Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRenters' Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2024 - (22 Oct 2024)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Q
You mentioned investment, and I wanted to press you on precisely the type of improvements you want to see. You know that, together with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, we are already taking forward improvements towards digitising the court possession process. What are the metrics you want to see in that process as improvements? On the understanding that —I think you will accept this—not every section 21 notice will read across to a section 8, so there will potentially be a bit of an increase, what do we need to see on the section 8 side and the tribunal side to ensure that the system is fit for purpose at the point that we switch it on?
Ben Beadle: I have a couple of things to say on this, Minister. I agree that court reform has been almost like the Colonel’s secret recipe—nobody quite knows what is in it or what it looks like. It is incumbent on us to define what “the courts are ready” means in practice. For us, there are two or three areas that could be improved. First, we are getting many reports of applications that are made to the court actually running out of time because they have not been processed in time. You have the admin part of the sausage factory at the beginning, because it is not so much about the number of judges. I sit as a magistrate and I often sit around waiting for cases to come to me and to be input into the new common platform. There are delays built into the administrative process that cause frustration.
The other issue we have seen is the wait for a bailiff. Once you have patiently waited for your court hearing date and you have possession, that will be what it will be, but waiting for a bailiff can take months in some areas. Sometimes there are really poor excuses—earlier this year, we saw the stab-proof vests not being available. If it is a high-risk area, you need somebody waiting out in the car and somebody on the door. London is predominantly a high-risk area, which is why we see such slow eviction timescales.
Personally, we want to prevent evictions. Landlords do not go around evicting tenants willy-nilly, but when they have a legitimate case, we do expect it to be dealt with expediently. To me, court reform looks like sifting the cases more appropriately and more speedily; digitising that process so you see the ping and the pong of the evidence going backwards and forwards; and, when you get possession, an automatic link to the bailiff, rather than having to reapply. Those are three tangible things. Ultimately, though, it is seven months at the moment, and it needs to be lower.
Matthew Pennycook
Your point about sifting is well made. We want to see only cases that require a judgment coming to court.
Ben Beadle: Indeed.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Ben Beadle: One of the things with section 21 is that you have an accelerated process because it is a matter of fact—if you have served all your relevant documents, it is “Tick, tick, tick. Away you go.” I think there is some merit in using that system for undisputed or very hard cases of mandatory grounds, such as where you have significant rent arrears and, although the landlord has tried, there is no chance of recovering that tenancy—hopefully the landlord has followed our pre-action protocol to signpost tenants where they need to go. There are some elements of the system that could be reused.
The other part is away from the court system and into the first-tier tribunal. We have had extensive discussions with the first-tier tribunal. Not many people challenge their rents at the moment; I think we all accept that. We want tenants to be able to challenge their rent, particularly if it is unfair or subject to a significant increase. But the way the Bill is constructed means there is no barrier, or no disincentive, to challenging your rent, and I do not think it quite strikes the balance. First, the tribunal can only award or downgrade the rent so, as a tenant, I have nothing to lose. Secondly, with the way the implementation is being put across, you run the risk of a real deluge on a system that is, frankly, antiquated—you have to fill out a Word document and email it to all parties.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Ben Beadle: But that rent will not be applied until the date of the hearing, as I understand it, so although I understand the counter-argument, Minister, the point is that you could actually challenge a rent increase. You serve your two months’ notice; you challenge it; you wait for the tribunal to deal with it; you have your hearing cleared; and the landlord either gets it or the amount gets lowered, but that money is then not backdated.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Ben Beadle: No, no—well, I take issue with it, in that it is not fair and it is not proportionate in the circumstances, and it will do nothing to help on court reform. That is why we have set out a managed implementation for these things. I totally get your point that it was held hostage previously, but there are some really fundamental points around the court system being on its knees, and I think there is a way of implementing regulations so that that is mitigated. The first-tier tribunal is a classic example of where you could make some nips and tucks to what is set out, to protect the first-tier tribunal from a steep rise in cases because it will not be able to cope.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
I have one last general question, which maybe you could come in on, Theresa. There are broad framework powers in the Bill for both the database and the ombudsman. The database will be critical for landlords in understanding their obligations and demonstrating compliance, and the ombudsman will potentially provide routes to landlord-initiated mediation. As we come to flesh out the detail in secondary legislation, what do you want the database and the ombudsman to do? What is the most critical thing, from a landlord point of view?
Theresa Wallace: I am very supportive of both, and I think we definitely need both. My fear is that the database could end up just being a landlord database, with the landlord’s name, the property details and the address, so that the local authorities know where those landlords are. That is part of it—I completely accept that—but I think that we have a huge opportunity with this landlord database, and so much could be done with it. We really could reach a situation where we could stop properties that are not fit for purpose being let, if the database is built with that end in mind and we can digitally upload certificates. I think that we absolutely need central registers for gas and electric, and we need one standard certificate for each so that they can easily be read digitally to see whether they are in date, whether there are any code 1s and all sorts of things. I think that that would be amazing, but I actually think that we should go a step further.
A long time ago, the Lettings Industry Council came up with a model of a property MOT. Think about how you MOT your car, and it is checked in the background that you have got your tax and your insurance. We could do that with properties. We could have very easy and simple pre-let checks, so that a property is viewed visually. You have energy performance certificate providers that go and do their EPC checks, and you could easily have online or face-to-face training for providers to do a visual check so that you can see if you have damp and mould, slips and trips or other things. I think that it could be done very cost-effectively, and I think that the portal would pay for itself as well as providing local authorities with some income for enforcement. Enforcement is something that we absolutely need, and I know there is not the resource for it.
The Chair
Three other Members are indicating that they want to come in. If we bear that in mind, with the time, we can get everybody in.
David Simmonds
indicated assent.
Tarun Bhakta: It has long been our call that the Bill should specify and set a higher threshold and make that clear, particularly for the landlord sale and the landlord moving in eviction grounds. We also think that the Bill should introduce a post-eviction proceeding.
There are two really important parts to establishing that clarity in the Bill. First, tenants and landlords need absolute clarity about what constitutes a legitimate eviction. We see through our legal services that the decision on whether to challenge an eviction notice in court is an incredibly complex and difficult one for tenants to make. The process of going through the courts to challenge an eviction is time-consuming, costly and very stressful for tenants, so it is about setting out that clarity, particularly in those landlord sale and landlord moving in eviction grounds. Making that threshold clear would provide clarity for tenants to help to make that decision. We believe that that would also have the effect of supporting tenants to understand where an eviction is legitimate and prevent some of those cases from making it to court.
Secondly, the current wording in the Bill is very open. It goes further in Scotland, in our view, and although it is all very well being confident in setting guidance for the courts and hoping that the judges make the right decision in court, tenants need that clarity before we reach the court stage. Also, judges do need some steer; we see some inconsistency in cases between judges, and it is not the case that they will all interpret the law in exactly the same way, so setting that clarity in the legislation is important. We cannot have a situation in which the landlord states that they intend to sell the property and that is case closed: we need more clarity than that.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tarun Bhakta: It is difficult to set that to one side, so you will forgive me if I do not.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tarun Bhakta: First, we believe that the Government need to look at the proportions by which rents are increased. Currently, the tribunal is able to access only the eventual rent, whether or not that is a market rent, so in effect it works with a ceiling, rather than looking at the proportions of rent increases. This is really important, because through the tribunal and our services outside the tribunal we see very large proportional rent increases. This is what matters to tenants: they cannot afford large proportional increases in their rent because of that shock, particularly where they are on fixed incomes and receive housing benefit or pensions.
The data at the tribunal is really telling. The average size of a rent increase permitted by the tribunal in the last hundred cases was 23%. The majority of renters tell us that they could not afford a rent increase of more than 10%, yet two thirds of cases in the last 100 cases in the tribunal ended with a rent increase for a tenant of 10% or more.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tarun Bhakta: That is exactly right, and 16 of the 100 cases we looked at saw an eventual rent increase of more than 40%. We know, both through our services and through our research, that that is not manageable for tenants. That is the kind of rent increase that pushes tenants out of their homes or into debt. The problem is using a ceiling of market rent to judge the eventual rent increase.
Setting limits on proportional rent increases is commonplace across Europe. I know the Government have said they will not introduce any measure of rent controls, but it is quite unhelpful to lump all rent controls together when there is such a range. Rent controls is not a policy, but a category of policies. It is common across Europe to limit the proportion by which rent can increase during tenancies. The purpose of that is not to bring down rent or tackle affordability in any major way, but to protect people from those disproportionate rent increases that force them out of their homes.
In the tribunal there is evidence of landlords, where they are not able to secure section 21 eviction for whatever reason, turning to rent increases. There are at least four cases in that 100—this is only where the tribunal have provided background notes, which is not very common—where a landlord has clearly sought to evict the tenant and has not been able to, so has turned to a very large rent increase, and all the tribunal has been able to do is permit a large rent increase. In many of those cases we assume the tenants will have had to leave the property.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
You heard the concerns from the previous witnesses about how that would operate and the unfairness of that. With your experience, how would you say the new system would operate? We have been very clear that we want more tenants to take challenges to tribunal, though we do not want the tribunal overwhelmed. What would you say to the charge that the decision the Government have made, to put the point of payment when the tribunal makes its determination, will see a flood of cases come in and all advice groups will tell tenants to take every single rent increase to tribunal?
Tarun Bhakta: We are often accused of plotting to tell everyone to take things to court. We do not think that would be the case. As you say, we want more tenants to be able to challenge their rent increase at tribunal because, particularly in the last couple of years, we have seen extremely large rent increases for tenants during tenancies. The reason we do not think there will be a flood of cases to the tribunal and the reason we would not advise tenants to do that is that, if you look at this evidence, there is very little that the tribunal is able to do at present to address those large rent increases. We would not advise tenants to simply delay the inevitable, because, looking at the data, a large rent increase is somewhat inevitable—it might not be the exact rent increase the landlord asked for in the section 13 notice, but there is strong evidence that the tribunal will permit a very large rent increase.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tarun Bhakta: Yes, absolutely. Before I talk about what the process looks like for tenants, which Tom can maybe add to, we need to understand that, for tenants who do not interact with courts or tribunals or anything like that in their daily lives, going through one of these processes, whether we know it to be arduous or not, sounds and feels scary to tenants. That is really important to understand. The vast majority of tenants do not want to go through these processes. It is not fun—it never has been fun—but there is also the fear of what might happen and of how it might damage the relationship with the landlord. All those things weigh heavy on tenants’ minds. That is a really important factor to consider. The proposals that we have for limiting rent increases would, in effect, do away with the need for tribunal decisions, but for a very rare and small amount of cases.
When it comes to the actual process of tribunal, there is such poor data out there about rents in the wider sector that it is very difficult for tenants to gather that evidence. It is somewhat on them; it is also on the landlord, but it is somewhat on them to gather and provide that evidence. The tribunal will do some of that work, but tenants are expected to, or generally do, provide evidence at the start.
Tom MacInnes: From our perspective, it is basically exactly that: people do not have the time or, really, the capacity to take these things to tribunal, and they often decide that it is not worth it.
To the point about the data available out there about what a reasonable or market rent is, there are so many different sources. Even at an Office for National Statistics level, there is not complete agreement. We really welcome the end to bidding wars, for instance, for new tenancies, but our concern is that an unintended consequence might be that a landlord would put in a very high price to start with and then bring it down, and it is that high price that gets logged and sets the market rate.
For us, the role of the portal is to establish what the actual rents are—a basis that everyone can proceed on together, rather than it being some debated fact. There is a real role there for making that stuff public and known. Then you get two well-informed sides of an argument.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tom MacInnes: I do not know whether it is about expertise, but it is simply an observation of what always happens—it tends to end up on the high side. What the rates are is just so contested.
The Chair
Quite a number of Members want to come in, so it would be helpful to have quick questions and answers.
David Simmonds
Q
Ben Twomey: I do not have any with me, but I can take a look at that and write to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
It would not be a Bill Committee evidence session if every interest group was not telling us that it had a way to improve the Bill in some way and from different perspectives. We have heard a lot this morning about the various concerns and how they are being addressed. In general terms, however, particularly given your concerns about the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, do you think this Bill strikes the right balance and levels the playing field between landlord and tenant?
Tom Darling: I will start by introducing the situation in the private rented sector as it is today. The Resolution Foundation said this year that
“the UK’s expensive, cramped and ageing housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy.”
The private rented sector is the worst of our ageing housing stock; in fact, it is the worst of the worst. It is the least secure, the worst quality and the most expensive of the housing tenures in this country, and we have the worst of any major country in the world. That is embarrassing and that is what we are talking about here. We need root and branch reform. We are happy that the Government have acknowledged that more significant reforms are required than those that the previous Government put forward, but we still need to see some changes to the Bill to go even further and deal with the scale of the crisis we are dealing with.
Ben Twomey: We are delighted that the Government are pressing on with this work very quickly, and there is a promise in the manifesto to end section 21 immediately—as quickly as we can get this law passed. That is really welcome, as it will protect people from homelessness.
There are also lots of things in the Bill that I have no notes on. For example, the bidding wars legislation seems well-written; it seems like it will make a genuine difference to people like me, who have experienced being invited to bid on homes just because we reached the front of a queue and the landlord realised that they could up the rent. Some of the provisions—including the introduction of Awaab’s law into private renting—are beginning to create more of an even playing field, as you say, for renters compared with other tenures.
I want to take a moment to talk about someone I will call Ayesha from Hertfordshire. She is a schoolteacher and a single parent, and she has been struggling to keep up with the relentless rises in rent that she has faced in recent years. She says, “There are moments when I feel so overwhelmed and exhausted, like I’m carrying the weight of the world on my shoulders. I try to stay strong for my children, but the stress and anxiety are always there, lingering in the background. I just want to provide them with the life they deserve, but with the way things are going I fear that I might not be able to. It’s a lonely, terrifying feeling, and it’s hard not to feel defeated by this constant struggle.”
It is important for people like Ayesha—given what is being said in this Committee, this Government and this Parliament as a whole; every MP in this room promised to end section 21 and, in more words or less, promised a fairer deal for renters—that this Bill takes the opportunity to resolve these issues. Maybe we will come to this, but we believe that that will involve limiting the ability for landlords to raise rents—not raising them to the market rate, but instead limiting them to the level of inflation or wage growth, so that rents begins to match the real, lived experience of people who are renting.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
On rent increases, Ben, I understood that you were effectively talking about a cap—to the level of inflation or wage growth. A previous witness rightly drew our attention to the nuances around different forms of rent control. Given the evidence out there across the world, which I have looked at in great detail, do you not have any concerns about the potential negative impact on supply discouraging investment into the sector? We have heard about the supply challenges, impact on property standards and the very practical concern that if we implement an inflation-linked or wage growth cap, every single landlord in the country will raise rents every year to that cap, whether they would have done so under the current system or the system we propose or not. You must engage with the challenges on the other side from the measures you propose.
Ben Twomey: I am very happy to. The idea of raising to the cap just does not happen in many countries; landlords do not do that. When you have a sitting tenant, I guess there are elements of the risk being reduced once you know that person, and that is not really accounted for when you take on the market rate. There is also an element of knowing the human being in the home, which changes the behaviour of landlords to some extent.
The use of the market rate is flawed, to say the least. It is not real; it is a made-up number. It is not the actual rent, it is not a transaction, and it is not even an agreed rental price, but the advertised price that a landlord has put out there. More than one in five homes advertised on Rightmove in the last year had to be re-advertised at a lower rent before they were actually let. That really skews the figures, because landlords will seek higher rents to begin with, and what is actually agreed by the tenant is very different. Looking at actual rents would be useful, and that should be recorded on the property database.
There is the matter of linkage as well, which relates to the first-tier tribunal if that is going to be used as the mechanism to challenge rent increases. At the moment, if you were looking at the market rate, you would have a lot of confusion. As a tenant or a landlord, you would not necessarily know where you were going to place the rent rise or whether you would come out the other end of the tribunal happy with the result, whereas if you link to inflation or wage growth—whichever is lower—you can place a number on that every year or every month, if you want to. With that number, all renters would be empowered to know their rights. Landlords would not risk going to court, because they would know that they were within the safe amount that they could raise the rent by, and it would become a much clearer process for everybody, rather than an obscure, complex and financially burdensome process for tenants and landlords, and for the Government to implement.
Tom Darling: Can I briefly answer the point around supply? You heard my analysis of the situation in the private rented sector earlier. It is worth saying that since the year 2000, the private rented sector has doubled in size. Those are the outcomes that we are dealing with now. It is the worst tenure in the worst advanced economy, and that is after 20-plus years of investment ploughing into the sector and it growing massively. Right now, we are living the experiment of what happens if you try to cannibalise the existing housing stock and turn it into an ever-increasing private rented sector.
Matthew Pennycook
That was under the old system, and we want to transform the system, but I take your point.
Tom Darling: Of course.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tom Darling: I am happy to answer that. We were very supportive of the expanded use of rent repayment orders when we worked on the previous Government’s Bill. They are a great opportunity for tenants to avail themselves of the possibility for compensation. Some of the awards that have been increased by the Government would potentially be life-changing amounts of money for most renters. Half of renters have no savings; as a renter and someone who is very much not on the frontlines of this crisis, I try to keep that in mind the whole time. If you are getting a big award in terms of compensation of one or two years of rent repayment, because your landlord has done wrong, that is a potentially life-changing sum of money, so we are very supportive of that.
I think you are right to identify that enforcement works best when the tenant is incentivised to work with the landlord. That works best when the problem is ongoing and the tenant is in situ in the tenancy. One of the problems we have with the new eviction grounds—we have seen this with the poor enforcement of the new tenancy regime in Scotland—is that when the tenant moves on from the tenancy it is hard to motivate them to follow up and check that the eviction was legitimate.
Our concern is that to properly enforce the system, tenants almost need to be motivated by a sort of righteous anger to get back at their landlord. That is one of the reasons why we think post-eviction evidence should be required from the landlord, and potentially no-fault eviction compensation too, where the tenant does not have to pay the last two months of rent before they leave. That way, there will be a broader-based disincentive for landlords to use those grounds. For the vast majority of tenants, after they have been evicted, they just want to move on with their lives, and they are not thinking about their previous landlord or previous home, or checking Rightmove to see whether the landlord has re-let the property and fraudulently used that eviction ground.
Ben Twomey: I completely support the call from Tom for no-fault eviction compensation. That would recognise the harm of no-fault evictions to tenants, which I think every MP here has recognised, and try to disincentive the use of any new grounds of no-fault eviction.
On the rent repayment orders, I will quote the late, great Simon Mullings, a housing expert who gave evidence to the Renters (Reform) Bill Committee, and who would have been here had he not sadly passed away very recently. He talked about an “army” of tenants who could be ready to enforce the legislation. That only works if it is really clear what their rights are and the route to achieving the compensation or repayment of rent is straightforward.
There is another area that could be strengthened. At the moment, if a landlord is not registered with the database or the ombudsman—the redress scheme—they need to have repeat offences before a rent repayment order is available. If I, as a tenant, found that my landlord was not registered, I would have to challenge that, wait for the local authority to make warnings based on what I had said, and then continue to live in the home, feeling probably much less secure than I previously did, without receiving a rent repayment order.
If we want to make sure that landlords are not punished because they were not aware of their obligations, perhaps a smaller rent repayment order would at least give some incentive to a tenant to raise the issue on that first offence. More thought needs to be given to how to stop rent-hike evictions that could happen later, because a rent hike, being an eviction by the back door, could be another way in which I as a tenant or someone else pursuing that would feel insecure, were we to come into conflict with the landlord.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tom Darling: I am happy to answer that. Obviously, we have been talking a lot about Scotland, and you will hear later about the “Rent Better” report, which has essentially written the book on it.
Matthew Pennycook
That issue is highlighted in the report.
Tom Darling: Yes. Our view would be that where these systems have worked, they have been part of a broader strategy that sets a clear direction for both tenants and landlords. I am sure you will have other landlord organisations here today that will talk about the need for certainty. There definitely has not been that in Scotland. There has been political instability and the chopping and changing of policy every couple of years, essentially—from the 2017 reforms to the pandemic freeze, the rent cap and now moving to a system of between-tenancy rent controls, and the latest political instability. I am sure landlord organisations will tell you that that makes it very difficult to have any certainty about what you are doing with rent levels in the future.
We would argue that if a Government with a big majority early on in their term set a clear direction on what the policy would be, landlords would be able to deal with that. You see that in European countries where there are big landlords who do just fine under systems where there are rent caps.
Matthew Pennycook
But you do not dispute that rents have risen faster in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK since those rent controls were introduced—
The Chair
Order. Sorry, but we have hit the deadline for this session. I thank the witnesses very much for coming. We now move on to our final witness.
Examination of Witness
Richard Blakeway gave evidence.
David Simmonds
Q
Richard Blakeway: If you look at our current powers, role and approach around charges, we are very clear that we will consider transparency around why those charges are being made and their purpose, we will consider whether the service has been provided and the quality of that service, and we will consider whether an appropriate process was gone through. For example, at the moment we would consider section 20, where significant charges have to go through a process, and ask whether that process was followed. Those are decisions that we make and we can therefore very clearly consider what the requirements are, either set out in statute or under the provider’s own policy. That is the basis on which we would make a judgment.
I think that is a parallel that is relevant in your example in this space. Clearly, if we were seeing evidence that another mechanism was being used to increase the charges on a tenant and that was unclear and potentially unjustified, that could be a point of maladministration where we would uphold a complaint.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
I have a follow-up question; I will ask them in one go, Mr Betts, and leave more time for others. We have been very clear already that the new ombudsman will need to work collaboratively with others to resolve complaints and that will be set out in statutory guidance. What do you think needs to be included in that guidance to ensure, in particular, that the ombudsman is working effectively with local authorities?
Richard Blakeway: Those are really important questions. The Bill introduces a new framework of rights and responsibilities for both landlords and tenants and, as you set out, the ombudsman service—whoever is appointed as the ombudsman—plays a part in that. I would say as an aside very early on that I welcome the Government’s recognition of the strategic benefits of bringing together the social rented sector and the private rented sector, particularly given the common body of existing and new legislation that is tenure blind and speaks to both the private and rented sector, whether that is the existing Landlord and Tenant Act or the potential to extend Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard. I think there is a real benefit to system coherence and the right relationships, as you highlight, and also to making sure that benefits do not unintentionally fall in the wrong place, by appointing the housing ombudsman as the provider of redress.
