issued a public call for evidence and received 248 submissions from tenants, 42 written submissions from members of the public (with almost all individuals being private landlords) and 19 from organisations. We also held public hearings with the Minister for Housing and key stakeholders, including Caritas Jersey, the Jersey Estate Agents’ Association and the Jersey Landlords’ Association.
The breadth and depth of this evidence shows that these proposals are not an abstract policy exercise, but a response to real experiences, risks and gaps in the current system. The Panel considered the practical impact of the proposed legislation on:
- The business of being a landlord.
- The lived experience of tenants.
- Organisations central to the housing system, including letting agents, Citizens Advice Bureau, homelessness charities, the police, the Magistrate’s Court and the Viscount’s Office.
We also commissioned independent advice from the Right Honourable Michael Tomlinson, who provided a comprehensive report with 34 recommendations — many of which are reflected in our report.
Our findings highlight several key themes:
- There is significant misinformation and confusion around the law and the proposed amendments, making it harder for Islanders to engage with the real issues.
- There is broad support for more robust data collection on the rental market, to inform future policy and provide clarity on rents and conditions.
- While most landlords act responsibly, some do not; and while most tenants meet their obligations, some do not. The law must address both realities.
- Positive landlord–tenant relationships exist but are far from universal.
- Tenants want greater security and fairness, while landlords want stability and clarity. Both sides agree that clear, enforceable agreements are essential.
- Serious gaps and power imbalances remain. We heard examples of tenants with no signed agreements, no notice periods and sudden steep rent increases — all of which is happening under the current law.
- Effective enforcement is critical. Any new law must be backed by well-resourced enforcement, clear guidance and accessible tools for landlords and tenants alike.
Our review has resulted in 66 key findings, 18 recommendations and 9 amendments. A summary of the Panel's key recommendations and proposed amendments follows next. To read them all in detail, click on the full report below.
Balancing tenant concerns and landlord clarity on rent caps
Tenants raised concerns about rent increases and while there was some debate in the market, most landlords follow best practice and welcomed clarity on an annual increase. There were however, widespread concerns from landlords and their representatives on the 5% or RPI rent increase limit.
The Panel found that the Minister for Housing had drawn on various economic papers and reports in relation to this figure, and there was no evidential justification to recommend changing it.
However, we have lodged an amendment to allow the percentage rent increase figure to be both increased and decreased by Regulations, while setting a statutory floor so that the figure cannot be reduced below 5%. This is based on the Panel’s finding that Article 24(1)(lb) delivers the intended flexibility for the States Assembly to raise or remove the 5% cap in periods of high inflation, but it’s drafting also permits a future reduction below 5%. We believe that protecting against unexpected downward revisions to the cap supports stability without removing necessary flexibility.
Independence and effective working of the Rent Tribunal
The Panel has also lodged two amendments to ensure the independence and effective working of the proposed Rent Tribunal by taking some decision-making powers, such as tribunal member qualifications and rent-cap exemptions, out of the Minister for Housing’s hands and ensuring that they are made by the States Assembly.
This is based on the Panel's finding that the Amendment Law gives the Minister broad control over the Rent Tribunal’s operations.
In line with a recommendation made by our expert advisor, we share concerns that allowing the Minister to unilaterally expand the Tribunal’s remit by requiring landlords to submit rent-increase exemptions, would shift it from a dispute-resolution body to a regulator. To preserve its reactive role, we are proposing removing the Minister’s order-making power on rent-cap exemptions. Any future expansion of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction should instead be made through primary legislation or Regulations approved by the States Assembly. This ensures executive flexibility with proper legislative oversight, prevents mission creep, and maintains the Tribunal’s original purpose.
Ensuring equality on rental contract terminations
The Panel has made a series of recommendations and lodged five amendments to ensure equality in how rental contracts can be terminated, including a recommendation for the Minister for Housing to clarify the definition of a serious breach and to remove the requirement for a Police Officer or States employee’s attendance for a landlord to serve notice for a ‘repeated or serious nuisance’.
