A letting agent training provider is telling agencies to respond to portfolio contraction by acquiring competitors, repositioning compliance as a lead generation tool, and unbundling management fees into as many as 53 separate charging points. Sally Lawson of Agent Rainmaker claims some agents now offer 16 distinct services, each priced individually, as a way to rebuild managed stock lost during preparation for the Renters' Rights Act.
The strategy represents a fundamental repricing of agency services under the cover of regulatory change. Lawson argues agents should charge separately for work that was previously absorbed into standard management fees, whilst using their compliance knowledge to justify the new costs. She offers no data on which firms are doing this, what the 53 charging points cover, or whether landlords are accepting the model.
Acquisitions as portfolio replacement
Lawson identifies agency acquisitions as the first component of her three-part strategy, arguing that firms struggling to win new instructions should buy another agent's managed book instead. She claims deals fail most often when buyers lack an integration plan for the first 90 days after completion.
The advice assumes distressed agencies are selling at multiples that make acquisition viable for buyers also facing revenue pressure. It also assumes access to capital and operational capacity to absorb a competitor's portfolio. Smaller agents without either may find the recommendation irrelevant. No valuation benchmarks, funding sources, or integration costs are provided.
The acquisition argument also sidesteps a commercial reality: if landlords are leaving managed services because of cost or trust, buying another agent's book simply transfers the retention problem. Unless the acquiring firm offers materially different service or pricing, the same landlords may exit again.
Compliance as marketing and paid product
Lawson's second pillar involves using compliance knowledge for lead generation, encouraging agents to "proactively go out and make the case" for why their expertise now matters more than two years ago. The third pillar converts that knowledge into paid services, unbundling work that was previously included in standard management fees.
She claims some agents now provide 16 services with 53 charging points, giving landlords a menu of options. No firms are named, no pricing examples are given, and no distinction is made between genuinely new compliance work created by the Renters' Rights Act and rebadged existing duties.
The commercial tension is obvious. Itemised pricing can increase transparency and allow landlords to pay only for services they need. It can also create unpredictable cost creep and make total management fees harder to compare across agents. Landlords accustomed to inclusive pricing may interpret unbundling as an opportunistic markup during regulatory uncertainty.
What the Act actually requires
The Renters' Rights Act received Royal Assent in May 2025. Most provisions are not yet in force. Section 21 abolition, Awaab's Law timescales for hazard remediation, strengthened Rent Repayment Orders, a Private Rented Sector Database and a Landlord Ombudsman are all confirmed, but implementation dates for several measures remain unconfirmed.
Lawson argues agents have "spent much of the past year concentrating on surviving the changes," but it is unclear which operational changes have already materialised. If agents are unbundling fees now, they are doing so in anticipation of compliance burden rather than in response to obligations already in force.
The Act does create genuine additional work. Database registration, tracking compliance with Awaab's Law deadlines, preparing for Ombudsman oversight and ensuring tenancy agreements comply with Section 21 abolition all require time and process. Whether that work justifies separate charging or should be absorbed into existing management fees is a commercial decision, not a regulatory one.
The missing counterview
No landlords, agent trade bodies or firms using the 53-charge-point model are quoted. Lawson's diagnosis that "landlords haven't stopped needing agents, they've just stopped trusting the ones who can't explain why using an agent now matters more than it did two years ago" is presented as fact, but no client exit data, trust surveys or retention analysis supports it.
The claim that landlords are leaving because agents failed to articulate their value is one possible explanation for portfolio contraction. Equally plausible: landlords are leaving because total costs have risen, returns have compressed, and DIY management or sale became more attractive regardless of what agents said.
Propertymark and ARLA Propertymark have not issued guidance on fee unbundling or itemised pricing models. Without their perspective, it is difficult to assess whether this is an emerging sector practice or an outlier being promoted by a training provider with a commercial interest in agents adopting the model.