I think there are three key relationships. There is the lead enforcement body, and working out the role of that body. In particular, looking at clause 109, information sharing between the ombudsman service and the lead enforcement body will be vital, so codifying that role will be important.
There is the tribunal, which we have alluded to. One of the really important pieces of work is to develop, very early on—I would have thought in advance of any statutory instruments—a draft scheme for the ombudsman service, and to collaborate with a number of bodies, including the courts, on what is in the scheme and therefore the decisions that the ombudsman might take, and what is outside it and clearly rests with the courts. I have given the example of section 13. The ombudsman could potentially play a role in looking at aspects of section 13, which might relieve pressure on the courts.
There is then the relationship with local authorities and enforcement. On the database itself, I think there has to be a decision about who owns the database and is going to provide it—whether it sits with the Department or the lead enforcement agency, for example—and the pace at which it could be developed to support the introduction of the redress service.
One of the other areas to consider, where there may be a pressure that emerges in the system—a pressure that I think the legislation recognises but could go further to address and relieve—is enforcement. The Government have rightly indicated that there is concern around compliance with ombudsman remedies. There was a survey in, I think, 2018 that showed 46% of private landlords not complying. At the moment, the Bill includes a kind of last resort to try to enforce compliance, which would be introduced later through statutory instruments. I wonder whether consideration should be given to bringing that forward, so that compliance issues are not having to be directed towards local authorities, and creating pressures there.
I also wonder whether the legislation could go further by, for example, amending clauses 66 and 96 to include rent repayment orders as part of non-compliance with ombudsman decisions. The Bill is rightly clear that if a landlord does not sign up to the ombudsman service then it could be subject to a rent repayment order, but it is silent on whether a landlord that is non-compliant with the ombudsman’s decisions should also be subject to a rent repayment order. I think that if you were to introduce that, that would strengthen compliance and reduce the need to direct things around the system to try to address them.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Q
Richard Blakeway: That is a really important question. It is one thing having an ombudsman service; it is another people being aware of it and being able to access it. We have certainly been on a journey within our current jurisdiction to think about how we interface with the public and become more accessible to them, and we have obviously seen the benefits of that.
A number of initiatives have been required to bring about a change, but the Department has done a number of surveys of social tenants to understand awareness levels. Awareness is now at around 70% among social tenants, according to two surveys that were done in the last three years, compared with probably sub-50% previously. There is a playbook there, if you like, for how you create awareness of access to an ombudsman. We have sought to use our existing service and be very open and visible. For example, in the 2023-24 financial year, about 6,000 residents engaged in open forums that we hosted around the country where they could come along and ask any questions. That is really important.
I have two brief thoughts. First, the complaints process does not start with the ombudsman service; it starts with the landlord. A very important thing to do very early on is make sure that there is a robust framework to support landlords to handle and resolve complaints, but that includes signposting to an ombudsman service so that there is clear awareness at a local level. That work is really important to do in advance of any ombudsman service going live.
The second thing that I think is important is how you stitch the ombudsman service into other bodies and advice agencies—Shelter, Citizens Advice and so on—which, again, is something that we have at the moment. One of the benefits of having a single front door through the housing ombudsman for both social and private tenants is that you can effectively introduce no wrong door for people. Once a tenant reaches someone, to be told “Actually we can’t help you” and be sent somewhere else is probably the last thing they want, but that is what they hear currently. About one in five inquiries that we get from the public at the moment are from people who we cannot help because they are outside our jurisdiction. We could effectively provide a single front door and prevent that, building on the awareness activities that we have at the moment. Again, it is really important to introduce that early on. Were the housing ombudsman to be designated as the redress provider, that is something that I would want to be able to introduce through our existing inquiries service immediately, even in advance of us being able to handle cases, so that we could provide effective advice to residents so that they understand their rights and where to go.
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRenters' Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2024 - (22 Oct 2024)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Simmonds
Q
Liz Davies KC: I am concerned about mandatory grounds 1 and 1A. Clearly, they bring an end to no-reason evictions, with the end of section 21, but they are still no-fault evictions as far as the tenant is concerned. It is helpful that the period will be one year and that there is four months’ notice, rather than the two months’ notice in the previous version of this Bill, the Renters (Reform) Bill. But I am concerned that the balance is not right.
Mainly, I am concerned about the idea of a court being faced with mandatory grounds when the tenant has done nothing wrong, and there may be incredibly compelling circumstances about the tenant but the court cannot look at them; it has absolutely no remit and no jurisdiction. So the tenant might say—I am sorry to have to say this—“Myself or a member of the household has a very serious terminal illness. To ask me to move within four weeks or two weeks, or what have you, is going to have an appalling effect on that.” They might say, “We have a very severe disability and so it will take us longer than other people to find somewhere to live.”
My preference would be to make all grounds discretionary, because I think that does provide the balance. But even if Parliament were to reject that view, it seems to me that courts ought to have the opportunity, in exceptional circumstances, to look at the tenant circumstances and to either reject a possession order, or have the flexibility to make a possession order that is suspended for a certain period of time—postponed for a certain period of time. It seems to me wrong in principle that a court cannot consider any circumstances of the tenant, whatever they are. That is my concern on 1 and 1A, and I think Justin will speak about 6A.
Justin Bates KC: Can I ask you to also look very carefully at ground 6A when it comes to scrutiny? Ground 6A is the new ground for possession, where the landlord needs possession, because they are on the banned landlord database or because they are operating an overcrowded house in multiple occupation—the landlord is effectively a criminal landlord and needs possession to deal with the consequences of their criminality. Presently, that is a mandatory ground for possession. I understand why, because I can see that there is a difficulty with one arm of the state saying, “You are breaking the law and you will keep breaking the law if we don’t act, and we won’t allow you to get people out.”
Can I flag two concerns? First, there is a concern among those in frontline tenant services that it will act as a disincentive to people reporting their rogue landlords, because if you report your rogue landlord to the local authority and it then puts them on the banning order list, you face a mandatory ground for possession.
Secondly, it strikes me as odd that a tenant who has done nothing wrong—save had the misfortune to have a criminal landlord—is required to move with no compensation and no provision of suitable alternative accommodation and so on. I can understand why we need 6A. I understand that we do not want to leave people committing crimes because a judge will not give a possession order, but it strikes me that you could look at some sort of compensation scheme. If you were minded to do so, the model is section 34 of the Housing Act 2004, which already gives the tribunal the power to order compensation when people have to leave because of prohibition orders. You could steal lots of the language from section 34, put it into ground 6A, and you would have much less scope for the unfairness that seems to me to be evident.
Giles Peaker: On the broader question of whether a balance is struck, I think it is a political decision as to where the balance falls, but broadly there is one. I do have specific concerns about 1 and 1A, as well as those raised by Liz, which are in terms of the evidencing of a mandatory ground. If the ground is the landlord wants to sell, or the landlord wants to move in or move in a family member, what standard of evidence is required for them to demonstrate that? In terms of the current wording, it would probably be enough to simply express an intention to do so. My sense is that there needs to be at least a level of formality—a signed declaration of truth on a statement or a particulars claim signed by the landlord—in terms of bringing possession proceedings on the back of that.
But there is also what follows on from that, and I think this issue has come up in Scotland, where there is a similar sort of provision. If a landlord re-lets a property within the 12 months proposed, the potential enforcement is great: it is a criminal breach, with a prospective civil penalty, and a prospective rent repayment order application by the former tenants. That is all great. The question is how you get from the possession order being made to action on the breach. As it stands, it appears that the only way in which that could possibly happen is if the ex-tenants realise that the property has been re-let—heaven knows how, and heaven knows where they will be in the country by that point—and then notify the local authority, which can take enforcement action. It strikes me that there should be some kind of recording that that ground has been used—a landlord database might be a place for that. The local authority can be aware that that ground has been used, and if it becomes aware of a re-letting, the full enforcement apparatus can kick in.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Q
Could I ask you to draw out a bit further how you expect this to work? In a sense, when we talk about discretionary grounds, we are always told, “Let’s trust judges”—that was certainly the case with the previous Bill. In a sense, what we intend to do here is trust judges’ judgment on whether those grounds have been used appropriately, and we would expect the type of evidence that they look at to include things like a letter instructing solicitors or an affidavit. But do you not expect the courts to operate in that way on the basis of the Bill? Do you expect them to act in a more light-touch way, as you have suggested? It is not usual practice for Governments to force the courts to consider certain types of evidence, and if that is the case—if you accept that—where do we go to try to influence the courts to look at certain categories of evidence, to ensure that these grounds are being used appropriately?
Giles Peaker: In terms of how you can specify things, to some degree, it is a question of wording. Grounds 1 and 1A are expressed as an intention, and if the intention is there, the ground is made out. If a landlord has written to the court to say, “I intend to sell”, it seems quite difficult for the court to go behind that, unless the tenant has evidence to the contrary. So partly it is around language. Intention—settled intention—needs looking at. But with different wording, a different evidential requirement may well follow—so potentially, as you say, the landlord would have to evidence engagement with an estate agent or a solicitor on a sale, or would need evidence from the relative who was intending to move in, to the same effect.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Giles Peaker: Yes, hence my talking earlier about the reason to fill in the gap between the notice seeking possession or the court order, and potential enforcement, which is a bit of a lacuna at the moment.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Justin Bates KC: I will go first, because this is what we spend our time talking about. Clause 30 is wholly defective and should not be allowed to stay in this form after the Bill Committee. It is a loophole. Clause 30 presently says that something will not be an assured tenancy under your new regime if it is for a tenancy of more than seven years. So I will grant you a tenancy of seven years and one day, and I will reserve to myself, as landlord, a landlord-only right to break, exercisable after six months on two months’ rolling notice. There you go: I have just recreated section 21 and there is nothing you can do about it.
You need to look at clause 30 very carefully. The reason it is in there is to fix a different problem. It is there because certain shared ownership leases and certain long leases have accidentally ended up being treated as assured shorthold tenancies, so that is what you are trying to close. The better way to solve that problem is to amend schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, which is the main Act you are grappling with, to say that shared ownership leases cannot be assured tenancies, and that long leases for terms of more than 21 years—which is the normal definition of a long lease—cannot be assured tenancies. And then take clause 30 out, because what will happen—as sure as night follows day, and as the entire history of housing law since 1915 shows you—is that landlords will offer seven years plus a day with a landlord-only break, because this is not an area where there is equal bargaining power. It will be, “Take it or leave it, and I’ve just brought section 21 back in through the back door.” So please look very carefully at clause 30.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
The other point is smaller and more technical, and is on the subject of homelessness. Because you are taking out assured shorthold tenancies from the homelessness regime, which allows local authorities to find people private rented sector tenancies, and you have done a lot of drafting amendments to take out the words “assured shorthold”, you have also taken out a mechanism in the Housing Act 1996 that currently allows a homeless family—where they are given an assured shorthold tenancy and that ends within two years—to reapply as homeless and where they do not have to show a priority need. It helps to deal with the revolving door of homelessness, potentially in the private rented sector. You have abolished that—I imagine inadvertently, because you are taking out the words relating to assured shortholds. However, I would suggest that you try to get that back in, so that in the more unusual cases—once this Bill has gone through—if a homeless person is given an assured tenancy in the private rented sector and it comes to an end within two years, they will be able to come back to the homelessness authority. It is section 195A of the Housing Act 1996.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Q
Justin Bates KC: I want to be careful not to speak for the first-tier tribunal judges. Parliament has provided additional funding for the FTT in anticipation, not of this Bill, but of other areas. Those of you who worked on the Building Safety Act 2022 will know that you gave new powers to the FTT over unsafe buildings. Funding came along with that, because new building safety judges have been appointed. For obvious reasons, I am not privy to all the spending decisions, but as a regular attendee of the tribunal, I can see that money must have been provided. Whether you provide more money for this Bill is, frankly, miles above my pay grade.
On the increased workload, it is very difficult to say. It is plausible that there may not be that much of an increase in workload, because people can still agree what the new rent will be. If they agree it, there is no need to go anywhere near the tribunal. If I were pushed, my informed guess would be that there will be an increase in the first few years, because there always is whenever the law changes, and that it will settle down after a while, but I cannot properly comment on the minutiae of how you fund the FTT.
David Simmonds
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: We are grateful to the Government for the new ground 5A, which deals with incoming agricultural workers. That will help—no question about that. And we are grateful for the new ground 5C, which is a ground to get property back because a job has ended, where the property was limited to the employment.
There are a couple of other grounds that are not covered at the moment and would be needed for rural businesses. The vast majority of rural businesses are not linked to farming or agriculture, but there might still be times when—we hear this from our members all the time—the provision of accommodation is necessary to attract or retain people, particularly when there is nothing else around. They could be in a really remote rural area or it could be because, for example, the person in that job needs to be on call, which would apply to security, caretakers or vets. Or it could be for people working antisocial hours in hospitality, for example, or at a wedding venue, where there is no longer public transport available at the time they are meant to finish or they need to start really early to set up before the wave of tourists come—and so on.
Increasing and expanding ground 5A to include service occupancies in very defined circumstances would be really helpful. To avoid abuse, there are definitions of what that could cover in other legislation that could be referred to. That is the main ground.
The second ground that is needed for agricultural workers is a new ground for what is known as suitable alternative accommodation. Some categories of agricultural workers have protected tenancies under existing legislation—the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976—and assured agricultural occupants are also protected under the Housing Act 1988. For example, you might have a retired dairyman or indeed their widow who is still in the main dairy. You need to recruit somebody to replace that dairyman. If you have more than one property, it would be useful to have a ground to get it back, in order to then move the retired dairyman or the widow in that property. Obviously, if you have only one property, it is game over, but in the case that you have a small portfolio, it would be really useful to have that, because you have a legal obligation to rehome that person but you need the property in which they currently are.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Yes, sure. I think it needs updating because it was designed for problems in the social sector. It might or might not be applicable to the private rented sector. It also does not deal very well with older properties, which is the vast bulk of what our members have. To judge the private rented sector against the decent homes standard as it currently is would be, I think, misleading, and it would have all sorts of unintended consequences. For example, in small cottages in rural areas, there are typically very small kitchens and so on. They would not necessarily fit, and it would destroy the character if you were to change that—
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: No, it is not the principle. The issue at the moment is that what we have got, which is the decent homes standard that applies to the social sector, would not work in the private rented sector in the rural context. The other thing that we do have, however, is the housing health and safety rating system and, indeed, the minimum energy efficiency standards. We reckon that that probably covers the ground, but it absolutely needs to be enforced. I think you have already got levers there. That is what we would say.
Mr Amos
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: We recognise that is an issue in some areas of the country that are honeypots. If the proposals that were consulted on are implemented effectively, we see a need for them.
On your question about whether some properties would become holiday lets, I think if you had asked me a year ago, I might have said yes. There are other pressures on the holiday let market that make this increasingly unlikely. We hear from members that they are planning on selling full stop, which would probably be selling to people who want to be on the housing ladder rather than to people who want to take over their business of being private rented sector housing providers. That is a real issue and concern for us.
David Simmonds
Q
Anna Evans: For tenants, the positives are a new foundation of rights and there should be more legal security. Tenants in Scotland enjoy open-ended tenancy and specific grounds for eviction, and there are longer notice periods. It is gradually moving to more of a contractual, rather than a subjective, relationship.
I should say, though, that there are very considerable differences in satisfaction between the general population of private rented tenants and the lower end, where lower income tenants or those who are more vulnerable are still disadvantaged. That is because of the overriding demand-supply imbalance. There is a fear among tenants about challenging, if they know that there are very few affordable alternatives on the market.
For landlords, I would say that they are generally settled with the private residential tenancy now—it has been in place for over five years, and they can see the consistency in practice and greater clarity in rights and responsibilities. Clearly, it is less flexible, but the difficulties that landlords have in Scotland are to do with subsequent legislation, and in particular, rent control.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Anna Evans: Yes.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Anna Evans: I will take the rent control issue first. This was nothing to do with private residential tenancy; it was the result of emergency legislation on the cost of living, which was brought in in 2021-22. That brought in a rent increase freeze and then rent increase caps. If we look at the data following that on rent increases, there are arguments around this, but basically average rent increases have not frozen or been curtailed. Some would certainly argue that rent increases in Scotland have been greater than what you could see across the UK.
We should remember—I was looking at evidence on this earlier—that landlords, certainly in Scotland, usually increase rents at a change of tenancy, not on an annual basis. What happened when rent control came in, with a range of other pieces of legislation and regulation, was that it became more of a hostile environment—that is what landlords are saying—and so as a result, they tended to hike rents up more at a change of tenancy. But we have found that most landlords want good, stable tenants for a long time. Most actually do not increase rents during a tenancy, but only take the opportunity to increase rents at a change of tenancy, and because of the environment and the hostility that they were feeling, they thought they had better increase rents at change of tenancy. Does that answer your question on rent control?
Matthew Pennycook
Yes, that is very useful. Thank you.
Anna Evans: In terms of the differences between your Bill and the private residential tenancy, I have to confess that I am not an expert on your Bill, so I cannot answer that in detail, but I can say that the PRT is an open-ended tenancy. It has no fixed-term period. There is the eradication of eviction with no grounds. Eviction proceedings are simplified to 18 statutory grounds and there has to be a reason—what are the grounds for eviction? There are extended notice periods and also a phased implementation. I think that is a key point. A lesson that the current Housing (Scotland) Bill is looking at is whether short assured and assured tenancies should actually just be terminated now because there has been long enough. There is still a good proportion of assured tenancies in existence—we estimate probably about 20%. Short assured tenancies are certainly less secure, so one lesson would be that if you are changing, do not do it over seven years; do not delay.
Carla Denyer
Q
Anna Evans: I think what we have concluded from all of the evidence is that the rent control has to be very carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences. It is above my pay grade to say what that design might be, but there could be a range of ways in which landlords try to get around rent control. We have seen examples of offers from tenants—I understand that your Bill will avoid wars between tenants, in terms of rent levels, but because of demand-supply imbalance, tenants do offer landlords higher rents to get properties. Evidence across different states shows that rent control efficacy is variable, so it has to be very carefully designed.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
If we were looking to take action on sign-ups in advance, what is a reasonable period when landlords should be able to ask students to sign up in advance that does not, as you say, force them all to sign up far too early and in ways they may regret or have to re-examine? What is an appropriate period in which a sign-up would be reasonable? Lastly, do you understand why the sign-up arms race, as I might put it, has developed? It is hard to find an explanation for why all landlords are locked into a cycle of earlier and earlier sign-ups; it seems to have developed organically. Could you outline why you think that problem has arisen in the first place?
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: To take the first point, in the Bill you have proposed ground 4A for possession of student tenancies. That is definitely a helpful addition and we were glad to see it brought forward. However, at the moment it is just for HMOs, which we assume is deliberate wording, so it is for properties with larger groups of three or more people living in them, and you have excluded one and two-bedroom properties. We think that will result in a loss of smaller properties from the student housing sector.
The sector is quite particular. These properties have been set up close to universities, and the businesses are run in a particular way. I can understand why you might think that one and two-bedroom properties would perhaps have more mature students or students with families living in them. Often they do, but the reason why all students rent all properties in the student market is to do with them being at university. Generally, they are in that city and living in that housing only because they are at a university nearby.
We think that excluding one and two-bedroom properties is problematic, because they are quite a big part of the market—more than you would think; it is not just mature students or students with families. A national advertising platform called Accommodation for Students has given us some data on this, and 31% of the properties listed on its website nationally are one and two-bedroom off-street houses. If you were to lose that amount of property from the student market, that would be problematic. I think that is likely, because if you are in a one or two-bedroom property and you can have an indeterminate tenancy and give notice at any point, you may give notice in January when there is no demand for students, and that property will end up leaving the cycle of the student market and going into the professional market.
The average is 31% across the Accommodation for Students website, but in some locations it is even higher. In Newcastle and Preston, over 50% of the properties advertised are one and two beds, so it is not just mature students; it is younger undergraduates who are living in those types of houses because they suit their needs and they are available. Losing them would be very problematic over time and would reduce the supply of housing available to students.
The second part of your question was about cooling-off periods and early renting. Why does it happen? I think it is a mixture of things. Students want to secure a nice house, so they go out early and try to beat the rest of the market. In some cities, there are shortages of accommodation because student numbers have increased considerably over recent years, and there is a cap on the amount of off-street housing that there can be because of planning—article 4 direction—so we are not making any more shared student housing.
Students are aware that there is a shortage, and if they want to get the house that they want, they will try to get out there earlier and earlier to beat the market. That is why it happens, but it is really problematic, so we would like it to not happen. We have suggested that if you could say to students that they could cancel that agreement up to four months before the tenancy was due to begin, it would stop early renting. There would be nothing in it for landlords to try to get properties signed earlier and earlier, because students would be able to drop out. We do not think that would be problematic. It will not be an issue for landlords as the properties will still be let, but hopefully it would stop the silliness.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: No, they do not at all. It is not a problem. No-fault evictions are very rarely, if ever, used in the student housing market, because the need is cyclical, and generally most students will very happily move out when their tenancy is finished. I think it would be used very rarely, but it sends a useful signal that it is time to think about leaving.
The real issue for me, and the more problematic thing that will stop the cyclical nature of student housing, is the ability of students to give two months’ notice. I understand not wanting to treat students differently from the rest of the market, but the need for housing is so tied to the particular reason of being at university. Most landlords deal with their tenancies on the basis of 12 months, and they set their rents on an annual basis. If you say, “Your tenant is able to give notice, and they might choose to leave in April or May,” those landlords will respond to that and think, “I will have to increase my rent, because I have an annual rental figure that I need.”
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I do not have a tiny violin for landlords, but I am just saying what we think is likely to happen. It is a commercial operation and landlords need to cover their costs, and we think that if landlords perceive more risk they will seek to put up rents.
Your previous witness talked about the situation in Scotland. One of the things we would really like the Government to do before going much further is an impact assessment on the student market, particularly looking at Scotland, because the evidence there about student homelessness as a result of the tenure changes is compelling. The Government in Scotland have a committee looking at how they can tackle the issue of student homelessness, and I think that is a bit of a warning for us all that we could very well be in that place in a couple of years’ time if we do not think about the student market, its particular characteristics and what it needs.