This is following stakeholder concerns that it risks misdirecting public resources, and instead the Petty Debts Court will consider evidence provided by the landlord. We found that the attendance of an officer is essentially procedural and does not materially strengthen or weaken the landlord’s case without supporting evidence. Further amendments we are proposing are summarised below:
Equality of break clauses – the aim of this amendment is to ensure that any break clauses within residential tenancy agreements for ending an initial fixed term operate equally for both the landlord and tenant. We consider this necessary to give full effect to the Minister’s policy intention, which is that break clauses must be negotiated fairly at the outset and should not be used to exploit the insecurity the Amendment Law aims to prevent.
No Reason Notice for Landlords to end periodic tenancies – the aim of this proposed amendment is to allow landlords to end a periodic tenancy without giving a reason, provided they give at least 12 months’ written notice. We support strengthening protections against short, no-reason notices but question removing them entirely. We acknowledge the Minister’s view that tenants’ stability depends on sufficient time to find new housing. Since the Amendment Law now specifies reasons requiring 7 days to 6months’ notice, the Panel feel that including a no-reason notice with a longer lead time would balance tenant security with landlords’ need to regain their property.
“Not Allowed” grounds for notice – the aim of this proposed amendment is to replace, in Article 6F(1), the term “not allowed” with “not applicable” in the columns (a) to (d) of the statutory table of grounds for notice. This is based on the Panel’s finding that the use of the phrase “not allowed” in the statutory table of grounds for notice does not accurately reflect the intent of the legislation: these grounds are not applicable, rather than strictly prohibited, during the initial fixed term.
Developing cohesive civil and criminal offences in secondary legislation
The Amendment Law also introduces a two-tier penalties regime, with a new criminal offence for a landlord to knowingly or recklessly give a false or misleading reason for ending a tenancy.
Stakeholder feedback highlighted confusion over the thresholds for criminal liability. Both our expert advisor and industry representatives warned this could lead to the criminalisation of otherwise compliant landlords based on vague or subjective standards.
The Panel has lodged an amendment to remove criminal penalties from the primary legislation and place into the secondary legislation. The aim of this is to enable additional time for consultation and better-informed decision-making to ensure the resulting penalty regime is proportionate, effectively targeted, and well understood prior to implementation.
Further to this, we have recommended that the Minister for Housing must develop both the civil and criminal offences in a cohesive manner in secondary legislation where details of thresholds, safeguards, and enforcement powers can be properly defined, scrutinised, and consulted on.
Conclusion
The Amendment Law marks a significant shift in the tenant-landlord dynamic. Evidence shows tenants and landlords view the reforms through fundamentally different lenses. Tenants often see the current system as landlord-favourable and hard to navigate, especially those facing financial or language barriers. Landlords, meanwhile, view the changes as overly restrictive, costly, and potentially discouraging for rental market participation.
The Panel found widespread misunderstanding and polarisation around the existing Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Law 2011 and its proposed amendments. We agree that the Law needs reform but note that some proposals either overreach or rely too heavily on future regulations and departmental support not yet secured.
Certain issues like rent increases and perceived “revenge evictions” are political decisions for States Members. To address concerns, we propose amendments to better align the legislation with policy intent, improve clarity and fairness, and reduce unintended consequences.
Ultimately, we hope our report serves as a practical guide for stakeholders and a key reference for States Members in deciding whether to adopt the proposed legislation.
What happens next?
The Panel has presented its report to the States Assembly on 26th August 2025, following which the Minister for Housing has 6 weeks to respond by publishing his Ministerial Response to the Panel's key findings and recommendations. The response will be published on the States Assembly website.
The States Assembly are due to debate the Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202-, including the Panel's proposed amendments, at the States' sitting the week commencing 9th September 2025.