Mr Amos
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I think there are alternative options. There was discussion on the previous Bill about creating an accreditation scheme or some sort of certification for landlords in the off-street sector. That is worth considering if a landlord is part of a quality mark and might be able to offer fixed-term tenancies similar to PBSA. There would certainly be some benefits to that, and you would offer students a quality product with landlords who are accountable to somebody but can have certainty in their business planning, which would be beneficial. I also think that ground 4A should be amended and extended to all student properties.
David Simmonds
Q
Timothy Douglas: From Propertymark’s point of view, we want to see warm, decent homes. The agent can actually be a layer of enforcement, whether they instruct the landlord to take on that property or not, as well as mortgage providers. Unlike social housing, which is designed to specific specifications, the property redress scheme comprises a range of property without specification. The decent homes standard was argued about in the previous Session. It was consulted on by the last Government. There were numerous working groups with the last Government and, yes, it is going to be consulted on again.
From Propertymark’s point of view for the private rented sector, we have to link up with local authority assessments. We have to focus on fit-for-purpose. I know that local authorities—certainly a local authority in the midlands—will, without fail, change all the boilers every five years in their housing stock. I am sorry, but private rented landlords do not have the money to do that, and the social rented sector has received billions of pounds in eco funding as well. If we are to get that parity between the private and social rented sector, the private rented sector needs to see that funding come forward, certainly in the thermal comfort space—cool in the summer, warm in the winter. Why, for the 18 different archetypes of property across the country, are we going for a one-size-fits-all energy efficiency target? That is going to nullify older properties in England and Wales where the regulations extend and rural properties. Let us simplify the HHSRS as well. There are existing levers that we need.
Finally, on this point about extending decent homes and Awaab’s law, we welcome these steps as long as we get them right for the uniqueness of the private rented sector. In the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which was passed in the last Parliament, there is a requirement for all property managers in the social rented sector to be qualified. We think that should be extended to the private rented sector to all letting agents as well. If we can get that code of practice in place through adjudication and redress, we can qualify our letting agents. We get parity, drive up standards and help enforcement. That would certainly go a long way towards the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law being implemented in this sector.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Melanie Leech: The first thing to say, as you know, is that institutional investment into the build-to-rent sector specifically is a growing part of the housing supply mix. It is bringing in genuinely additional investment, because it is the type of investment that does not typically invest in build to sell—you have people wanting to use large amounts of capital to generate secure income streams so that they can match against pension liabilities, insurance liabilities and so on. Probably the key word in that is “secure”. Anything that damages investors’ confidence that the income they will get from their investment is at risk will undermine our potential to unlock investment into homes and the rental sector. Currently, the peak year for build-to-rent delivery was 15,000 homes. We think that you can double that to 30,000 homes, with the right conditions, and some of my members would go further and say that you can double that again. We are looking at an investment stream that could be a very significant part of helping to deliver the Government’s aspirations to build more homes.
What I have already talked about, in terms of the ability of the courts to cope with the reforms, is an important indicator of confidence. Investors will look at that and think, “This changes the basis on which I have invested. It makes it more difficult for me to manage the property efficiently.” I think the issues around rent determination also have that potential, so there is nervousness around needing to use section 13 and rent increases. There is a suspicion that tenants have nothing to lose by challenging any rent increase, so it is about getting the framework right around how we define what an unreasonable rent increase might be and how we manage those cases that might come before tribunals. There are some issues around that that we would like to see more clarity around and redressed.
In general, we are really supportive, because in the part of the market that I represent the decent homes standard already would not cause us an issue in terms of implementation and so on. We are trying to raise standards in the private rented sector, and we are raising standards in the private rented sector, but the key thing is to implement the reforms in a way that does not undermine investor confidence, so that we do not inhibit the supply of homes.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Melanie Leech: This is pure speculation, because I have not asked members this question. History suggests that once legislation is passed, those affected by it figure out the best way to protect their interests in the light of the new framework, so I would broadly expect that to happen. But if we are asking ourselves how we get back to a position where investors can have confidence, we should probably ask ourselves why we are asking that question in the first place. We should be creating a framework within which investors can have that confidence.
For example, some of the nervousness will be around the fact that, if you have a litigious tenant who takes you to the tribunal and ultimately to the courts over a rent increase, and the decision goes in the landlord’s favour, you have still lost several months. You cannot backdate the reasonable rent increase for which you have just won the court’s authority, so you have lost a lot of money in terms of both the rent accruing and the amount of time you have to spend going through that process. Let us just remind ourselves that when I talk about landlords here, I am primarily talking about pension funds and insurance funds, so it is our money.
Timothy Douglas: I think that is the point. While we need supply—and we need supply from all sources—landlords in the private sector are a broad community. The bulk of private rented sector landlords have one, two or three properties. What is disincentivising investor confidence is not necessarily the competence of this Bill, but the sector would welcome a review of all taxes and costs that have impacted private landlords in the past five years. We have seen the reduction in mortgage interest relief, the 3% additional surcharge when you buy a rented property, tinkering with capital gains tax—some are taxed as businesses while some are not—and changes to the wear and tear allowance. If we really focus and want to be sensible about incentivising landlords and the investment community, we have to shine a spotlight on taxes and costs.
Alongside this legislation, we need to enact the registration requirements in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 on short-term lets as well. Otherwise, we are going to see a further exodus of landlords to the short-term lets market, which is less regulated and has fewer controls in place.
We need to build more social homes. Ultimately, as you will know, Minister, our argument remains that we need to retain fixed-term tenancies as an option. They give the landlord and the tenant a guarantee of the length of time they will be there and the rent that they will pay. Families renting with children near schools, as well as nurses who have placements, are coming to our agents saying that they want to know how long they are going to be in situ. As I say, we need to provide long-term tenancy options for those who want them and ensure that people do not go to the unregulated short-term lets market.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Timothy Douglas: We have just been talking about the other side of the coin, which is investors.
Matthew Pennycook
No, not investors. You made a point about tenants.
Timothy Douglas: Yes, but that is the crux of it. Unfortunately, if you push too far on the fixed-term tenancy option, the grounds are not robust enough for landlords. Unfortunately, they do not know how long the tenant is going to be in situ. They cannot plan their investment, and they do not know the return on their rent. It is a mutual agreement. We are not saying that it is one or the other. We are saying retain it as an option. Why are we legislating to reduce choice and flexibility?
Agents are telling me up and down the country that that is what tenants want. The leading letting agent in London, which manages 65,000 tenancies, says that fixed-term contracts are popular within the private-rented sector. Many tenants opted for tenancies between one and three years, with the average first term lasting 23 months. At the end of the initial term, 65% of tenants choose to renew. Only 1% of tenancies are ended early by landlords; 5% are ended by tenants. People know where they stand and where they are going to be. It is an option that should be included in the legislation. We have talked today about students as well. It would solve all the problems in the student market.
We are tinkering there with issues that just do not exist. Retain fixed-term tenancies for all, or at least within the student market, or extend ground 4A to one or more sharers. You are tying yourselves in knots in so many ways.
Mr Amos
Q
Timothy Douglas: I was actually saying that fixed terms should be retained regardless of landlords.
David Simmonds
Q
Cllr Adam Hug: No, we do not think it does. The key thing for us is that you have the current selective licensing mechanisms, but councils face bureaucratic hurdles in terms of getting the Secretary of State’s sign-off for large schemes that wish to go down that route. In terms of ensuring decisions are made at the right level, in line with the Government’s commitment to devolution, we think that for selective licensing to really fulfil its potential we must ensure there is no longer a need for the Secretary of State’s sign-off.
Obviously, that sort of licensing can improve standards in the sector, help councils to recruit environmental health officers, beef up the function and make sure we are playing a proactive role in helping manage the private rented sector in a local area. Different councils have used it, but at the moment it is hamstrung by the bureaucratic hurdle of getting it up to the Secretary of State. Obviously, we have a Secretary of State who is probably more minded to support the use of such schemes than was the case in the past, but it still creates an unnecessary hurdle and a delay when councils could just get on and use these licensing schemes that are desperately needed.
Dr Henry Dawson: May I add some responses? At the moment, we have a maximum five-year duration for discretionary licensing schemes. Once the schemes have been brought into force, it takes a certain amount of time to create the partnerships with other organisations, such as waste and street scene departments, police and antisocial behaviour teams, and antisocial behaviour schemes within the council, other charities and NHS-related bodies. They usually take between one and three years to mature.
Local authorities are also required to entice enough staff to be able to immediately provide a strong inspectorate to run these schemes. That can be anything from five to 50 staff, depending on the size of the scheme. We find that the five-year duration of schemes is a significant impediment, so it would be much more welcome to see something like a 10-year timeframe. That would permit us to train up new staff through the existing one or three-year qualifications. It would also allow these partnerships to mature so we see some of the true benefits of the schemes.
The other thing is that a large private rented sector is required; that is a point that a local authority has to prove when it is setting up one of these selective licensing schemes. We see that as an unnecessary hurdle to their introduction. They are part of a package of measures to address a range of problems associated with housing conditions, crime and antisocial behaviour across an area, and we see that as being an unnecessary impediment to their execution. It is one more thing that the local authority has to prove.
Finally, discretionary schemes, and particularly selective licensing, are one of the few things that provide access to properties. Even though the legislation has been changed, with some regulations to expand the use of selective licensing to include dealing with poor housing conditions, under the Housing Act 2004 we are unable to enforce conditions relating to the condition and contents of a property. We can only change those in HMO licensing conditions; we cannot change them in selective licensing conditions. Therefore, this is the first opportunity that we have really had, with a piece of primary legislation, to amend the Housing Act 2004 to provide parity in what local authority environmental health officers can require in the conditions and contents of properties through selective licensing, in addition to HMO licensing.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
You mentioned the fines—£7,000 for first or minor compliance issues, and £40,000 for more serious ones— and they can be levied repeatedly. I just want to get a sense of how much of the cost of enforcement you think those fines can account for. We recognise that it will not be enough, and that the new burdens principle will have to operate, but have you got a sense of it in terms of, as you say, how many cases are resolved before it reaches that point? What will be the willingness under the new system to levy these kinds of fines, and what proportion of the enforcement costs do you think, on average, local authorities might see those fines account for?
Dr Henry Dawson: Thank you for your question, Minister. At the moment, we have the use of civil penalty notices, and I would defer to a report by the National Residential Landlords Association to provide a summary of their use over the period between 2001 and 2003. We see that approximately £12 million was given in penalties over that period, and around £6 million of that was recorded as collected through penalties over that period.
It is also worth noting that these civil penalty notices are intended to be an alternative to a prosecution through the courts; they are not intended to be a revenue generator. The licensing fees, the ombudsman fee and the database fees are where we can generate the revenue at the front end. These civil penalty notices are being used as a final, ultimate punishment for some of the worst offenders. Yes, we can administer £7,000 for the initial offence and £40,000 for ongoing offenders, but they really are intended to be a deterrent, as opposed to a source of revenue.
The majority—maybe 90%—of a local authority’s work is carried out through informal advice giving, with people ringing up and asking for guidance in what is a very complex legislative environment. That is certainly something that landlords and letting agents would like to have more of. We serve formal legal notices, but it is only when we have gone through a whole series of informal approaches that we move to a formal approach through a legal notice and, ultimately, a prosecution or penalty notice. Therefore, really, we are looking at maybe 5%—to pluck a figure out of the air—which is a tiny proportion of what we have got across the country, and probably the only national figures we have on this are those that have been pulled together by the NRLA.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Adam Hug: indicated assent.
Matthew Pennycook
You are nodding vigorously, which is a good indicator, but have you got views more widely about the changes that we have made on antisocial behaviour—about being able to take action immediately, for example, or considering the implications on other people in a household, as well as that switch back to “likely”, rather than “capable of”, which we felt was too broad under the previous legislation?
Cllr Adam Hug: Absolutely. We agree that the previous legislation was too broad to be meaningful. I think the key thing for us is supporting where we are now, in terms of reverting to “likely”, but, also, there needs to be clear guidance given by the Department—obviously, building on existing case law—with clear definitions from your team about what constitutes antisocial behaviour, both so that landlords know and so that councils can know regarding enforcement. I am sure that there are teams at the LGA, and others, that are happy to work with you on the development of that, but giving clear guidance to the sector is going to be essential to ensuring that the powers are used effectively.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Henry Dawson: The CIEH would be keen to be part of discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the operation of that database. I note that quite a lot of the content in the Bill is to be delivered through secondary legislation, and if we could be part of the shaping of that legislation, it would be very welcome. Things that would make it more effective include ensuring local authorities’ ease of access to the records on the database; providing local authorities with broad enforcement powers that would allow things such as the provision of information from any person; and the ability readily to access records of other local authorities’ enforcement activities. These sorts of records make it much easier for us to co-ordinate our activity across different areas of the country.
Having a single database operator, providing, as one of its functions, a source of advice in the industry would also provide us with a single point of information to refer people to when they come to us asking for support. That would alleviate a lot of the burden and the time our officers spend managing these requests for information. Therefore, we would not be relying on what are often chat forums and other informal information sources for our landlord operators to address problems on what is usually a responsive and as-and-when-they-occur basis.
Eighty-five per cent of landlords in the sector own one to three properties. That is roughly half the sector’s total housing stock, so those are the landlords we need to focus on trying to support. Providing advice and guidance will be an invaluable function of the database operator.
David Simmonds
Q
Anny Cullum: We are pleased to see stricter measures and penalties for landlords laid out in the Bill, and we are particularly happy that new burdens funding will be available to councils to enact them. However, our experience as a tenants’ union is that often councils are so overstretched trying to do the things that they already have to do that tenants are waiting months before getting the support they need. Often their landlords have been given very informal notices and long timescales to get things done, which is no good for a tenant living in a dangerous home.
A great thing about this Bill is that section 21s will be banned. Something that we have seen a lot—we had a member in Sheffield go through this recently—is a local authority coming in and investigating poor conditions in a home, giving an informal notice to the landlord, and the landlord then issuing a section 21; the tenant basically has to pay for the fact that they dared to complain. We are really pleased that that will end, but we think there should be more funding for local authorities, not just extra burden funding for the new things, but for the stuff that they already have to do.
Our union really supports landlord licensing. We have done campaigns in this area in 11 different places around the country. It is incredibly popular with our members; it came out as one of our top motions at our recent conference. If done well, landlord licensing can be self-funding, and—this is a great thing to think about—it gives councils the ability to inspect homes without the tenant having to raise the issue themselves, so you can find out about bad practice and malpractice without the tenant feeling at risk of complaining. Obviously, they will have fewer risks once this legislation comes through, but it will take a long time for tenants to feel comfortable raising their voices, which our organisation tries to help them to do.
We really support the points made by colleagues in the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. We have campaigned in a lot of places for city-wide landlord licensing, as it is something that our members really care about, but a lot of councils have told us that they are not willing to take the risk of trying to implement wider licensing schemes, because they can be turned down by the Secretary of State. They have said that the work you need to do to put that application in is quite labour-intensive, and they do not want to risk doing all that work for it not to come to fruition. In the spirit of devolution and supporting local authorities to do the job they should be doing, give them back powers to license as much of the city as they want, increase the term to up to 10 years, and do away with the bureaucratic hurdles and the evidence gathering they need to do to get the wider licensing schemes.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Anny Cullum: One area our Members feel particularly strongly about that could be strengthened in the Bill to ensure that it delivers the change we all want to see is measures against illegal evictions. It will be wonderful when section 21 is banned, but we know that there are lots of landlords who issue section 21 eviction notices in response to tenants complaining, because they do not want to maintain their properties. For that unscrupulous group, we are worried that illegal evictions might take the place of section 21 evictions once section 21s are banned. We feel that the Bill could go further to make sure that this is not an easy option for them to take.
Hardly any cases of illegal eviction ever make it to court. Safer Renting data showed that there were 26 prosecutions in 2022—the year we have the most recent data for—but it knew about 9,000 cases of illegal eviction. Even when illegal evictions get to court, the fines are £1,000. That is less than my monthly rent. It is not a deterrent for the average landlord. We would like to suggest some changes to make sure that this is not used as a back door to get around the legislation.
We would like to see local councils given a statutory duty and the funding to investigate all cases of illegal eviction. Recently we had a member in Leeds whose landlord kept issuing false eviction notices—ones that he could not go to his local council to ask for support with, so he stayed there. The landlord used many different underhand ways to try to force him out, including sending men with knives to cut the wires in his house so that he did not have any electricity. He has been on the phone for hours to his council and the police, and they have not been very helpful. We want to see those bodies empowered with both the duties and the money to act for tenants.
Police forces need more training. I have supported tenants who landlords have tried to intimidate out of their house. The police do not seem to know that this is a criminal offence or that they have the ability to act on it, so it would be good if there was training on that. We would also like it to be made easier for people and councils to take these criminal cases forward. It can be quite hard to meet the evidence threshold needed to get a rent repayment order, so we would like to see changes there, which I have laid out in our written evidence. We would also like the civil penalty notices that councils can use to be raised to up to £60,000. I know that sounds high, but being forced out of your home with your family is a horrendous thing to happen to anyone. We want to ensure that this is treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
Illegals eviction is one area that my members asked me to speak about. I have also spoken about landlord licensing. A further issue is rent in advance. We are overjoyed that this Bill will end bidding wars, which is something we have campaigned for in different places across the country. We have tried to get agents themselves to pledge not to do it and then mystery shopped them to make sure that they are not. But if you allow agents and landlords at the start of a tenancy to ask, “How many months up front can you give me? Someone else said they could give me a year”, that is another form of bidding war, just at a different point of the process.
We conducted some research at the start of this month and found that benefit claimants were three times more likely to be asked for a year’s rent up front than people not claiming benefits. We are pleased that the Government are keen to crack down on discrimination in the private rented sector against people on low incomes, but this is one way that it is happening and we feel that the Bill could do more on that issue. I have two more areas that my members want me to speak to, if that is okay.
The Chair
Let some other people ask questions and perhaps you will have the opportunity to include those points in your answers.
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRenters' Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Simmonds
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope the Committee will forgive me; this is the first time I have served on a Public Bill Committee as a shadow Minister. I think it is the Minister’s first time as well. I am sure we will crave your indulgence as we go forward to make sure that the Committee runs efficiently and effectively.
Amendments 48 and 54 aim to address a number of issues, relating to the situation students face when securing appropriate accommodation, that were raised both in our oral evidence sessions and in evidence that several organisations submitted to the Committee for consideration. In summary, the amendments aim to ensure a carve-out— as previously considered in deliberations on the Renters (Reform) Bill—so that not just purpose-built student accommodation but student lets more generally fall outside the direct scope of the measures in the legislation.
There are in the evidence a number of examples of how the Bill will affect the ability of students to access the accommodation that they require while they are at their place of study. International students are a significant part of our UK university financial infrastructure, and the ability for them to secure, often from another country, appropriate accommodation in advance, for a fixed period of time, and sometimes for groups of students, is extremely important, not only to them, to meet their housing needs, but to the university because of the fees they contribute.
We heard representations about the impact on students of the need to take properties off the market to make them available to rent again, which occurs largely around the time of examinations, because of the annual cycle of student accommodation. Student organisations expressed a deal of concern, particularly in the context of student mental health—a significant issue that universities are concerned about—that the pressure created would be considerable if people are required to seek new accommodation at the same time as studying for examinations. We need to ensure that the student market retains the degree of flexibility that enables student landlords to address that issue.
The Bill has a broader interaction with areas where there are student communities. Most of us will know, either from our constituencies or nearby, that where there are universities, student communities have grown up and become established and there are landlords that specifically serve that market. Accommodation that may historically have been family homes has been converted specifically for student use, with landlords who specialise in that market.
We would not wish to see that supply of student accommodation significantly diminished because, given the changes in the Bill, it may become more profitable for a landlord to make a property available to the local authority for temporary accommodation, or simply to move it entirely into a different area of the private rented market. Where there is an established market for student accommodation that is vital for the local economy and for the university, we want to make sure that that is preserved.
Finally, there is the article 4 direction issue. Because of the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation in areas proximate to universities, many local authorities have introduced controls with a view to ensuring that an appropriate supply of student accommodation remains, without other types of houses in multiple occupation springing up. That is despite the fact that the physical nature of the accommodation would lend itself to a number of different uses in that market. Ensuring a carve-out would help to guarantee the long-term supply of student accommodation, so that young people who study can secure the accommodation they need at an affordable price.
I hope I have summarised the Opposition’s thinking in tabling the amendments and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Before I respond to amendments 48 and 54, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister, I put on the record my thanks to the witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.
It is agreeable to serve opposite the shadow Minister. He and I are of different political persuasions and, although I hope to persuade him otherwise, I fear we may not be of the same mind regarding some aspects of this legislation. He is, however, a sincere and thoughtful individual, and I know that, even when we disagree strongly in the sittings ahead, the debate will be measured and reasonable. The same applies to other Opposition spokespeople.
As the shadow Minister clearly set out, amendment 48 seeks to amend the new section 4A that clause 1 inserts into the Housing Act 1988, to provide an exemption from the single system of periodic tenancies for those who meet the student test in new ground 4A, set out in schedule 1—that is, all full-time students, irrespective of their living arrangements. The effect would be to require such students—even those who may be the sole occupant of a rented property—to continue to have fixed terms, denying them the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced by the Bill.
The shadow Minister made the case for the amendment on the basis that we require a carve-out for the student sector. I would argue that we have introduced in the Bill a limited carve-out in the form of ground 4A ground for possession. That will ensure that non-typical students can enjoy the benefits of the new tenancy system, as well as typical students, within the limited confines of that ground for possession. It should ensure that landlords can maintain the cyclical nature of that market. As I said in the evidence sessions, I suspect that that ground for possession may be used only in limited circumstances. There is no evidence to suggest that tenants overstay their tenancies en masse. We think that limited carve-out provides what is needed to maintain the unique business model in the student sector.
Amendment 54 would have the same effect for all tenants, ostensibly on a voluntary basis, providing as it does for fixed terms in circumstances where a landlord and a tenant mutually agree to them, on the basis of possession grounds 1, 1A and 6, and rent increases under section 13 are suspended for the duration.
I am afraid I cannot accept either amendment. The Government have been clear that there is no place for fixed terms of any kind in the new tenancy regime that the Bill introduces. Fixed terms mean that tenants are locked into tenancy agreements and do not have the freedom to move should their personal circumstances require that—for example, if they want to take up a job in another part of the country or if a relationship breaks down. Fixed terms also mean that tenants must pay rent regardless of whether the property is fit to live in, reducing the incentive for unscrupulous landlords to complete repairs. As a point of principle, the Government will not deny any type of tenant, including full-time students, the rights and protections afforded to them under the new tenancy system the Bill introduces.
I also find the argument that fixed-term tenancies are more beneficial to both parties than rolling periodic tenancies utterly unconvincing. In circumstances where a responsible landlord and a good tenant have a mutual wish to sustain a tenancy over a defined period without a rent increase—the conditions that underpin the rationale for amendment 54—fixed-term tenancies would provide no clear advantages beyond those that both parties will already enjoy under periodic tenancies, as introduced by the Bill.
If the shadow Minister’s argument is instead that the benefit of fixed terms is that they ensure that a tenancy is sustained, even in the event of either party having good reason to end it—for example, if the landlord wanted to sell the property, or if a tenant wanted to buy and move into a first home—that simply exposes the unnecessary restrictions that fixed terms would impose in those circumstances, locking in either party against their interests.
Finally, I want to make it clear that amendment 54 would leave the new tenancy system open to abuse. In my view, it overlooks the power imbalance between landlords and tenants. In hot rental markets across the country the mismatch between supply and demand is acute, and one could easily imagine circumstances in which a disreputable landlord says to a tenant that the only way they are going to get the tenancy, which they may be desperately in need of, is if they take on a fixed-term tenancy. Tenants could feel forced to take on a fixed-term tenancy, perhaps without even knowing the condition of the property. I accept that the two sides of the Committee may have a legitimate and sincerely held difference of opinion on fixed-term tenancies, but I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
On the purpose and effect of clauses 1 and 2, the single system of periodic tenancies is at the heart of the legislation, and these clauses are key to its operation. Clause 1 provides that in future all assured tenancies will be periodic and can no longer have fixed terms. Any terms of an assured tenancy providing for the duration of the periodic tenancy to be different to the rent period—in other words, fixed terms—will be prohibited and legally unenforceable, and the tenancy will instead be a periodic tenancy. The clause also ensures that the tenancy’s periods will be the same duration as the period for which the rent is paid. Terms of a tenancy that state that the duration of the tenancy is different from the rent period will have no legal effect.
Clause 1 also limits the length of the rent period of an assured tenancy, stipulating that it must either be monthly or no more than 28 days long. Terms in a tenancy agreement that try to create a longer tenancy period will, again, be of no legal effect. Instead, the tenancy has effect as if it provided for monthly periods, with rent payable on the first day of each period. It is important to note that tenancies will be able to have periods of less than a month—which is an important feature for the social sector, where rent is more likely to be paid weekly or fortnightly—but it will not be possible to have a tenancy period of longer than one month, ensuring that disreputable or rogue landlords cannot seek to abuse the clause by demanding long rent periods to recreate fixed terms.
The new tenancy system introduced by clauses 1 and 2 —and others in chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill—will provide tenants with greater security and stability and empower them to challenge bad practice without fear of retaliatory eviction. As long as they provide the required notice, they will be able to end the tenancy at any point. Landlords will also benefit, through more straightforward regulation, clearer and expanded possession grounds, and the requirement for tenants to provide two months’ notice, which will ensure that landlords can recoup the cost of finding a new tenant and avoid lengthy void periods.
I appreciate that some landlords and groups are concerned that tenants will misuse rolling periodic tenancies as short-term or holiday lets. That concern was expressed on Second Reading and that also arose in the oral evidence. Although I understand the general apprehension and anxiety that surrounds such a significant change to the regulation of the private rented sector, those concerns are unfounded. The notion that tenants will routinely pay up to five weeks’ deposit, complete referencing checks and commit for at least two months, simply to secure a short-term or holiday let, has always struck me as improbable to say the least. As I argued on Second Reading, tenants simply do not move home unless it is absolutely necessary. Under the new tenancy system, when they do leave, they will be required to provide two months’ notice, giving landlords sufficient time to find new tenants.
Clause 2 removes the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 that established assured shorthold tenancies, so that such tenancies cannot be created in the future. The clause also removes section 21 of the 1988 Act. In addition, it removes section 6A of that Act, which provided the mechanism by which private registered providers of social housing could apply to a court to demote tenants from an assured to an assured shorthold tenancy if they committed antisocial behaviour. The change is being made because ASTs will no longer exist once the new single system of periodic tenancies has come into force.
As a result of the assured shorthold tenancy regime, and the ever-present threat of arbitrary eviction via a section 21 notice, millions of people in England live day in, day out with the knowledge that they and their families could be uprooted from their home with little notice and minimal justification. We know that a significant minority of them are forced to live in substandard properties for fear that a complaint would lead to a retaliatory eviction.
The insecurity embedded in the current system fails both tenants looking for a stable home for their families and responsible landlords who are undercut by the minority of unscrupulous landlords willing to exploit and mistreat them. A single system of periodic tenancies will provide greater security for tenants, while retaining the important flexibility that privately rented accommodation offers. It will mean that tenants can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities, save—with fewer unwanted moves—and avoid the risk of homelessness.
Removing section 21 will level the playing field between landlord and tenant, empowering tenants to challenge poor practice and unjustified rent increases. It will also incentivise landlords to engage and resolve legitimate issues of concern, given that they will be able to regain possession of a property only where there is good reason, using the clear and expanded possession grounds set out in schedule 1. With a single tenancy structure, both parties will also better understand their rights and responsibilities.
Far too many tenants are evicted from a private tenancy each year without due cause, which is why so-called no-fault section 21 notices are a leading cause of homelessness in England. As I argued on Second Reading, this broken system can no longer be tolerated, not least because the private rented sector now houses not just the young and mobile, but growing numbers of older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential for a flourishing life. To ensure that private renters get a fair deal, we need to transform how the sector is regulated and level the playing field between landlord and tenant.
This Government will succeed where the previous Government failed, by finally modernising regulation of the sector and abolishing arbitrary evictions. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
The Chair
I assume that no one wishes to participate in the debate on clauses 1 and 2 and the amendments. Unlike in the informal hearing in which we took evidence, if people wish to participate in the debate, they must rise in their places so that I can see they wish to speak. In the absence of anyone wishing to participate in the debate, I call the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief, as this clause is simple and straightforward. It ensures that leaseholders can continue to sub-let under the new regime where they currently have permission to do so.
Leaseholder arrangements may currently require any sub-let to be on an assured shorthold or an assured tenancy with a fixed or minimum term. The clause will enable existing sub-leases to continue under the new tenancy system once assured shorthold tenancies and fixed terms are abolished. This will ensure that leaseholders and their superior landlords are not unduly affected by the reforms and that previously agreed arrangements can continue. It will not grant rights to leaseholders to sub-let for holiday or rental accommodation unless they were able to do so before the Bill took effect. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Changes to grounds for possession
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 77, in schedule 1, page 155, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) In the heading of Part 1, omit ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.
(1B) Omit the heading of Part II.”
This amendment would make all grounds for repossession discretionary.
Mr Amos
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The intention of this amendment is to make all grounds for eviction discretionary for the court. As the Committee heard from experts during oral evidence, many in the sector are concerned that none of the grounds will be discretionary.
There are a range of circumstances in which discretion would be advisable in deciding eviction cases. The tenant may be terminally ill—a cancer patient, for example—and I understand that that example was considered during the last Parliament in relation to the previous Bill. The court would have no discretion to enable a stay of eviction in that case. The tenant could have caring responsibilities, perhaps for a disabled person. Again, there would be no discretion to vary the terms of the eviction.
There could be undue hardship caused if the tenant was unable to stay for a given period. Perhaps the tenant had already arranged to move and arranged new accommodation, but that was not available on the timescale in the Bill; in that case, there would again be no discretion. The tenant might have an impending examination to sit or a work commitment that was vital to their career. Again, there would be no discretion for the courts. The tenant may be a disabled person and need extra time or support to arrange the physical burden of moving home.
In a previous discussion, the Minister talked about the importance of taking the personal circumstances of tenants into account, and that is the intent behind this amendment. The courts will not be able to take personal circumstances into account because there will be no discretion on the terms of eviction.
Parties are especially concerned about this issue in relation to grounds 1 and 1A, which concern eviction for repossession by the landlord or their family or for the sale of the property. We heard from Liz Davies KC during oral evidence that, in many cases, a tenant could have done nothing wrong but would still be subject to eviction without any discretion for the courts to vary the terms of that.
Even if the Government do not accept the amendment, I argue that there should be discretion for the courts, if not in every case of eviction, at least in exceptional circumstances. I urge the Government to take that on board in the spirit in which I have moved this amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling these amendments, which allow us to have this debate. In my view—I think this is shared across the House —landlords must have robust and clear grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to take their property back. I hope that he will appreciate the steps the Government have already taken to ensure that the grounds are fair to both parties. We have overhauled the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill to provide additional protections for tenants, including longer notice periods, a longer protected period and a higher rent arrears threshold. We have also scrapped the previous Government’s harmful proposals to introduce a new ground for repeat rent arrears, and we have reduced the discretionary antisocial behaviour threshold to behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance.
However, amendments 73, 74 and 77, which would make all grounds discretionary, are a step too far. Indeed, I never argued for all grounds to be discretionary when we considered the previous Government’s Bill. Making all grounds discretionary would mean that landlords have no certainty that they would be awarded possession even if the grounds were otherwise met. That includes in situations of serious antisocial behaviour—where the tenant has been convinced of a serious criminal offence or has broken an injunction put in place to stop their behaviour. Landlords wanting to sell or move into their property could be prevented from doing so, and specialist sectors, such as temporary and supported accommodation, would not be able to guarantee regaining possession in order to house new individuals who require their support.
I assure the hon. Member that there are still many discretionary grounds in the Bill and that judges will have discretion in less clear cases or where possession may not always be reasonable, despite the ground having been met. It is absolutely right that judges have discretion where possession takes place in those circumstances, and that includes smaller breaches of a tenancy agreement or low levels of rent arrears. I believe the steps that we have taken to protect tenants provide sufficient protections against unfair evictions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I would like to speak in favour of the amendment and to bring the Minister’s attention to the evidence we received from experts, which highlighted the fact that discretionary grounds do not make it impossible for the court to award possession. In fact, in many cases, especially ones involving antisocial behaviour, it is reasonable to assume that the courts would apply a high threshold for where to exercise discretion. Nevertheless, that does not negate the principle that there may be extremely exceptional circumstances in which discretion is needed. The Government completely tying the hands of the courts so that they are unable to consider those extenuating circumstances is counterproductive.
Mr Amos
I accept what the Minister says about the Bill’s intent and that there are very limited circumstances in which discretion would be available. It is disappointing, though, that it is not recognised that courts require more discretion than is given. The Bill would provide discretion only in those very limited circumstances.
Matthew Pennycook
Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The mandatory grounds for possession are very limited and specific—for example, grounds 1 and 1A, where the landlord has a clear intention to move back into the property or move a family member in or to sell the property, and they have to evidence that with the court. I ask hon. Members to consider—this was put to me many times in the evidence sessions—the challenges that our courts face and the burden that this legislation places on them. Making every ground discretionary, irrespective of how reasonable it is for a landlord in those grounds 1 and 1A circumstances, for example, to take back their property quickly, risks overburdening the courts. As I say, many of the grounds remain discretionary. However, we think that there is a good reason why a certain number of mandatory grounds are in a different bracket from the discretionary one.
Mr Amos
I hear what the Minister says. The case was made forcefully by witnesses in oral evidence that the discretionary grounds for eviction are far too limited and that we need to see further discretion given to the courts. This would not prevent evictions continuing or the courts from making the decisions in accordance with the Bill’s provisions, and it would provide discretion to the courts. I urge the Government to consider widening the categories of discretion for the courts in evictions. I hope that the Government will consider that issue during the passage of the Bill, and I am happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Mr Amos
The amendment’s purpose is to require the evidence to be provided by landlords on grounds 1 and 1A, in the case of occupying the home or selling the property, to be clearly stated in the Bill, so that it is clear what evidence needs to be provided and the test is clearly stated. The Government have indicated that the evidence required will be contained in guidance, but it would significantly reassure Members in this House and in the other place if we could see the evidential test for landlords to gain possession. The amendment sets out the need for a statement of truth and suggests that a letter of engagement from a solicitor in the sale of a property is the kind of evidence that should be in the Bill. I believe the amendment is self-explanatory in that regard.
Matthew Pennycook
While I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments—indeed, as a shadow Minister, I probed the previous Government on this point when discussing the previous Bill—on reflection, I do not think they are the right approach for the following reason, which relates to the previous debate. We have overhauled the Bill in a number of ways to strengthen protections for tenants, and we must be careful about tipping the balance too far the other way and penalising good landlords, who, in certain circumstances, have a right to certainty that they will get their property back and that this will move through the courts in an orderly fashion.
Amendment 68 is an attempt to deter abuse of grounds 1 and 1A, which is an honourable intention. It seeks to require landlords to present further evidence that they have fulfilled the grounds after the possession order has been granted. It does not detail what should happen if a landlord does not present the evidence. Furthermore, it will have no impact on cases that do not make it to court. Where a landlord has obtained a possession order through the courts, they will already have presented evidence to a court to satisfy a judge of their intent to meet the grounds. The amendment would also place an additional burden on courts, which would need to set up new processes to deal with the evidence, taking time away from progressing possession claims.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington asked me to consider whether grounds that are currently mandatory should be discretionary, and I thought very carefully about which grounds should be discretionary and which mandatory when developing and overhauling this piece of legislation over recent months. On the basis of that reflection, I have concluded that increasing the prohibition on remarketing and reletting a property after using these grounds, including in cases that do not reach court, is a better mechanism for preventing abuse than adding requirements for evidence. This will allow a tenant to take action if they see, for example, their property advertised online following eviction.
Amendment 69 seeks to put into legislation prescribed evidential requirements for grounds 1 and 1A. We just had a discussion about how we should trust judges and their judgment on these matters. I believe that judges are best placed to consider and determine the evidence before them on these mandatory grounds. Setting an enhanced evidence threshold may mean that judges are less likely to consider wider evidence, and it could inadvertently lower the threshold where an eviction is ordered. It is right that judges have the discretion to respond to the evidence provided on a case-by-case basis. That is what the Bill provides for, and I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
David Simmonds
Again, I agree with the Government on this matter. A lot of residential property transactions are undertaken by licensed conveyancers rather than by solicitors. That is a much more affordable and efficient option, often done on a fixed-fee basis, and that is particularly relevant to smaller landlords. Introducing a requirement that a solicitor must be used would be unduly onerous and would inhibit the number of transactions in the market.
Matthew Pennycook
I wish to provide further reassurance to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I fear that we are dancing on the head of a pin here. Under the provisions in the Bill, judges will have to consider evidence to justify the use of mandatory grounds 1 and 1A. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I provided examples of the types of evidence that judges may require. It is up to individual judges to ask for that evidence and to make a decision on the basis of what is put in front of them. We trust judges to do that. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I do not accept the idea that judges are not looking at evidence and not ensuring that the use of these grounds is properly justified. That is misplaced, so I am glad he has indicated that he will withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
These amendments relate similarly to the issue of notice periods for grounds for sale. It is important to recognise that a very significant part of our housing supply continues to come from the private rented sector—in particular, from the buy-to-let market. Drawing on my experience as a financial adviser, one of the key issues for lenders in advancing buy-to-let mortgages arises because of the risks associated with them—in essence, people are much more likely to pay their mortgage payments on their own home than when they are borrowing to secure a home for investment purposes—so there is a risk premium, or a rating, on the mortgage interest. Consequently, a significant supply of finance is required to support the development of the buy-to-let market.
The introduction of significant restrictions on the length of notice periods will mean that when there is a default on those payments and they are not being made, it will be more difficult for the possession for the purposes of sale and the settlement of the outstanding debt to the bank to be progressed. That could have a chilling effect on the ability to secure finance and, in turn, an impact on the supply of properties available to those needing to secure a home in the private rented sector.
Once again, it is part of a broader, small “p”, philosophical and political argument. We are very much of the view that securing the maximum possible supply is very important, and we need to strike the correct balance so that we do not see a chilling effect having the unintended consequence of a reduction in supply.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, amendments 56 and 57 seek to reduce the notice period for the selling ground 1A from four months to two months. The Government believe that the notice period for tenants being evicted through no fault of their own should be four months, to give them adequate time to find new accommodation. An eviction notice can turn a family’s life upside down, and four months means they will not be forced to move during a school term. I draw the Committee’s attention to the remarks I made previously about the changing nature of the private rented system and the fact that more older people and families now live in it compared with the situation in the late ’80s, when the system was introduced.
Selling a property is often a long-term decision that involves significant planning on the part of landlords. We do not believe that landlords are likely to need to evict tenants with only two months’ notice, given the time it takes to secure a sale. They also have the option of selling with tenants in situ.
Amendments 70 and 71 were tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. They would make an extreme change that would reduce the notice period for the new student ground 4A to a mere two weeks from the current four months.
The Government believe that students are just as deserving of adequate notice as other tenants. The purpose of the student ground is to try to balance security of tenure with the need to preserve the annual cycle of typical student tenancies. These amendments do not assist the ground in that purpose at all. Student landlords plan their business models long term around the academic year, and after our reforms will factor the four-month notice into their planning.
There is no circumstance where a competent student landlord would suddenly need to evict tenants in line with the academic year with only two weeks’ notice. Indeed, currently they have to give two months’ notice under section 21. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a retrograde step vis-à-vis the current iniquitous arrangements that we are trying to undo.
Students often lack the capital to organise a move at short notice. A two-week notice period means it is likely they are given notice to leave during the summer break when they might be working, or even during their exams. We believe that it is right that they have four months’ notice to organise their move.
I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Mr Amos
Amendments 70 and 71 would align the two weeks’ notice for students in HMOs with the two weeks’ notice that the Bill provides that students would have in purpose-built student accommodation. All the points that the Minister has made in relation to the short-term notice period apply to the Bill because that is the Government’s intent in relation to purpose-built student accommodation. The amendments would simply align those properties under HMO ownership with those that are university or purpose-built student accommodation.
Landlords of HMO accommodation are likely to be smaller businesses than universities. Under the provisions in the Bill, universities would enjoy much greater flexibility on eviction than much smaller landlords, who would suffer as a result.
My concern is that there would be a reduction in the amount of student accommodation because of those very different terms on which HMO landlords would be able to let their properties to students compared with other tenants. Any reduction in the availability of supply of student accommodation, particularly in university towns, would have a serious impact on family housing, which is of course often occupied by students, much to the chagrin of residents who are looking for family homes.
It is vitally important that an unintended consequence of the Bill is not the reduction in supply of student accommodation. That is why we seek alignment with what the Bill provides for purpose-built student accommodation.
I urge the Government to consider reducing, if not to two weeks, then to two months, the grounds for eviction in other student accommodation, so that it is more closely aligned with the provisions that the Bill makes for the majority of student accommodation. I urge the Government to consider that and I will not press the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will consider that matter further. To be candid with the Committee, some judgments on provisions relating to student accommodation are finely balanced. We are trying to strike a balance between giving student tenants the right level of security while maintaining that annual cyclical nature of student accommodation.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are treating purpose-built student accommodation differently from that of students living in the general PRS. We recognise the limited market for such accommodation. Regarding students in the general PRS, I am reluctant to accept the hon. Gentleman’s advice. Student landlords will adapt to the system and factor the four-month notice period into their business models. I am happy, however, to reflect further on the arguments he made.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) After section 11 of the 1988 Act insert—
‘11A Possession on ground 6A: compensation of tenant
(1) This section applies where a court makes an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy on Ground 6A in Schedule 2 to this Act (whether or not the order is also made on any other ground).
(2) The court may order the landlord to pay to the tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as a result of the order for possession.
(3) In deciding whether to make an order under this section, and what compensation to order, the court must (in particular) take into account the circumstances which led to Ground 6A being available as a ground for making an order for possession (including any conduct by the tenant which caused or contributed to Ground 6A being available).’”
This gives the court power to order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant where possession is obtained on Ground 6A (failure of premises to comply with planning requirements etc).
Matthew Pennycook
Without the threat of arbitrary section 21 evictions, tenants will be evicted only when landlords have reasonable grounds for doing so. Clause 4 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. The grounds themselves are amended by schedule 1 of the Bill, which we will debate shortly. Most crucially, clause 4 sets out the notice periods for the grounds for possession. It extends notice periods for the main grounds where the tenant is not at fault, including where a landlord wishes to move in or sell the property.
In the current system, tenants can be evicted with as little as two months’ notice, even when they have done absolutely nothing wrong. In future, landlords will usually need to provide four months’ notice when the tenant is not at fault, such as when a landlord wants to sell or move in. Longer notice periods are critical to ensure that tenants have time to find alternative housing.
The previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill did not propose longer notice periods, maintaining the two months’ notice tenants face under existing section 21 arrangements. That was one of the main concerns expressed by the Opposition at the time, as well as by groups such as Shelter and Generation Rent. I am pleased to say we have addressed their concerns here. Crucially, four-month notice periods will also mean that families with children will never be forced to move during school term time when they are not at fault. That is fundamentally a matter of fairness from the Government’s point of view. Children’s education should not be disrupted simply to allow for the quicker sale of property, or to have another individual move in. Correcting that is at the heart of the Government’s opportunity mission.
The notice periods for the rent arrears ground will be increased from two weeks to four weeks. That will give vulnerable tenants who are struggling to pay their rent longer to find funds or alternative accommodation. I am confident that that will not burden landlords unfairly, and will give a little more time to tenants to find new accommodation if necessary, or to repay their arrears.
When landlords and communities are faced with antisocial behaviour, landlords will be able to make a possession claim to the court immediately. That will ensure that poor behaviour can be dealt with swiftly. That is currently only the case for the discretionary ASB ground 14, but we are expanding it to the mandatory ASB ground 7A, for which very serious behaviour must have occurred. It is a peculiar quirk of the current legislation that the discretionary ground allows landlords to take action more swiftly than the mandatory ground where tenants have committed very serious crimes. The clause would end that anomaly.
We acknowledge that permitting landlords to seek possession immediately, although appropriate, will not give tenants long to seek legal advice on their situation, or find a new home. The court will therefore not be able to make an order for possession that takes effect within 14 days from when the landlord serves notice on the tenant. In addition to notice periods, clause 4 would make provision for specific circumstances of possession. For example, the clause would ensure that superior landlords can continue possession claims made by an intermediate landlord, even after the head tenancy has expired. That will ensue that superior landlords requiring vacant possession will not have to begin a new claim when the intermediate landlord has already done so.
Finally, clause 4 would make further and consequential changes to the Housing Act 1988, to reflect wider changes made by the Bill, including the abolition of fixed-term tenancies and the introduction of new grounds for possession. That includes ensuring that protections for Case A tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 continue in the new system.
Members of the Committee might wonder what the wording in subsection (4),
“Disapplication of conditions where notice dispensed with”,
is designed to achieve. The use of certain grounds, including ground 4A, 5G and 6, hinges on the serving of valid notice. However, section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 permits a court to dispense with a notice requirement when it is reasonable to do so. This change will ensure that the grounds continue to work when this dispensation has occurred. The changes we are making in clause 4 will give tenants more time to find a place to live while ensuring that landlords can recover possession in a timely way when they have a legitimate reason to seek possession. That will ensure that the system works as intended.
David Simmonds
The Opposition supports the vast majority of these measures. We all recognise situations where a landlord is in breach of planning regulations, resulting in a property being overcrowded and potentially being turned into an HMO without the appropriate licence and so on, which can bedevil our constituents. It seems appropriate to take these steps to raise the stakes for landlords who seek to behave in that manner and drive them out of the market.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not have much to add to what I have already said. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Changes to grounds for possession
Carla Denyer
I beg to move amendment 42, in schedule 1, page 155, line 9, leave out “1 year” and insert “2 years”.
This amendment would increase the minimum period before a landlord can use certain grounds for possession from 12 months to 2 years.
David Simmonds
I shall do my best. It may be that, although seeking to comply with the rule of speaking to the Chair, I need to turn around more regularly to address the Committee. The point I was making is that while we have a lot of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central, given that the changing nature of the UK rental market will result in these becoming more significant issues, we believe the issue of notice periods needs to be addressed through amendment 58.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Member for Bristol Central has set out, amendments 42 and 43 seek to extend the protected period for the moving in and selling grounds to two years. Amendment 58, in contrast, seeks to remove the protected period for the selling ground entirely. We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance in this area.
The hon. Member for Bristol Central is right that during debate on the Renters (Reform) Bill, I probed the then-Government on increasing protections for tenants beyond the six months they had proposed. I did so given the relative lack of security that that Bill afforded to tenants, which we have improved on. I reflected very carefully on this point in the development of the Bill. Viewed in the context of the many strengths and protections that we have introduced to benefit tenants, I feel that a one-year protection period against the main landlord circumstances ground—this is not a general period of protection that applies to any arbitrary eviction, but is specific to grounds 1 and 1A—strikes the right balance between tenant security and ensuring that landlords can respond to genuine changes in their circumstances.
The shadow Minister highlighted the thinking that has led to me coming down to one year, instead of remaining with two. A two-year protected period for the moving and selling grounds is, I fear, too long. It would prevent landlords from being able to respond to changes in circumstances, and therefore harm confidence in the sector and risk decreasing supply. In some circumstances, landlords may only be able to let their property for a year—for example, if they temporarily moved abroad—and a longer period may therefore remove valuable supply from the market.
Most importantly, I was convinced that a one-year protected period would deter abuse from disreputable landlords seeking to circumvent the protections in place. The one-year protected period mirrors the typical one-year fixed-term tenancy. We think it strikes the right balance, but I am more than happy to give further consideration to the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. I sympathise with and understand the significant costs borne by tenants from repeated moves. I understand, as I hope I have made clear in the debate so far, the need for stability and security, but we think that in this particular area, the one-year protected period is appropriate.
Carla Denyer
I thank the Minister for his response. I, too, have spent a lot of time reflecting on the potential effects of the amendment, including thinking about potential edge cases, exactly as he described.
Imagine someone who became an unintentional landlord, perhaps because after buying their home, they got seconded to another country for work for a year or two. While I recognise that it might be inconvenient for a landlord to have a two-year limit, it is also inconvenient for a tenant to have instability of tenure. If someone is, for example, seconded to work abroad for a year or two, with a fixed date of return to be back in their own property, they have to consider their responsibility to provide stable housing for their tenants. If they are not able to do that for a long enough time for the tenant not to be subjected to undue costs and effects on their health, stability, education and so on, maybe the landlord needs to look into short-term lets, rather than creating a situation where somebody believes they are making a permanent home. Say that person was going abroad for a year and a half, and the limit is two years—they might have to find somewhere else to live for a few months before moving back in. Yes, that would be an inconvenience, but we have to weigh that against the huge inconvenience for tenants who have their only home constantly disrupted and moved around.
I ask the Minister to look at this again, and to think about the edge cases, as well as where the greatest inconvenience and injustice really lies between the landlord and the tenant. I would be happy to have a chat with him. I will not press the amendment to a vote this morning.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for her further contribution. I have weighed very carefully in the balance, and looking at the Bill in the round, whether a two-year protected period would be appropriate. I concluded it would not be, taking into account those edge cases, for the following reasons.
While I sympathise with the point the hon. Lady made about the very significant costs that tenants face with moves, and while we obviously need to ensure that tenants under the new system have the requisite amount of stability and security, she too readily dismisses the potential impact on supply in the sector. It would be inconvenient for landlords; it would be inconvenient for tenants more widely if we saw a subsection of landlords that feel that they may need to use ground 1A and would not put their property on the rental market because of the possibility that they will need to use it.
As we heard in the evidence sessions, such is the acute nature of particularly hot rental markets across the country—hers will be one; mine is another—that if we lose a chunk of supply because we say to landlords, “It is too costly, too risky for you to put your property on the market if you may need to go abroad and work for a year,” that would be to the detriment of tenants in the round.
I think the one-year period strikes the right balance. It mirrors the sort of typical fixed-term, one-year tenancy. I urge the hon. Lady to go away and think about whether, in the round, with all of the protections we have introduced vis-à-vis the previous Government’s Bill, the one-year protected period does not do enough. We will not accept the amendment. I will, however, further reflect on the points she made because, as I have said, I am sympathetic to them and had weighed up two-year protected tenancies in the context of the previous Government’s Bill, but I think, looking at this Bill in the round, one year is the appropriate period.
Carla Denyer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 157, leave out line 13.
This allows Ground 1B to be used to obtain possession whenever the landlord intends to grant an assured tenancy to another person (whether or not it is to be granted pursuant to a rent-to-buy agreement).
Matthew Pennycook
I will begin by discussing Government amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. Rent-to-buy tenancies help prospective homeowners to get on the housing ladder. New possession ground 1B will allow social landlords to take possession in specified circumstances, to ensure that rent-to-buy schemes can continue to function in the future assured regime. Landlords must be able to take possession in all the necessary circumstances. The amendments therefore widen ground 1B, so that landlords can simply grant another assured tenancy, without its having to be on a rent-to-buy scheme. That will ensure maximum flexibility for social landlords to meet the demands of local housing markets. However, the period of the existing rent-to-buy tenancy will need to have expired and the sitting tenant must have been offered the opportunity to purchase the property, in line with the contract. This means that it will never be a surprise for the rent-to-buy tenant if the tenancy is ended. The amendments also clarify the definition of “market rent” in possession grounds 1B and 5H, to ensure clarity and consistency.
I will now discuss Government amendments 6 to 8. New ground 6A will allow landlords to evict their tenants when eviction is necessary to comply with enforcement action. We have already debated this matter in relation to a previous Government amendment. For example, if a property were overcrowded or the landlord had received a banning order, new ground 6A would apply. The amendments ensure that the new ground also covers situations in which a tenant’s occupation needs to be brought to an end in order to comply with planning enforcement action. For example, where an industrial unit has been converted to residential use without planning permission, a local planning authority may issue an enforcement notice requiring the residential use to cease.
If planning enforcement were not included in ground 6A, there would be no guarantee that the landlord could evict the tenant in those circumstances. That would risk undermining the planning system’s ability to enforce effectively against unauthorised development. That could result in poor outcomes for residents, the community and surrounding businesses. This measure will ensure that landlords are not left in legal limbo, where the only way to comply with planning enforcement action is for a tenant to cease to occupy a dwelling, and ensures that the tenancy itself can be brought to an end appropriately. We are also bringing forward an amendment to ensure that tenants are fairly compensated when they are evicted under ground 6A, ensuring that the measures are balanced.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendments made: 3, in schedule 1, page 157, leave out line 30.
This leaves the definition of “market rent” out of Ground 1B, as it is superseded by Amendment 4.
Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 157, line 33, after “rent” insert
“(and here “rent” and “market rent” include any amount payable by way of service charge)”.
This ensures that any service charge is taken into account in both the rent and the market rent (when determining whether the rent is higher than 80% of the market rent).
Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 165, line 18, leave out from “than” to “, and” in line 22 and insert
“80% of market rent (and here “rent” and “market rent” include any amount payable by way of service charge)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This replaces the term “affordable rent” with a reference to rent that is no more than 80% of the market rent.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 60, in schedule 1, page 168, line 26, at end insert—
“20A After Ground 6 insert—
“Ground 6ZA
The landlord or superior landlord who is seeking possession intends to undertake such works as are necessary to ensure that the property meets the standards set out by regulations under section 2A of the Housing Act 2004 and the intended work cannot reasonably be carried out without the tenant giving up possession of the dwelling-house because—
(a) the tenant is not willing to agree to such a variation of the terms of the tenancy as would give such access and other facilities as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or
(b) the nature of the intended work is such that no such variation is practicable, or
(c) the tenant is not willing to accept an assured tenancy of such part only of the dwelling-house (in this sub-paragraph referred to as “the reduced part”) as would leave in the possession of his landlord so much of the dwelling-house as would be reasonable to enable the intended work to be carried out and, where appropriate, as would give such access and other facilities over the reduced part as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or
(d) the nature of the intended work is such that such a tenancy is not practicable.””
I have realised, in the course of debate, that the Minister has the benefit of being a bit closer to the overhead microphones than I am, so I will do my best to direct my remarks in a skywards manner, Sir Christopher.
The amendment seeks to bring in additional grounds for possession, and it is partly on the basis of evidence that we are aware of as a Committee and which stems from the social sector, where we know that there are many examples of landlords, including local authorities, that have to go to enormous lengths to access a property to carry out basic maintenance—often, in the case of local authorities, at no cost to the tenant, who is a council tenant—and to ensure that minimum safety standards, for example gas inspections, electrical safety inspections and remedial works to deal with issues such as damp and mould, are applied. We know that there has been extensive debate and consideration of evidence in relation to Awaab’s law and the need to ensure that properties meet the decent homes standard. Therefore the aim of this proposal is to ensure, where it is necessary for a landlord to recover the property in order for those works to be carried out and the tenant does not wish to co-operate, that there is provision in the Bill to achieve that.
Matthew Pennycook
As the shadow Minister just made clear, amendment 60 would introduce a new mandatory ground for possession—6ZA—into schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. It would allow landlords to evict when they need to undertake works to meet the decent homes standard introduced by the Bill and those works cannot be completed without evicting the tenant. The objective that the hon. Gentleman seeks is reasonable and appropriate, but the Government do not believe that the ground is needed. I expect that the vast majority of works to meet decency requirements could be completed with the tenant in situ. Landlords may also undertake more substantial works between tenancies.
The proposed new ground is also unnecessary in the light of ground 6. The Bill’s revised ground 6 already permits a landlord to evict a tenant when they wish to undertake substantial redevelopment work that cannot be done with the tenant in situ. I am therefore reluctant to introduce a new ground that is not strictly needed, given what is in place in the Bill. However, I hope I have provided the Committee with sufficient reassurance that landlords will not be left unable to comply with the new decency requirements, as I say, in circumstances where the tenant must move out.
David Simmonds
I want to probe the Minister a bit on the point about substantial redevelopment. We are aware that to remedy issues of damp, for example, it is not uncommon for a landlord to need to remove all the plaster and potentially take out the flooring or ceiling for a lengthy period of dehumidification. Following that, extensive works would need to be undertaken to ensure that the damp does not reoccur. Those works being completed does not represent redevelopment of the property by, for example, building an extension or adding an additional floor, but leave the property substantially the same as before. It therefore does not seem to us that it would meet the test of redevelopment envisaged in the Bill.
The argument we are advancing is that in examples that may represent a significant risk to the health or safety of the tenant but the tenant does not wish to move, we need those additional grounds to be absolutely clear that that is a reasonable basis on which a landlord can seek to regain their property, so that they can carry out those works.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention, and I understand the point he makes. If it is acceptable to him, I will write to him with the technical detail about what substantial development entails. As I say, in most cases where substantial development is not taking place, works to ensure that homes come up to the new decent homes standard will be able to take place in situ. On the specific hard-edged case he mentions—that is, where the health and safety of a tenant is put at risk by the works required to take place or the conditions that the works are intended to remedy—I point him to provisions in the Bill like the extension of Awaab’s law, which will ensure that landlords have to respond to such hazards in a defined timescale and make accommodation for the tenant to move out in such circumstances. What I am reluctant to do here is to introduce a new ground that would have a substantial impact on tenants. They would have to leave the property and find new accommodation, and they might be owed a homelessness duty in those circumstances. That is a huge amount of disruption.
As I say, we think the existing provisions in the Bill do the job, but on the point he makes, which is a well-made one, as to precisely what the definition is and where the boundary lies between substantial and non-substantial redevelopment works, I will write to him with some more technical detail. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
David Simmonds
On the basis of those assurances, I will withdraw the amendment. Clearly, we will have the opportunity to return to this debate later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 168, line 30, leave out “situations has occurred” and insert “applies”.
This changes the opening wording so that it works better with the provision which follows.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 169, line 30, at end insert—
“(g) compliance with a planning enforcement notice or injunction would be, or is, incompatible with continued occupation of the dwelling-house by the tenant.”
This enables the landlord to obtain possession where planning enforcement action has been taken and compliance with that action would be incompatible with continued occupation under the tenancy.
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 169, line 37, at end insert—
““planning enforcement notice or injunction” means—
(a) an enforcement notice issued under section 172 or 182 of the TCPA 1990 that has taken effect,
(b) a breach of condition notice served under section 187A of the TCPA 1990,
(c) an injunction granted under section 187B of the TCPA 1990,
(d) a listed building enforcement notice issued under section 38, 45 or 46 of the P(LBCA)A 1990 that has taken effect, or
(e) an injunction granted under section 44A of the P(LBCA)A 1990;
“P(LBCA)A 1990” means the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;
“TCPA 1990” means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;” .—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This defines the term “planning enforcement notice or injunction” which is used in Amendment 7.
Matthew Pennycook
Taken together, amendments 62 and 63 seek to remove the requirement for a tenant to meet the arrears threshold for mandatory eviction at the date of hearing. Instead, they would allow a tenant to be evicted only if they met the threshold at the date of the notice and had any arrears at all remaining at the date of their hearing. I am sure we all agree we should encourage tenants in financial difficulty to pay off their arrears, but we believe the amendments would act as a significant disincentive to even try to do so, as it would mandate eviction of a tenant who has done the right thing and tried to pay off their arrears.
I understand that, with the amendments, the hon. Gentleman is most likely trying to address the perceived problem of tenants gaming the system by paying off a nominal amount of arrears, placing them just below the threshold at the date of hearing, and thus frustrating a landlord’s attempt to evict the tenants. That was the rationale that underpinned new ground 8A in the previous Government’s legislation. However, this is not a problem recognised as occurring frequently, if at all, by me or by those who advise tenants going through the eviction process—in fact, it is hard to find cases of people trying to extensively game that system.
The previous Government’s solution to this problem was ground 8A, which we consider to be punitive. Similarly to these amendments, ground 8A would have punished tenants who did the right thing in trying to pay off their arrears. While we understand how frustrating rent arrears can be for landlords, we have to accept that most tenants act in good faith when trying to pay off their arrears, and they should be encouraged to do so. I hope hon. Members agree that we should encourage the right behaviour in tenants who are trying to bring down their rent arrears.
The amendments would therefore be fundamentally unfair and, most importantly, create the wrong incentives. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw amendment 62.
David Simmonds
I managed to make the dubious mistake of making the wrong points when I moved the amendment, but the Minister has brought us back to exactly the points I omitted to make. Concerns remain, particularly where there may be delays in accessing the courts to get a decision, either because of a lack of capacity—as we know, that remains a problem—or because of future resourcing issues in the new world that this Bill seeks to introduce, in which a number of routes will be open in the event of a dispute.
The Opposition remain concerned about the risk that those who wished to could seek to game the system. Most Members of Parliament will have had constituents who have been affected by tenants who failed to pay the rent. Those constituents may be accidental landlords renting out the property of a deceased relative while waiting for probate, and they may find that someone is occupying their property and perhaps sub-letting it for cash without passing that money on, leaving them in an incredibly difficult position. We want to ensure that people who behave in that way cannot continue to game the system. Having acknowledged the Minister’s points, however, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
In addition to the points I made previously, I briefly draw the shadow Minister’s attention to the fact that ground 8 will remain mandatory, and discretionary grounds will also be available when arrears do not meet the mandatory threshold, such as in cases of repeated late payment. We think the courts have the necessary provisions to be able to take action on rent arrears. What we find particularly objectionable in the amendment is that it would mean that anyone with any amount of arrears at the hearing would be subject to mandatory eviction. We think that that goes too far, so I am glad that the shadow Minister has agreed to withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 59, in schedule 1, page 170, line 13, at end insert—
“23A After Ground 8 insert—
‘Ground 8A
The landlord who is seeking possession, or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession for at least one of them, requires the dwelling-house for the purposes of providing care to—
(a) a person under the age of 18;
(b) a person who has a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010; or
(c) a person who requires personal care on the grounds of age, illness or injury.’”
I will not repeat at length the comments I made when I previously introduced amendment 59 in error. The amendment relates to the grounds for use when a landlord needs to put a carer into a property. It seeks to ensure that the required flexibility is available where the needs of a cared-for person must be put first.
Matthew Pennycook
As the shadow Minister has just made clear, amendment 59 seeks to introduce a new ground for possession into schedule 2 of the 1988 Act to allow landlords to evict tenants when they wish to use the property for the purposes of providing care. Although I appreciate the sentiment behind the shadow Minister’s proposals, I do not believe that this ground is needed. Ground 1, which is a mandatory ground, allows a landlord to move in close family members. That includes children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and siblings. It could be used if the landlord wished to obtain possession to provide care for close family members.
This relates to a point that we have just discussed. We think that a two-year protected period might lead to such cases being prohibitive for landlords who need to make use of the grounds. We think the existing ground 1 is likely to cover the vast majority of cases of the kind that the shadow Minister seeks to help, without increasing the complexity in the system. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
Each new Bill is an opportunity to consider as widely as possible the issues that our constituents may face. A property that has been adapted for occupation by someone with care needs may have been rented out by, for example, a military family who need to move to a placement abroad. They may find that they cannot access the property on their return, when it is essential that they are able to do so in order for those facilities to be available. We think it is reasonable to raise such situations.
Recognising the points that have been made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 61, in schedule 1, page 170, line 13, at end insert—
“23A In Ground 14, in each of paragraphs (a) and (aa), for ‘likely to cause’ substitute ‘capable of causing’”.
Amendment 61 seeks to broaden out the debate on the opportunity for a landlord to seek possession on grounds where antisocial behaviour on the part of the occupant is a factor. We have considered this quite extensively in Committee, but it is clear that it remains a significant issue in some cases. As I have said, most of us will have had experience, as constituency Members of Parliament, of matters arising from the antisocial behaviour of tenants. We will be aware of the enormous frustration, at both the landlord and the community level, at the inability to tackle that effectively under the current system. We want to ensure that those powers are as strong and as flexible as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
Amendment 61 seeks to expand the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground to include behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance. Members may recall that this was proposed in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. When in Opposition, we strongly opposed the change, because it had the potential to significantly reduce security of tenure and, most importantly, put vulnerable tenants at risk of eviction. I remain concerned that it would leave tenants open to eviction, even when their behaviour was not causing any problems.
A huge range of behaviours are “capable” of causing a nuisance or annoyance. I was tempted to say that some of the behaviour of my children, on occasion, is more than capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. We can all agree that such a subjective term potentially includes a huge range of behaviours, and it would not be fair for someone to lose their home on the basis of some of them. For example, a baby crying frequently is capable of causing another tenant annoyance. In those cases, and there are many others that I could cite, it would be fundamentally wrong to put a family at risk of eviction because of that. Worse still—this is a point I recall very clearly from the discussions I had with domestic violence charities at the time of the previous legislation—we heard from many organisations that represent victims of domestic abuse that sometimes such abuse can be mistaken for antisocial behaviour, because of loud noises, banging or disruption in the property next door. The amendment increases the risk that tenants in such a situation could be evicted.
I understand that the shadow Minister wants to ensure that landlords have confidence that they can evict tenants who engage in genuine antisocial behaviour. That is an honourable aim, but there are already measures in the Bill to address that, including reducing notice periods so that landlords can make a claim to the court immediately when using the antisocial behaviour grounds, as we have discussed. We have also made changes to section 9A of the Housing Act 1988 to include amendments to ensure that the court considers the particular impact of antisocial behaviour on victims living with perpetrators in HMOs, which was a specific concern raised by the sector. We will also encourage the use of mediation and other tools by ensuring that judges take into account whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve their behaviour, making it easier to evict perpetrators who do not engage.
For the reasons that I have set out, we believe that lowering the threshold from “likely” to “capable of” causing nuisance or annoyance could have extremely damaging consequences, and I do not believe it is in the spirit of what the Bill is trying to achieve. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Amos
I rise to support the Government on this issue, as Liberal Democrats did in the context of the Renters (Reform) Bill in the previous Parliament. To my mind, introducing a definition of antisocial behaviour that is simply about what is “capable” of causing annoyance and disturbance is tantamount to an authoritarian approach. When the Minister talks about crying babies, I cannot help being reminded that my own crying baby was complained about by the next-door neighbour when I was in rented accommodation. She does not cry so much now—she is 32. The very idea that anything capable of causing annoyance should be regarded as formally antisocial behaviour in law is an extreme concept, and it is an extremely good thing that this new Bill has left such thinking behind. This amendment should not be accepted.
David Simmonds
I will withdraw the amendment, because again the numbers are against me. It is important to recognise as we consider it, however, that there are examples—loud music is one—that might not within the definition of “likely” to cause nuisance or annoyance, but potentially would fall within our proposed definition.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider this issue. We know that a children’s party—I speak as a guilty individual in this regard—can be a very noisy occasion that generally takes place in the middle of the day for a brief period of time, whereas playing loud music for one’s own freedom of enjoyment all day and night may cause significant issues. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, have seen examples of behaviour that of itself and on an individual, case-by-case basis would not cause a nuisance, but that can cause significant upset to neighbours when repeated. That can range from the environmental impact of an activity such as servicing cars or maintaining vehicles to things such as loud music, and people can do those things at times of the day and night that are antisocial in the context in which the home is located. It is important that the Government give further consideration to the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 9, in schedule 1, page 172, leave out lines 29 to 32.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This is in consequence of Amendment 5.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg the indulgence of the Committee to spend a little time setting out the Government’s position on this schedule, because it is a key part of the Bill. As we have discussed, the Bill reforms the grounds for possession to ensure that tenants have greater security in their homes and, importantly, that good landlords can regain a property when necessary. Without section 21 and the threat of arbitrary evictions, tenants will have that greater security in their homes. Landlords will have to use one of the defined grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, as amended, when they need to evict a tenant. They will be able to repossess their property only when it is reasonable to do so.
Schedule 1 inserts new grounds and amends existing ones, ensuring that landlords have robust grounds for possession when there is good reason to take their property back. As we have discussed, that includes repossessing to sell, to move in or if their tenant engages in antisocial behaviour or falls into rent arrears. Although many of the grounds are broadly similar to those in the previous Government’s Bill, we have made some important changes that we believe ensure a fairer balance in the sector. There are three main types of ground: those relating to a change in the landlord’s circumstances, those to allow specialist sectors to operate and those where the tenant has not met their obligations. I will not cover each in detail here, but I will give a brief overview of some of the key provisions.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reasonable question. He and many others in the House have significant concerns about the impact of excessive concentrations of short-term and holiday lets in particular parts of the country. A landlord who has moved a family member back in under the mandatory grounds that he cites would not be able to re-let the property for 12 months and would be penalised if they attempted to do so. It was a three-month void period in the previous Government’s Bill, and we thought that it would not have acted as a serious disincentive. I frequently encounter landlords who can comfortably wear a three-month void because of the levels of rent that they charge, and I am sure that is the case in many other parts of the country. We think that a 12-month no re-let period will provide the necessary protection to ensure landlords are not incentivised, and do not feel able, to abuse the mandatory grounds for possession.
David Simmonds
The Minister has given a helpful and comprehensive overview of the matters that we have debated so far. Although we clearly have a different opinion about how to strike the correct balance, I accept that he is acting in good faith and, to a great degree, in line with the points previously made and the content of the Renters (Reform) Bill. The key issue we remain concerned about is the impact that all these regulations will have on supply. We all know that we have a constrained private rented sector, with areas in which significant numbers of people are chasing properties. We need to ensure that properties remain of a decent standard, at an affordable price, and in sufficiently ample supply. We have debated those concerns, and I hope that we can continue to deal with this Bill in the same co-operative and constructive spirit.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5
Possession for anti-social behaviour: relevant factors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
It is always better to resolve issues without resorting to eviction, but we recognise that when tenants are committing antisocial behaviour and it is impacting on neighbours, housemates and communities, it is sometimes necessary. In these cases, landlords need to have confidence that they can gain possession of their property quickly. The clause expands the matters that judges are directed to consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground. We are making the change because we recognised landlords’ concerns about evicting antisocial tenants without section 21, and it is important that judges consider pertinent factors to ensure eviction can happen when it is right to do that.
Judges will take all relevant factors into account when determining whether to evict under these grounds, because they are discretionary, but under the current legislation, they are also guided to explicitly consider the impact of antisocial behaviour on victims. Clause 5 ensures that judges must also have regard to the question of whether the perpetrator has engaged with measures to resolve their behaviour. This will serve two purposes: making it more likely that landlords work with tenants to resolve poor behaviour, and making it easier to evict those tenants who do not engage. The change will contribute towards increasing the amount of dispute resolutions short of eviction in the private rented sector.
The clause also asks judges to give regard to the impact of antisocial behaviour on other tenants within houses of multiple occupation. Antisocial behaviour within house-shares can have a severe impact on those who live in close proximity. The clause will make it easier to evict perpetrators, which was a specific concern raised with us by a number of external stakeholders. Fellow tenants are the worst-affected victims of antisocial behaviour within HMOs, and landlords were concerned about their ability to evict perpetrators without section 21 notices. The clause ensures that courts can consider these factors.
David Simmonds
The Opposition welcome the points made in this debate. We want the following issue to be addressed. If it is expected that a dispute resolution process will be undertaken or that some form of external mediation will be accessed, there needs to be sufficient capacity to ensure that that happens in a timely manner. We do not have an example of a case in which someone who is evicted on grounds of antisocial behaviour is expected to endure a considerable period of time in order for mediation to take place, following which grounds for possession might then be sought. We need to make sure that the process is done swiftly and effectively, but we support the concept behind it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Form of notice of proceedings for possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 6 provides for regulations that will allow the Secretary of State to publish the form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. It is crucial that the information landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This gives tenants the best opportunity to enforce their rights and seek appropriate support. The clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. It is a simple and straightforward clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Statutory procedure for increases of rent
Mr Amos
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 7, page 8, line 31, leave out from “determination” to the end of line 36 and insert—
“(4AA) Where the rent for a particular period of the tenancy is to be greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), the rent may not be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate.
(4AB) Any provision relating to an assured tenancy to which this section applies is of no effect so far as it provides—
(a) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period otherwise than by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), or
(b) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy, where greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate.”
This amendment would mean that the maximum rent increase can only be an increase in line with the Bank of England Base Rate.
Matthew Pennycook
The Bill will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. This will prevent unscrupulous landlords using rent increases to evict their tenants—a form of section 21 by the back door. Clause 7 amends section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to achieve this. It provides that all rent increases for private landlords will take place via the existing section 13 process. That will ensure that tenants always have the right to challenge an unfair rent increase. Any rent increase outside this process, including rent review clauses, will be outlawed and invalid.
We will also give tenants longer to prepare for rent increases, with landlords having to provide two months’ notice to tenants. Landlords will still be able to raise rents in line with market rents once a year. These changes will not level the playing field for tenants if they are unable or do not feel confident to enforce their rights. That is why we are reforming how the tribunal will work. I will turn to that in clause 8.
Clause 7 exempts “relevant low-cost tenancies” from the rent-increase changes that the Bill is making. That means that current rent-increase provisions will be retained for social tenants who have an assured tenancy of social housing within the meaning of part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing.
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made clear, amendment 76 seeks to limit rent increases to no greater than the Bank of England base rate, and it retains provisions in the Bill that set out how rent increases can occur. I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this issue to the Commons. Several witnesses in evidence sessions also made the case for greater regulation of rents, and others contributed written evidence on these points. I would like to expand on the Government’s approach before turning to the detail of the amendment.
The debate around rent controls can quickly become complex regarding both the definition and the evidence available. What is agreed is that there is a broad spectrum of possible regulation, and different approaches have been tried around the world—and, indeed, within the UK. Perhaps the better question to ask is how we should regulate the private rented sector to achieve the best outcomes possible for tenants. That leads us to look at how the regulation of rents fits within the broader context of the entire system, including security of tenure, quality standards and better enforcement.
The Government have taken that wider approach by placing protections against excessive rent increases within an overarching set of reforms to the private rented sector. The interaction between security of tenure and rent regulation is therefore critical; if rents are too strictly controlled but evictions are too easy, tenants are left at the mercy of landlords’ whims, even if they pay the rent. If tenants have legal security from arbitrary eviction but there is no limit on rent increases, they can effectively be evicted by excessive economic rent hikes.
Many international comparisons can be cited. All should come with a health warning, but I think it is instructive to look at the experience of Sweden. The result of harder rent caps has seen the emergence of a huge, unregulated sub-letting market, which, in many ways, is the worst of all worlds, as it leaves the most vulnerable groups exposed to high costs and minimal protections.
The principle of some form of regulation of rents is already established in England. Rents for certain assured periodic tenancies are already subject to some form of regulation, as the tribunal system is there to prevent excessive increases, but as we heard in last week’s evidence sessions, it has been weakened to the point that it does not provide enough protection for tenants. That is why we have taken steps to strengthen the rent determination system and empower tenants.
In Scotland, we have seen over recent years the temporary introduction of stronger rent controls—rent freezes followed by rent caps. Anna Evans, who led the research into the Scottish experience, noted in her evidence last week that once rent freezes were introduced in Scotland, landlords were more inclined to increase rents when tenancies changed. Good landlords want stable and long tenancies but, when a new tenancy begins, landlords are strongly incentivised to set rents at, or close to, the cap, which may be at a higher level than they would have chosen in the absence of such regulation. We also heard, regarding new-build investment in the Scottish PRS, that there has been stagnation rather than growth over recent years.
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made clear, his amendment seeks to limit a rent increase to no greater than the Bank of England base rate, which is currently 5%. We believe that any attempt to use a simple metric on rent increases risks unintended consequences. Let us take an example: limiting rent increases to inflation might sound fair, but it would have resulted in rent rocketing when inflation spiked following the mini-Budget in 2022. I acknowledge that the hon. Member referred to the base rate, but others have argued for inflation-linked rent increases in the past, so my point is that there is always a price to be paid. That price can also be paid in the supply of new homes and the development of the build-to-rent sector, where we believe that these types of direct interventions discourage investment, limiting supply and leading to declining property standards.
Instead, our Bill works to strengthen tenants’ rights as a whole, with the ending of no-fault section 21 evictions being the key change. Our proposed changes— giving tenants the power to challenge excessive in-tenancy rent increases—are designed to fit with that increase in security of tenure. With every change to one part of this complex set of regulations, we must be mindful of the interactions with other parts, and the combined impacts on the system as whole. We believe that the Renters’ Rights Bill strikes the right balance. It introduces a series of powerful changes that will improve the PRS overall, including protections against unfair rent increases. We are confident that this will make a material difference to the lives of tenants. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRenters' Rights Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Amos
I would be delighted if that were the case. We would welcome anything that reduced the risk of extremely steep rent increases for tenants—I think Members on both sides of the Committee would want to see that. This amendment would limit increases to the Bank of England base rate. I stress that this would apply to within-tenancy increases only. However, I accept the points that the Government have made and I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I just thought I would offer a few more thoughts to try to further reassure the hon. Gentleman. As I made clear, we absolutely share his objective of limiting unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases, not least given the potential for that type of rent hike to act as an effective section 21 by the back door. On his specific point, the Government’s view is that linking rents to the Bank of England’s base rate would constitute a form of rent control. We may have a principled disagreement about whether rent controls are appropriate, but we are not convinced that they should be introduced, given the risks that I have set out.
I thought it would be helpful to touch on how the tribunal determines market rents, because I got the sense from the hon. Gentleman previously that he expected the tribunal to look purely at advertised rents. The tribunal has a high degree of expertise. It is composed of judges and industry experts. To determine the market rate, the first-tier tribunal can consider a wide range of evidence, such as the price of similar properties being advertised online, as he said, and also evidence submitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase. This could include statistics on changes to local rents and examples of the rent achieved by other properties—for example, the rent that neighbours are paying. The tribunal will be able to use its local expertise, including visiting a property if necessary. We think that the tribunal has the necessary expertise and understanding to take into account different factors that are forming market rates and to determine whether the rent that is being proposed reflects that.
To touch on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the Government are exploring whether the database could play a role in providing data on rents. That would be in addition to data about the ownership and standard of private rented sector properties. We are considering the feasibility of recording a wider range of data to support more informed rental experiences.
Our approach will take into account the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, and we will look at how data can best be collected to minimise requirements for private landlords to submit information. We will stipulate those requirements in the regulations, but I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman a bit more reassurance that the tribunal is not simply looking at advertised rents in making its determinations.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend raises an extremely good point. As he outlined, this is very much about perverse incentives. We do not want to create a situation in the market where it is always in the interests of the tenant to push this to the tribunal. We need to make sure that that point is effectively addressed, and the amendments seek to do that.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 8 amends section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, and the amended sections set out the circumstances in which a tenant can submit an application to the tribunal to challenge the rent amount either in the first six months of a tenancy or following a section 13 rent increase notice. Amendments 50 to 53 seek to alter the process for challenging initial rents and rent increases at the tribunal.
I must stress that, in the first instance, under this new system, the Government strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what adjustments to rent are sustainable for both parties. Where an agreement cannot be reached, the Government are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe that a rent increase is above market rates. Such rises may represent an attempt by the landlord to exploit a tenant who simply wishes to remain in their home, or they may be an underhanded attempt to remove a tenant without pursuing the very clear possession grounds laid out in schedule 1. That is why we think clause 8 is so important.
Jerome Mayhew
I understand that the Government’s intention is that tenants should not go to the tribunal unless they are clear that the asked-for rent is too high, but what prevents them from gaming the system, as we discussed?
Matthew Pennycook
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I will expand upon my argument in due course—is that I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take a case to the tribunal. That is why we are seeing such low numbers of tenants going to the tribunal. It is an onerous process; we need to provide support and guidance about how to do it. I do not take his point that we will see a flood of tenants taking rent increase cases to tribunal.
To be very clear—I have said this on previous occasions—the Government want more tenants to take their cases to tribunal. We think the tribunal has an important role to play in setting the effective market rate for any given area, so we want to see a proportionate number of cases go through it—we obviously do not want to see it overwhelmed. However, I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the onerous nature of taking a case to tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that, and that it is a no-lose situation, but I recognise the incentives at play on both sides. I will expand upon what I mean and why we have come to this decision in relation to this particular clause.
The shadow Minister proposes in his amendments that rent increases, where they are challenged at the tribunal, should be backdated to the date the landlord first proposed. That would mean tenants possibly facing significant arrears immediately after the tribunal hearing. That is an incentive in the other direction, which we fear would, if introduced, see no tenants taking their case to tribunal. We have just had an extensive discussion about the need to address the affordability pressures to ensure that landlords are not exploiting the system with large, completely unreasonable within-tenancy increases. We have to take that into account as well.
Tenants should not be thrust into debt simply for enforcing their rights. As such, the Bill proposes that rent increases should apply only at the beginning of the next period after the tribunal determination, or up to two months later, in limited cases of undue hardship.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to develop my argument after his intervention, I am sure I will get to his points.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful—I am not intervening for the sake of it; there is an important point here. The Minister says that it would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and a backlog after the determination of the tribunal, but that is rent that ought properly to have belonged to the landlord and has been unjustifiably denied them for the period of the process. Why is it fair for the landlord to be denied a just rent as a result of the delay in the process, yet it is for some reason not fair for the tenant?
Matthew Pennycook
I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me give him a bit more insight into my thinking. I recognise his point that there are incentives that operate in both directions. There is no wholly perfect, win-win solution. We have taken this decision partly because it was in our manifesto to protect renters from unreasonable within-tenancy rent rises, and also because we believe that landlords will adjust around the point in the annual cycle when they serve the section 13 notice to account for the period of time it will take for the tribunal to make a determination.
The hon. Gentleman is right that if the tribunal determines that the rent increase is reasonable, a landlord may have missed out on a short period of the rent increase—not the whole rent, but the rent increase. We want to bring down the time of tribunal determinations so that it is a very short process. I will be very clear about this: we took the view that it was better that tenants were not, by facing the prospect of significant arrears, disincentivised from taking any cases to tribunal to challenge what could be, on a number of occasions, completely unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases. We felt that that is of more benefit than ensuring that they would face significant arrears at every point, which would be too harmful to their ability to challenge, given that we have not introduced rent controls—rent stabilisation—of the kind that other parties are calling for. To address the hon. Gentleman’s point specifically, my expectation is that landlords will adjust around the point that the section 13 notice is served.
The whole system should operate in a way that, hopefully, incentivises landlords not to propose unreasonable rent hikes that might be challenged. There is a clear incentive for landlords and tenants to come to an agreement—we know this will happen in a good number of cases—on what a sustainable rent increase is that reflects the market conditions. The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to intervene on me again if he wants, but I will just develop my argument a bit further in relation to some of the amendments.
The shadow Minister proposes that a tribunal should be able to increase the rent above the current rent payable if the rent is challenged in the first six months of the tenancy and, where a later rent increase is challenged, that the tribunal should be able to set the rent higher than what the landlord asked for. We believe that these amendments would exacerbate the worry that tenants already face in going to a tribunal to challenge their landlord. Tenants will not challenge rents if they risk being in an even worse position following a tribunal ruling. That is the sort of perverse incentive that we believe would pertain on the part of tenants if the amendment was taken forward.
As a slight challenge to Conservative Members opposite, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, their party once recognised this point. The proposed approach in the previous Government’s White Paper, “A fairer private rented sector”, is the one that we have taken in this Bill—namely, that the tribunal cannot increase the rent beyond what the landlord asked for. It is slightly disappointing to see hon. Members rescind that previous approach, which we think is appropriate.
The Bill encourages tenants to engage with the tribunal when they have legitimate concerns. By reinforcing the rights of tenants to do so, we are disincentivising the minority of landlords who may be tempted to hike rents beyond what is reasonable. The shadow Minister’s amendments not only remove these important measures but put tenants at real risk of losing their home, undermining security of tenure, which is obviously a key principle of the Bill. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for talking through the Government’s thinking, and for his points about the debates on the previous Bill. The Opposition remain concerned that the envisaged process, whereby there will be an online application for a modest fee, will make it almost invariably in the interest of the tenant to challenge, because there is no negative outcome for them regardless. A great deal will rest on an issue we will deal with later on: the capacity of tribunals to make decisions quickly. I am mindful, however, of the numbers on the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
Amendment 47 relates to an issue that was briefly aired in the previous debate: the capacity and ability of tribunals to deal effectively with the workload that is likely to come their way once the Bill has made its passage through Parliament.
I understand that for a new Government there is a great deal of desire to bring forward legislation to address things that may be manifesto issues, but there has also been criticism of the risk. We have seen a lack of impact assessments that would enable us as Members of Parliament to consider properly the likely impacts of the legislation, and what resources will be required to mitigate those impacts. That issue ran through the previous debate on the ability of tribunals to make timely and efficient decisions so that both landlords and tenants are treated justly. It will also run through other debates, such as that on local authorities’ capacity to enforce effectively so that both tenants’ and landlords’ rights are protected in practice, notwithstanding what the legislation says.
Amendment 47 is designed to address the issue and ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority, which has a much wider remit in looking at how regulators and markets interact, can examine this issue and, having considered the impact of the legislation, provide us with some evidence that would then inform our thinking about the timing and operation of these facets of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Before I speak to clause 8 and respond to the amendments, it might be worth my making it clear to the shadow Minister that the Government submitted an impact assessment for the Bill to the Regulatory Policy Committee on 16 September 2024, and we will publish that in due course. In line with usual practice, the Government will always consider the impact of any policies when taking legislation through Parliament.
As I set out in the debate on the previous group of amendments, clause 8 amends section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. It stipulates when a tenant can submit an application to the first-tier tribunal. They may do so to challenge the rent amount in the first six months of a tenancy or following a section 13 rent increase. When a tenant brings an application to the tribunal, the tribunal will both assess what the landlord could expect to receive if the property was re-let on the open market and determine the rent. The tribunal has, as I have noted, experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors that influence the market rate, which include the rent for similar properties in the area, the quality of fixings or the proximity to amenities.
For too long tenants have feared challenging a rent increase at the first-tier tribunal. We will end that by ensuring that the tenant will not pay more than what the landlord asks for following a tribunal determination. We are going further: we will end the practice of backdating rent increases, to stop tenants being thrust into debt. To protect the most vulnerable tenants, in cases of undue hardship the tribunal will be able to delay the start of the rent increase for up to two months from the date of determination. That puts tenants in a stronger position to challenge rents through the first-tier tribunal.
It is important to note that tenants are often scared to engage with the judicial process, so we hope that the measures I have outlined will give them more confidence to do so. Although we anticipate that there will be an increase in cases, we do not accept the frankly scaremongering assertions we have heard about the tribunal being completely overwhelmed, or about tenants risking a deterioration in the critical relationship with their landlord by challenging every single rent increase that is given to them. Nor did we hear, when they gave evidence to the Committee last week, that the groups that support tenants would recommend such action. Engaging the tribunal requires effort and time, and we believe that tenants will do so only where they have legitimate concerns, such as when a within-tenancy rent increase is unreasonable. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure that the tribunal has the capacity to deal with any increase in cases.
Taken together with the measures in clause 7, the provisions in clause 8 will ensure that tenants always have a right of appeal and will prevent rent increases from being used to evict them. Rent increases outside the statutory process, such as in rent review clauses, will be outlawed. We believe the measures will ensure that all parties are clearer on their rights and responsibilities and will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases.
Amendment 46 is drafted to prevent the Bill from coming into force until a review is published on the impact of clause 8 on the tribunals responsible for the determination of rent. The review would be provided for by amendment 47. The Government are committed to ending the scourge of section 21 as quickly as possible and have also committed to empowering private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, thereby stopping unscrupulous landlords from using them as a back-door means of eviction. The sector has waited far too long for these changes, so we will not tie implementation to any arbitrary requirements, as the previous Government determined to do in the previous Parliament. As I said, we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice and HMTCS to make sure that the justice system is prepared for any changes to case load and the procedures that will be required for our reforms.
Amendment 47 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish a review of the impact of the reforms to rents in clause 8 on tribunals and their ability to manage any increase in the volume of applications that challenge the amount of rent payable. As I have made clear—I will put it on the record again—we are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HMTCS to make sure that the justice system is prepared for the Bill’s implementation, which will come at a single point at the point of commencement. In Committee last week, we heard of the growing role of the first-tier tribunals and we heard—it is important to note this—praise for their handling of cases. We seek to build on that good practice.
We currently have no plans to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on whether any action is necessary to ensure that our reforms in clause 8 do not have a distorting effect on the market. I say respectfully to the shadow Minister that I have seen no credible evidence of that and, to be candid, I think the CMA has far better things to do with its time. The tribunal’s decision reflects market conditions rather than distorting them, so we do not think it realistic that the tribunal could affect market prices. The tribunal is also likely to determine rents for an extremely small proportion of the total rental market. We will of course continue to monitor the impact of the reforms on the market in the normal way.
Finally, amendment 75 would require the Secretary of State to launch a consultation to seek views on whether tribunals that are responsible for the determination of rent currently have adequate resource, and whether they will require further resources due to the rent reforms in the Bill. Given the ongoing work I have outlined, we do not think that launching a consultation at this time is required, and making a commitment to do so on the face of the Bill would be wholly unnecessary. I therefore ask Members not to press their amendments to a vote.
Mr Amos
I rise to speak to amendment 75 which, as the Minister said, would require the Secretary of State to consult on the adequacy of the existing resources for the tribunal system and on any further need for resources to deal with rent reviews established in the Bill. It is the same for the courts: sufficient judges and resources to ensure that the justice system works and does not seize up are vital to the supply of landlords bringing properties on to the rental market.
The Liberal Democrats know that most landlords and tenants are not going to rush to the courts unreasonably, and we do not support the use of court funding as a reason to delay the ending of no-fault evictions and the introduction of the Bill, as happened in the previous Parliament. As I have made clear several times, it is urgent that no-fault evictions are brought to an end. However, that does not mean that the courts and tribunal system is not seriously underfunded; it clearly is. I know the Minister is concerned about this—he mentioned some ongoing review work, and also spoke about it on Second Reading in response to my intervention—but we really need to go further. We need to come up with something concrete that is clear that putting resources into the courts and tribunals system will be taken seriously and will happen.
The mutually-owned Nationwide building society, which funds much of the accommodation we are talking about, has made its support for the Bill conditional on increased funding for the courts and tribunals. It says:
“In these situations, good landlords need to be confident they are able to gain possession of the property”—
I appreciate this relates more to courts than tribunals—and that once
“the situation has reached a point where a court is involved it is reasonable to expect that this process should be as quick and efficient as possible. This is not the case with the current…system which needs additional funding and resources to operate effectively”.
David Simmonds
One of the benefits of having been in government is that I have had the opportunity to consider many of these issues from the inside. We on the Opposition Benches remain concerned that it will be challenging to deliver the necessary level of capacity to provide the efficient service that tribunals need, and are expected, to provide for the benefit of both tenants and landlords. However, recognising that it is a game of numbers, I am happy to withdraw amendment 47.
Matthew Pennycook
Briefly, on the capacity of the Courts and Tribunals Service to effectively implement the new system, at the risk of repeating my extensive comments on Second Reading, it is worth trying to provide Committee members with some reassurance. First, at the risk of injecting a somewhat partisan note into the Committee, I agree entirely that our courts are in a terrible state after 14 years—I say 14 years because I am afraid the coalition Government had a hand in it—and we absolutely believe that improvements to HMCTS are needed to ensure that the new systems function effectively.
As I said, we are working closely with colleagues in government to ensure that improvements are made, as well as the exploring options for, for example, improved alternative dispute resolution so that only those cases that need a judgment come to court. There are a number of improvements we might make to take some strain off the courts, and those are the ones we are exploring.
Mr Amos
Will the Minister let me put on the record the fact that during the coalition Government from 2010 to 2015, whole Government Departments, including the Education and Health Departments, were protected and ringfenced against cuts? That bears absolutely no relation to what happened after the cuts were let loose in 2015.
Matthew Pennycook
But not the Ministry of Justice, I say gently to the hon. Gentleman.
Nevertheless, I want to reassure colleagues on the substantive point. We have chosen to implement the new tenancy system in a single stage. The commencement date will be made clear in due course, but we will ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared for the implementation of the new system. That is essential, and a huge amount of work is going on to ensure that that will be the case.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Repayment of rent paid in advance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Limit on rent to be requested in advance of tenancy—
“In the 1988 Act, after section 14ZB (inserted by section 8 of this Act) insert—
‘14ZBA Maximum rent to be paid in advance
No rent may be requested or received in advance of any period of the tenancy which exceeds the rent for one month of the tenancy.’”
This amendment would impose a limit of one month’s rent on the amount of rent which can be asked for or paid in advance of a tenancy.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be relatively brief because this clause serves a specific function, but I will focus on what it achieves. I am aware that the wider issue of rent in advance concerns a number of hon. Members—indeed, it featured in our discussions during the oral evidence sessions last week, on which I will say more shortly.
The clause will require landlords to refund a tenant for any rent they have paid in advance, where the tenancy has ended earlier than the period for which a tenant has paid. That serves a practical purpose—for example, if the tenant has paid for the month that they are in occupation and the tenancy is ended by the landlord two weeks into that month, the clause allows the tenant to reclaim the additional two weeks’ rent.
On the issue of rent in advance more broadly—which also pertains to new clause 6, to which I think the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will speak shortly—as I stated when I gave evidence to the Committee on Tuesday, Government Members have long recognised that demands for extortionate amounts of rent in advance put financial strain on tenants and can exclude certain groups from renting altogether. We are clear that the practice of landlords requesting large amounts of rent in advance must be prohibited.
Although it might be argued that the interaction of the new rent periods provided for by clause 1 and the existing provisions of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 relating to prohibited payments provide a measure of protection against requests for large amounts of advance rent, I accept that there is a strong case for putting the matter beyond doubt. As I made clear to the Committee, I am giving careful consideration as to how best that might be achieved.
Let me briefly address new clause 6, which seeks to limit the amount of rent in advance that can be paid prior to a tenancy period to no more than one month’s rent. Many of us will have heard anecdotal stories of the pressures placed on renters through demands for rent in advance, and it is for similar reasons that we have taken steps in the Bill to tackle rental bidding. I heard the evidence from last week, and we are looking at the matter carefully to ensure that we put the matter beyond doubt on the face of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about looking at this area in detail. We raised, and discussed in some detail, the issue of how those with a poor credit history, or people who wish to secure a property for a fixed period—for example, international students—would be dealt with under the measures. We know that there are already limitations on the level of deposit that can be requested, but, particularly for those with a poor credit history, the ability to offer a larger sum of rent in advance can be a means of accessing a home in the private rented sector when they would otherwise not be able to access a home at all.
I am grateful to the Government for considering that particular group of people, who are in many cases extremely vulnerable tenants and often fall outside eligibility for support from the local authority under homeless duties, particularly if they have a job and an income. We need to make sure that we do not create a situation in which, inadvertently, a particular group of prospective tenants is effectively pushed out of the market. I am glad that the Government are taking that issue on board and considering how best it can work.
Matthew Pennycook
Many of the 11 million people living in the private rented sector would love to own a pet but have difficulty finding a property that allows them to do so. We want tenants in the private rented sector to enjoy the joys of pet ownership, just as homeowners do. We know the benefits of pet ownership for mental and physical wellbeing. I declare an interest: I have a dog named Clem, who I referenced in the debate on the previous Government’s Bill, and he is, as I know to be the case for many pets across the country, a valued member of the family.
We have heard the calls from animal groups for more protection for pets living in rented homes. In its written evidence to the Committee, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals highlighted the plight of renters forced to give up their pets because they cannot find a home that will allow pets. I am delighted that the RSPCA, as well as the Dogs Trust, Battersea, and Cats Protection, support the action the Bill takes in this area.
On how we support pet ownership in the private rented sector, clause 10 introduces a new implied term that allows tenants to make a request to keep a pet, which landlords cannot unreasonably refuse. That stops landlords utilising a blanket “no pets” approach and ensures that each request is considered on its merits. We understand that not all properties or situations will be appropriate for pets. Landlords will not have to accept their tenant’s request where it is unreasonable, such as where housemates have allergies and might be detrimentally affected by pet ownership.
The clause makes it clear that landlords will always be justified in refusing a request if their own superior tenancy agreement prohibits pets. That will ensure that the law is consistent and that landlords will not be put in a position where they are forced to breach the terms of their own superior lease. However, to ensure that the provisions have teeth, tenants will have the right to challenge refusals they think are unreasonable via the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman or in court. The ombudsman or court will be able to take an unbiased view on whether the landlord has reasonably refused a request.
Clause 10 also gives landlords an ample 28 days to respond to requests, with an additional seven-day window if the landlord requests more information from the tenant within the initial 28-day timeframe. I make that point because the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill proposed a 42-day response window. The animal welfare charities I mentioned were concerned about that duration, especially as it would mean tenants finding it hard to adopt a pet or the charities needing to keep animals for a long time while landlords made a decision. I share those concerns and I am pleased to say that we have made an improvement by bringing down the timeframe in this Bill.
Finally, clause 10 provides reassurance to landlords by allowing them to require pet damage insurance, either by charging the tenant for it or by asking the tenant to take out an appropriate insurance policy. These measures encourage responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector while providing landlords with assurance.
Turning to clause 11, although it is right that tenants can make the house they rent their home by having a pet, I understand that some landlords will be concerned by potential damage caused by pets to their property. The Committee has discussed the joys of pet ownership, but we all know that many pets can be active and at times destructive. That is one of the joys of pet ownership, but also one of the realities, particularly when it comes to some types of animals.
Clause 11 builds on changes made by clause 10 and amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to permit landlords to require tenants to take out an insurance policy to cover any potential damage caused by a pet or to charge the tenant the cost of such a policy. When granting consent, the landlord will be able to decide which insurance option best meets their needs. That underscores our commitment to ensuring that the private rented sector provides secure and stable housing. We recognise that pet ownership plays a crucial role in achieving that mission.
I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for amendment 55, which seeks to ensure that suitable insurance products are available before landlords are allowed to mandate that their tenants purchase them to cover pet damage. We know that one of the reasons landlords are hesitant to take on tenants with pets is a fear that those pets could cause damage to their properties, which the tenants’ deposits might not be sufficient to cover.
I recognise that not a lot of insurance companies currently offer products designed to cover damage from pets. It is understandable that in the current climate, in which landlords have discretion over whether to accept or refuse pets, there is no demand for insurance and therefore the market is limited. We believe, however, that by creating an enabling environment for the industry, the Bill will cause the insurance market to adapt. I am sure that, as firm believers in the free market, the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Broadland and Fakenham share that view.
I hope the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will also be reassured that my Department has already had discussions with the insurance industry regarding such products. The discussions have been promising and I am aware that there are products in development to meet his concerns.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister is quite right; I am a believer in the free market and I am sure the market will respond. Does he have an indication from his discussions with the insurance industry of the kind of price and the surcharge that will be required to fit the need?
Matthew Pennycook
We have not considered extensively the range of prices in the Department’s discussions, but I am sure the market will respond. I do not see any particular concern that companies will charge excessive rates for pet insurance, but that is something we will monitor as we bring the relevant parts of the Bill into force.
In the light of those points, I hope the shadow Minister will consider not pressing amendment 55 to a vote.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I wonder—forgive me, because this is also my first Public Bill Committee—how this will work in a house in multiple occupation compared with a dwelling house, and who will have to have the insurance. If a HMO is operated on a joint-licence basis, who is responsible for the insurance and the indemnity that goes with it?
On another point, what safeguards are we putting in place to ensure that any noise issues arising from pet ownership can be tackled, and where does responsibility for that sit? I appreciate that, where someone owns their home or rents a home that allows them to have a pet, it is probably done through the local authority, but I am conscious, particularly in the HMO setting, of how we would mitigate against that and ensure that we do not end up in a situation where neighbours do not know who to approach to ensure that either the insurance or the antisocial behaviour is acted upon.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady rightly challenges us on some of the finer points of how the provisions will be implemented. If she is amenable, I will happily write to her with further detail on precisely how we see them working in particular circumstances. Her point on HMOs is well made, and I will take it away and come back to her as soon as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Duty of landlord and contractor to give statement of terms etc
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 12, page 17, line 7, leave out “subsection (5)” and insert “subsections (5) and (5A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 11.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 13 and 14 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
We believe the rental market works better when all tenants are clear on their rights and obligations. That prevents misunderstandings and means that both parties know what to expect. Without clarity about their rights, tenants may be unable to take advantage of the new rights that the Bill will give them. That is why it is critical that tenants understand what they are signing up to from the outset. Landlords benefit from clarity too. By being clear on rights and responsibilities at the beginning of a tenancy, responsible landlords can more easily comply with the new rules and ensure that they are providing a good service to their tenants.
That is why clause 12 requires landlords to provide tenants with a written statement setting out the terms of the tenancy. This includes a requirement to state where the landlord might wish to recover possession on certain prior-notice grounds. We will set out in secondary legislation details of what must be included in the written statement, but we expect that it might include details such as the rent, contact details for the landlord, and basic rights and responsibilities that apply to both parties. It is worth pointing out that most landlords already do that, and this requirement will ensure that good practice is extended across the sector. In time, this will lead to fewer disputes and help ensure that both parties comply with the law.
Turning to clause 13, the Government will have zero tolerance for any attempts by unscrupulous landlords to evade the new tenancy system. While the majority of landlords are good and do right by their tenants, we know that there are some who will seek to evade the new laws. That is why we are strengthening the enforcement regime to identify and fine unscrupulous landlords, drive out bad actors from the sector, and protect tenants from back-door evictions. Driving out bad actors is to the benefit of good landlords and tenants alike.
All landlords must be aware of their legal obligations and operate accordingly. I know that landlords can fall into the practice of renting out a property through many different—sometimes sad—circumstances. That is, of course, where the term “accidental landlord” comes from. Many of those landlords are good people doing their best, but that cannot be an excuse for the tenant suffering, and it is not an excuse for landlords not to understand their legal obligations. If a tenant is renting a home, it should not make a difference who their landlord is. Everyone has the right to a safe, decent and secure home.
Let me be clear: the law is not accidental and must be followed. If it is not, then the Bill sets out a robust enforcement framework. With a new tenancy system coming into force, we must ensure that landlords always use the correct procedures when gaining possession and evicting a tenant. The prohibited behaviours outlined in clause 13—for example, purporting to bring a tenancy to an end by service of a notice to quit or orally, by phoning a tenant to tell them that they need to leave the property by a certain date—reflect this responsibility.
In opposition, I was clear that we had a number of reservations about the enforcement measures in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. As a result, we have worked hard to close any potential loopholes that a small minority of unscrupulous landlords may seek to exploit. We have taken action in a number of areas. For example, we have increased the restriction on re-marketing or re-letting the property after the use of grounds 1 or 1A to 12 months. That is a significant increase, and is necessary to avoid the grounds being used to effect back-door eviction. It will make it unprofitable to evict a tenant simply to increase the rent, and will stop landlords using the grounds as a back-door section 21. It will allow tenants to enjoy protection from no-fault eviction, while ensuring that there are comprehensive possession grounds in place so that a landlord can get their property back.
Clause 14 clarifies that the duties of landlords set out in new sections 16D and 16E of the Housing Act 1988 can be fulfilled or contravened by someone acting on their behalf. Many landlords will use the services of a letting agent, for example, and that is a sensible means of meeting their obligations, such as to provide a written statement of terms. For most landlords, the clause will make compliance easier. For example, if someone acting on behalf of the landlord issued a written statement of terms to the tenant, that would meet the landlord’s duty to provide the statement. However, landlords should not be able to absolve themselves of legal responsibility for providing a safe and secure home simply by appointing an agent. The clause ensures that landlords retain overall responsibility for complying with the law.
Government amendments 10 and 11 are merely consequential provisions. They qualify the new duty to provide a written statement of terms where a demoted tenancy is transferred to a new landlord. In such circumstances, the new landlord will have 28 days from the date that they become the landlord to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement of terms, instead of having to do so before the tenancy was entered into, which they obviously would not be able to do. We do not expect that circumstance to arise often in practice, but the amendments ensure that the law will operate effectively if the situation occurs.
David Simmonds
The Opposition broadly welcome the work the Government are doing in this area. Bringing clarity to the process is very important. In our work as constituency Members of Parliament, we will all have seen many cases where a lack of clarity on whether a notice has been properly served, or on whether a tenant or landlord fully understands their responsibilities and duties, is at the heart of a dispute or difficult situation. I have a brief question for the Minister, but I wanted to be clear on the record that bringing this level of clarity is important.
The enforcement process that the Minister referred to rests on a number of different organisations. Principally, the Bill envisages local authorities as the agent of enforcement. The fire brigades are a significant part of determining the suitability and safety of properties, and they bring prosecutions in the magistrates court when they find properties that have been occupied and rented to tenants but are clearly not safe on grounds that give them the power to prosecute. What consultations has the Minister undertaken with fire brigades about those prosecutions and the evidence that emerges from them about the circumstances of tenants found in such conditions? Those tenants are often among the most vulnerable, and they may not even have a written tenancy agreement, never mind a good understanding of their rights or a landlord who understands their duties and responsibilities.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. On the general point about local authority enforcement, he is absolutely right. Landlords who fail to issue a written statement of terms on or before the first day of a tenancy will face enforcement action. They risk a fine of up to £7,000 from the local authority, the proceeds of which will be ringfenced to further enforcement work in that authority.
The shadow Minister made a specific point about fire brigades. To be honest with him, I do not have the answer to hand. I am happy to engage with officials to see what conversations the Department has had with the fire service, so that I can address his points. I will come back to him in writing as soon as I possibly can.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment made: 11, in clause 12, page 17, line 16, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a tenancy becomes a tenancy to which this section applies by virtue of section 143C(3) of the Housing Act 1996 (demoted tenancies: change of landlord), the statement under subsection (2) must be given within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the new landlord becomes the landlord under the tenancy.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This creates an exception from the new duty, inserted by clause 12 of the Bill into the Housing Act 1988, for a landlord to provide a written statement of certain matters before entering into an assured tenancy, so that the landlord of a tenancy which becomes an assured tenancy following the transfer of a demoted tenancy under the Housing Act 1996 has 28 days from becoming the landlord of the tenancy to fulfil those duties.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Landlords etc: financial penalties and offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
We pick up a point we have just debated, which is the enforcement framework that the Bill provides for. The reforms we are putting in place will be underpinned by an effective, consistent and proportionate enforcement framework. In the Government’s view, serious breaches of the law should entail serious consequences, and we are clear that we will take action where it is needed to prevent abuse of the new system. To that end, clause 15 extends councils’ powers to issue financial penalties against landlords who flout the rules. The clause allows councils to penalise initial or minor non-compliance with a fine of up to £7,000—for example, for failing to provide a written statement of terms, such as we have just discussed, or for purporting to bring a tenancy to an end orally.
Serious, persistent or repeat non-compliance will be met with a fine of up to £40,000, with the alternative being criminal prosecution. That includes knowingly or recklessly misusing a ground for eviction, and re-letting or re-marketing a property within 12 months of using the moving in or selling grounds. Local authorities will be able to take robust action against the landlord who decides they will routinely evict tenants under a false claim to be moving a family member into a property or planning to sell it. That will act as a powerful deterrent and—although this is not the original purpose of the sanction—fines will provide valuable funding for local authority enforcement activity.
Clause 16 sets out the process that local housing authorities must follow when issuing financial penalties. That includes the appeals process, recovery of unpaid penalties and how local authorities may use the proceeds of the financial penalties. It includes the stipulation that proceeds of the financial penalties should be used to fund future enforcement activity. The clause provides clarity to local housing authorities on the process they must follow when issuing financial penalties to unscrupulous landlords.
I reassure the Committee that this clause also protects good landlords. The process allows landlords to make representations to local housing authorities for consideration when issued with a notice of intent, as well as appealing a final notice to the first-tier tribunal.
Clause 17 provides definitions for terms used in sections 16D to 16L and schedule 2ZA—for example, “local housing authority” and “relevant person”. That is simple and straightforward, and it requires no further elaboration.
Clause 18 provides that criminal offences contained within section 16J do not bind the Crown, which means that the Crown cannot be found criminally liable for these offenses. However, should the Crown break the rules, it is possible for a council to issue a fine in the same way as with private landlords. The Government believe that this is a reasonable approach and one that maintains precedent established in previous legislation, such as the Tenant Fees Act 2019. However, those acting in the service of the Crown will not be exempt from criminal liability. It is only fair that they are subject to the same financial penalties and criminal offences that apply to other individuals. I commend clauses 15 to 18 to the Committee.
David Simmonds
In practice, the measures contained in this section of the Bill will probably be the most important for our constituents who are tenants. Their ability to secure enforcement, where there is a breach of the legislation, will be critical. The Minister will know that the Opposition have shared concerns about ensuring that the resource from the enforcement regime will be sufficient to be self-sustaining. It strikes me that the enforcement regime, as set out, is very similar to that which already exists for local authorities in respect of environmental crime, such as fly-tipping, where it is assumed that the proceeds from fines and costs will be sufficient. Most of us will recognise that, in reality, that is rarely the case—carrying out that enforcement action always represents a cost to the council tax payer. Although it is not a matter for legislation, it would be helpful to understand how the Government intend to engage with local authorities to understand the cost of these new burdens fully and use the new burdens doctrine to ensure that they are appropriately resourced.
As the Minister has said, there is a point at which enforcement action outside criminal prosecution is taken, and there is a stage at which criminal prosecution may be the only available option. With other types of enforcement, many local authorities find that the push towards criminal prosecution is necessary to bring an end to the antisocial behaviour that is causing the problem in the first place. The challenge is that the proceeds of any fine resulting from criminal prosecution go into the consolidated fund of central Government expenditure, rather than accruing to the local authority. Even if there is not an award of costs, the largest part of that resource, which in theory is available to sustain the system, in fact goes into a different Government pot for other uses. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated what process of engagement and consultation the Government envisage they will take with local authorities. That must be designed to ensure that the resources derived from enforcement find their way to the sharp end of it, so that in practice, in the real world, it makes the difference that we hope it will.
Matthew Pennycook
I completely agree with the shadow Minister that many of the provisions in the Bill will not work as intended without robust local authority enforcement. We have increased the fines from the levels in the previous Government’s Bill to £7,000 and £40,000. It is also worth noting that those fines can be issued repeatedly—they are not a one-off—if landlords continue to breach the relevant provisions.
More generally on local authority resourcing, I make two points. First, it is important to note that many of the provisions in the Bill will not need to be enforced immediately. They will come into play one or two years down the line, so not every measure in the Bill that needs enforcement will require it from the date of Royal Assent. We have made it clear in previous debates that although we think that fines are part of the answer—we want the “polluter pays” principle to be at the heart of the Bill—we recognise that in many cases, they alone will not be enough. That is why I have set out that in accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that additional burdens on local authorities that result from our reforms are fully funded.
The shadow Minister made an interesting point, as he has done several times today, that challenges me to go away and think about the final destination of fines from criminal prosecutions. I will take that away and give it serious consideration. We are in agreement that we need to ensure that where local authorities enforce breaches of the provisions set out in this Bill, those funds should come to local authorities. I will come back to him on the point he raises about the consolidated fund, if he is amenable to me doing so.
David Simmonds
The Minister’s response prompts me to ask a further question. I am grateful to him for undertaking to write back on the consolidated fund. In other enforcement regimes modelled on this system that provide scope to issue significant fines, there is a common pattern of local authorities outsourcing the responsibility to third-party enforcement agencies. We see that with littering, environmental crime and all manner of areas of local authority duty. Essentially, business makes a pitch, and if they receive the delegated authority to act on behalf of the council in the performance of its duties, they will enter into a profit share agreement. In the case of parking regimes, historically, for each parking ticket that was issued, some money went to the company and some money to the local authority.
That creates a risk—this was mirrored in the earlier debate—of perverse incentives. At local authority level, the incentive could be to pursue the landlords who are easiest to deal with and most likely to yield financial restitution to contribute to the bottom line of the business undertaking the work. That could result in a scarcity of resources to deal with the more difficult and intractable cases, and the most vulnerable tenants.
Have the Government thought about how, in their engagement with local authorities, they will seek to ensure that the regime is enforced equally? Local authorities have an understandable desire to outsource. Particularly in built-up urban areas where there may be a high density of rogue landlords, how can we ensure that the process will not result in extremely vulnerable people falling outside the enforcement regime because it simply is not profitable to pursue it in other parts of the country?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that thoughtful point. To be entirely open, it is not one that I have considered. I think it is a fair challenge, and I will go away and give some thought to how we can ensure that local authorities look at all breaches in the round and apply the same approach to each, rather than targeting the low-hanging fruit. To provide reassurance on the concern about good landlords being caught up in the process, I repeat that the process allows landlords to make representations to local housing authorities and the first-tier tribunal if they think that that has happened.
The other point, which we will debate in quite extensive detail, is that enforcement by local authorities is not the only means that the Bill provides of tackling rogue landlords and breaches. I draw the shadow Minister’s attention to the significant strengthening of rent repayment orders, which offers an alternative, tenant-led enforcement mechanism. As I think I said in my evidence to the Committee last week, across the country—in local authority terms, enforcement is a real postcode lottery—the most effective thing I have seen is where well-resourced and effective local authority enforcement is complemented by tenants taking action with rent repayment orders. When the two work in tandem, it can be of real benefit in driving bad landlords out of the sector. I will give further consideration to the shadow Minister’s specific, well-made point.
Rebecca Smith
I want to build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has just made. It may not quite fit at this point in the consideration of the Bill, but it has come to mind while we have been talking about this. I am sure that we all have been contacted by a tenant and then found out that they are one of five or six tenants, all with the same rogue landlord. What can we do in the Bill to enable the trigger point for one tenancy to be used as an opportunity to explore other tenancies with the same landlord? I have dealt with such a case, where I encountered a landlord with five or six tenants across a city, managing properties with appalling conditions and treatment of tenants. We do not want to have to repeat the exercise six times.
Is there anything in the Bill that would enable the local authority to see whether there are any other tenants in the same situation, or is that a bit too Big Brother—would it be pursuing it too far? The whole Bill is aimed at tackling rogue landlords. Are we slowing down that process by taking each property individually? Is there a mechanism whereby we could collect them all together?
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the hon. Lady correctly, and if she is amenable to it, I will fold this point into the written response that I have already promised her, but multiple fines can be levied for breaches. If a landlord in a particular part of the country with multiple properties is in repeated breach over that portfolio of properties, local authorities will be able to levy fines on more than one occasion, so it is not a £7,000 limit in the first instance, or £40,000 for more serious cases, per landlord. Again, I will expand on it in a written response, but I think the database can do some work here in terms of landlords in a particular area registering all their properties. I think it will become apparent quite quickly—it depends on how we use the database—if particular landlords show a pattern of behaviour whereby they are not treating their tenants appropriately. Let me come back to the hon. Lady in more detail as part of the response that I have already committed to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Notices to quit by tenants under assured tenancies: timing
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 19, page 31, line 19, leave out from “substitute–” to end of line 34 and insert—
“‘(b) it satisfies—
(i) subsection (1ZA), if it is given by a tenant in relation to premises let under an assured tenancy, or
(ii) subsection (1ZC) in any other case; but in relation to landlords under assured tenancies see section 5(1) of the Housing Act 1988 (notice to quit by landlord is of no effect).’
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1ZA) A notice to quit satisfies this subsection if—
(a) it is given not less than—
(i) any length of time before the date on which the notice is to take effect, not exceeding two months, that the landlord has agreed to in writing, or
(ii) in the absence of agreement under sub-paragraph (i), two months before the date on which the notice is to take effect, and
(b) it is in relation to premises let under a repeat tenancy or, if it is in relation to premises let under any other assured tenancy, it is to take effect—
(i) no earlier than any time, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the terms of the tenancy provide for the tenancy to begin, that the landlord has agreed to in writing, or
(ii) in the absence of agreement under sub-paragraph (i), on or after the last day of the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(1ZB) In subsection (1ZA)(b) “repeat tenancy” means an assured tenancy under which the tenant becomes entitled to possession of the premises within the period of one month beginning with the day after the last day of a previous assured tenancy—
(a) under which the same premises were let, and
(b) which was between the same parties.
(1ZC) A notice to quit satisfies this subsection if it is given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect.’”
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 19 amends section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to set out the rules about what period of notice a tenant must provide to end a tenancy, stipulating that they will not have to provide more than two months’ notice. This will help renters to end tenancies quickly if they have a change of circumstances, such as needing to change jobs or move to a new area. It will also prevent them from being trapped in substandard properties for long periods of time. Allowing tenants to move on from poor properties is fundamental to establishing fairness in the new system, and it will incentivise landlords to provide a good service.
This will also provide landlords with the certainty they need. We believe that two months is sufficient time for landlords to re-let the property, minimising the time and costs of void periods. Landlords will not be allowed to ask for more than two months’ notice in the tenancy agreement. That will prevent them from replicating fixed terms by locking tenants in for long periods of time. If the tenancy agreement does not mention the tenant’s notice period, clause 19 requires tenants to provide at least two months’ notice. They will be able to provide more notice if it suits their circumstances. We recognise that sometimes a shorter notice period will be preferable for both tenants and landlords. The landlord and tenant may therefore agree to a shorter notice period in writing.
Clause 20 prevents landlords from specifying the form of writing that a tenant’s notice to quit must take. Landlords will not be able to include terms in the tenancy agreement that insist the notice to quit is provided in a particular form, such as a letter. Any attempt to do so will be rendered void by this clause. Instead, tenants will be able to provide notice in any written format, such as text message, email or letter. That will remove unhelpful barriers to tenants’ ability to provide notice to quit.
Clause 20 also clarifies that a tenant’s notice to quit can be withdrawn before it comes into effect, if the landlord agrees in writing. That is a sensible clarification to ensure that both parties can agree to continue the tenancy if that suits their respective circumstances.
I have to be clear that we will not accept any change that would increase the length of notice that tenants are required to provide. Amendment 49, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, seeks to prevent tenants from ending a tenancy in the first six months by ensuring that only notices that expire after six months would be considered valid. We will not be reintroducing that measure, which even the previous Government felt was unnecessary until the very late stages of their own Renters (Reform) Bill.
Tenants will not routinely end tenancies just after moving in or use assured tenancies as an alternative to holiday lets. In our view, tenants have to go through far too much administration and provide too expensive a deposit for this to be a viable concern. If tenants do have to end a tenancy, I am confident that two months is a fair amount of time for both parties to adjust. Six months is a long time to live in a house with damp or mould that the landlord simply painted over when doing viewings, or perhaps simply advertised inappropriately online—just as it is too lengthy a period to remain living with a partner after, for example, a relationship breakdown. I note again that landlords could still regain possession in that six-month period if the tenant was at fault, using the clear grounds for possession set out in schedule 1. Why should a tenant’s right to leave, when a landlord is at fault, be any different?
I turn to amendments 66 and 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Amendment 66 would require tenants who meet the student test in possession ground 4A to give 10 months’ notice. That would mean that students would have to know 10 months in advance whether they wanted to remain in the property. Landlords who are concerned about making a property available for new student tenants can seek possession under ground 4A if they meet the requirements of that ground. Similarly, amendment 67 would require tenants who are the first residents in newly built properties to provide 24 months’ notice when ending an assured tenancy.
I am afraid that I do not accept that it is reasonable to penalise some tenants because of the circumstances or the property in which they live. Those tenants deserve the same flexibility that everyone else will enjoy under the single system of periodic tenancies. We do not believe that it would be fair or justifiable to lock them in for such long periods of time. Again, since most new buildings should be good quality, tenants will only leave if they really need to. In other words, they can stay for 24 months, or perhaps longer if they want to, under the periodic tenancies that the Bill provides for. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington not to press their amendments to a vote.
David Simmonds
I would like to ask the Minister, not at this stage but in due course, to provide a little bit more detail. In his response to these amendments, he referred to what sounds like an asymmetric process in the expectations of how notices would be given. It would be a requirement for a landlord to put a notice of any kind to the tenant in writing, but the tenant would be able to give notice by means of a text message. It seems very clear that that situation could give rise to disputes about whether information or notices were properly served in both directions. I urge the Government to ensure that, as the Bill makes progress, there is sufficient symmetry. For example, when disputes arise that might go before the courts or the tribunal, there needs to be real clarity, by way of an audit trail of what has been said to each party.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that. I will undertake to provide him with more detail on the specific point he has made, which is noted and understood, either at an appropriate point in our further consideration of the Bill or in writing.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Limitation on obligation to pay removal expenses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Section 11 of the Housing Act 1988 currently requires landlords of assured tenancies, who have been awarded possession under the redevelopment ground 6 or suitable alternative accommodation ground 9, to pay the tenant reasonable moving expenses. These grounds are mostly used by social landlords, who use assured tenancies and do not have access to section 21 no-fault evictions. The grounds support social landlords to manage their stock, ensuring that social housing is good quality and remains available for those who need it.
Clause 21 amends section 11(1) of the 1988 Act to ensure that only private registered providers of social housing will be required to pay removal expenses for grounds 6 and 9, once all tenancies become assured tenancies. We think it is unlikely that private landlords will regularly use grounds 6 and 9. However, on the rare occasions that they need to use them, they will not be required to pay removal expenses, ensuring that they are able to manage their assets in a reasonable way. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Assured agricultural occupancies: grounds for possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
As Committee members may be aware, qualifying agricultural workers are automatically entitled to an assured agricultural occupancy, which offers enhanced security of tenure to those who qualify. Tenants under AAOs cannot be evicted using section 21 or if their employment by the landlord comes to an end. Clause 22 makes consequential changes to AAOs to reflect the new tenancy system. That includes preventing landlords from evicting AAO tenants under the employment ground, now 5C, as well as ground 5A and the new superior landlord grounds. Those grounds cover circumstances where tenants under AAOs cannot currently be evicted, but they are being amended or introduced by the Bill and may pose a risk to their security in the new system. The clause will maintain the status quo.
Clause 23 seeks to replicate the existing mechanism in the Housing Act 1988 that allows landlords of qualifying agricultural workers to opt out of providing assured agricultural occupancies. They can issue assured shorthold tenancies instead, as long as they inform the tenant from the outset. We understand that many landlords make use of the opt-out, as it provides more flexibility for the agricultural sector and helps to maintain the supply of rural housing for workers. The clause therefore replaces the existing opt-out in a way that will be compatible with the new tenancy regime once ASTs are abolished, giving landlords access to the full range of new possession grounds.
I hope that both clauses are uncontroversial, and I commend them to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I can assure the Minister that we do not want to push these clauses to a vote. I am grateful to him for his explanation. It is important to recognise that agricultural workers are one category of tenant who often have different sets of circumstances, as their access to a home is connected to their job. School caretakers are another common example; it is not unusual for there to be a property on the school site that the post holder has the right to occupy.
It has become increasingly common, rather than going down the route of creating a tenancy from the outset, for the employment contract to have a side agreement of a licence to occupy, so the home is made available to the individual not as part of a tenancy agreement, but as part of a licence to occupy connected to their role. I would like the Minister to illuminate the Committee with the Government’s thinking on that issue.
There is a second issue. As has been described to us by a number of representatives from rural businesses, it is quite common for landlords to ask a tenant to vacate a particular property because its location or its facilities are directly connected with a role that they formerly did, and to offer them another like or equivalent property on the same estate. Traditionally, that has been a way of ensuring that, for example, farm workers who retire from a role in the care of animals where they had to be on the site 24 hours a day, and therefore cease to carry out that function, can be moved to another property on the estate without having to go through an extremely complicated and bureaucratic process. That process may not be good for the landlord, who has an urgent need for a worker on site to look after the animals, or for the tenant, who may have expectations about how their new accommodation will be secured, particularly at the point of retirement.
I would be grateful if the Minister could illuminate the Committee with the Government’s thinking on how that issue could be effectively addressed, so that we can take the matter into full consideration for those rural communities where it is particularly important.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his points. If I have understood him correctly, I fear that those matters are slightly outside the scope of these clauses. I reiterate that we understand that many agricultural landlords use the opt-out to provide ASTs to their tenants instead, and that opt-out is retained by clause 23. We do, however, think that AAOs are a crucial part of the tenancy system, and we do not want to reduce their security by abolishing them outright and bringing these tenants into the wider assured tenancy system. I will take on board the points the shadow Minister made and come back to him in writing, if he will allow me; they raise a number of matters pertaining to housing that may or may not be in the scope of the Bill and these clauses. I think it is probably better if I come back to him in writing, given how specific and somewhat technical they are.
Mr Amos
I wonder whether the Minister would help me with an issue that is somewhat related to agricultural tenancies. In fact, it is a different kind of tied tenancy that has been raised with me by constituents, where the notice period required to be given for Church of England ministers—
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington tests my knowledge. I keep a lot of things in my head, but the particular tenancy arrangements as they pertain to Church of England ministers is not there. I am more than happy to discuss some of these issues with the hon. Gentleman outside the Committee, Dame Caroline.
The Chair
That would certainly help with my job.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Accommodation for homeless people: duties of local authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The Bill will remove fixed tenancies and section 21 evictions, as we have discussed at length. These changes mean that we also need to amend part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 to ensure that councils’ statutory homelessness duties align with the new system. Clause 24 makes three changes to homelessness legislation to ensure that is the case.
First, clause 24 makes changes to how local authorities discharge their main housing duty. One of the ways in which local authorities may currently bring their main housing duty, which is a duty to secure settled accommodation, to an end, is by making an offer to a tenant of a suitable private rented sector tenancy with a fixed term of at least 12 months. With the removal of fixed-term tenancies, section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 is amended to instead refer to an assured tenancy.
Secondly, the clause amends sections 193(1A) and 193C of the Housing Act 1996, which concern the consequences when a person owed either the prevention or relief duty deliberately and unreasonably fails to co-operate with the local housing authority. If the local housing authority is satisfied that the applicant is homeless, is eligible for assistance, has a priority need, and is not intentionally homeless, then the applicant is still owed a duty to be accommodated. This duty, however, is currently a lesser one than the main housing duty. The lesser duty is to offer a fixed-term tenancy of at least six months as opposed to the period of at least 12 months that is required under the main duty. With the repeal of fixed-term tenancies, the lesser offer is redundant, and is removed by the clause.
Thirdly, subsection (4) of clause 24 repeals section 195A of the Housing Act 1996, which is the duty in homelessness legislation to offer accommodation following re-application after a private sector offer, known more commonly as the re-application duty. The re-application duty was introduced, alongside the introduction of private rented sector offers, as a means to end the main homelessness duty. It was introduced to respond to concerns that due to the short-term nature of assured shorthold tenancies, applicants who accepted a private rented sector offer may become homeless again within two years, and no longer have priority need.
The increased security of tenure and removal of section 21 evictions means that the re-application duty will no longer be relevant. The change will streamline the management of re-approaches and ensure that all applications will be treated according to their current circumstances at the point of approaching. There will no differential treatment between those placed in either private rented or social housing accommodation. The clause makes necessary and reasonable changes to the homelessness legislation as a consequence of the tenancy reform that we are introducing. I commend it to the Committee.
David Simmonds
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was the main vehicle for ensuring that the homelessness duty might be addressed through an offer in the private rented sector. That was a means of ensuring that people who are not able to immediately access the kind of accommodation they need through the local authority can instead secure it in the private sector, and it has, to an extent, been very successful.
I want to ask the Minister what consultations are being undertaken across the Government to ensure alignment between parts of Government that have different responsibilities and duties, particularly in respect of notices that might fall within the scope of this Bill. I am thinking, in particular, of young people leaving the care system, who may be accommodated under section 20 by the local authority because of their risk of homelessness. In addition, when asylum seekers are placed in accommodation by the Home Office, there is a move-on period; the Home Office-owned legislation may result in their needing to access accommodation, so they may fall within the scope of this Bill. What consultation is being undertaken to ensure that those notice periods are aligned? I have to acknowledge that that was an issue for the previous Government—particularly in respect of asylum seekers, for whom the homelessness duty set out a different period from the Home Office’s move-on period, so individuals found themselves falling between those periods and were therefore unable to access the support they needed to find accommodation through their local authority.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. I hope he will be satisfied with the following answer: extensive engagement has taken place between Departments in developing this Bill as it pertains to areas that cross departmental responsibilities. Again, given the extremely technical nature of his question—particularly in relation to asylum accommodation, which is not within my area of responsibility—I will come back to him in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Tenancy deposit requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 25 will maintain important deposit protections so that tenants can be confident that their money is being handled safely. Landlords will be required to comply with deposit protection rules before a court can make an order for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. That will apply only if the landlord has failed to store the deposit in one of the prescribed schemes or comply with the applicable rules.
The clause also makes consequential amendments to the Housing Act 2004 to ensure that deposit protection rules continue to apply in the future once assured shorthold tenancies are abolished. Deposits taken for existing assured shorthold tenancies will still need to be protected after the new system has come into force. Deposits taken for assured tenancies created after commencement will also need to be protected. This is an extremely straightforward and simple clause, and I look forward to the extremely technical question that the shadow Minister will put to me on it.
David Simmonds
The Minister will be delighted to know that I do not have a detailed, technical question to ask him on this clause, but I am sure that if he gives me some time, I will be able to come up with one.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 26 amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to ensure that its provisions remain applicable and relevant to the tenancy reforms in the Bill. In particular, it removes the provision that prevents a landlord from serving a section 21 notice where they are in receipt of a prohibited payment from a tenant. Removing that provision is necessary, given that section 21 notices will be abolished. There will remain strong enforcement mechanisms in the Tenant Fees Act, including offences for landlords who require payments from tenants that are prohibited under that Act. That will ensure that under the new system tenants will continue to be protected from unfair and prohibited payments that were previously outlawed.
Clause 27 amends council tax rules to clarify council tax liability once fixed-term assured tenancies are abolished. That will ensure that assured tenants remain liable for council tax until the end of their tenancy agreement. That will include where they have served notice to end the tenancy but leave the property before the notice period has ended. In that instance, the liability will not fall to the landlord until the tenancy has ended. I commend clauses 26 and 27 to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I would be grateful if the Minister shared the Government’s thinking on the interaction between this issue of liability for council tax and the legal duties on local authorities to collect it, where they have an obligation to ensure that, as part of the efficient delivery of public services, they maximise the level of council tax collected. I understand the purpose of what the Minister has just described. I would try to ensure that, in situations where there may be an end to the tenancy, we do not create a situation both where the liability is difficult to assign and there is potentially an issue of who needs to be pursued for that council tax. Clearly, it is important to ensure that local authorities with a separate set of legal obligations in that respect are fully sighted on what the impact of this may be, and on the performance of their duties.
Matthew Pennycook
To reassure the shadow Minister on the general matter, there has again been extensive engagement with local authorities on the development of this Bill. I think he referred to clause 27, and it is our view that tenants should obviously be responsible for council tax payments until the tenancy has formally ended. When a tenant serves notice, the tenancy does not end until the notice period has expired, even if the tenant leaves the property before then. This measure will not change anything for most tenants, but clarifies where they will be liable for council tax until the end of the notice period, including where they have served notice to end the tenancy but leave the property earlier. It simply ensures that council tax remains aligned with other household costs, such as rent and bills. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister, but if not, I am more than happy to pick it up at a future point or in writing.
David Simmonds
That goes a long way in providing the necessary assurance. It is necessary for there to be clarity, for example, where a contract includes not just the rent but council tax within a single payment to the landlord, who will then be paying the council tax on behalf of the tenant, as happens under some rental contracts. We do not want to create a situation where the local authority is pursuing a tenant for the council tax at that point, because the tenancy has ended and the tenant argues that they have already made that payment to the landlord and it has not been passed on. I simply wanted to ensure that, in the performance and function of the collection fund, which I know is high level and a very important part of the Department’s overall calculation of the level of local government finance, we are not at risk of creating any potential loopholes.