Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion A agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, before we turn to Motion B, I remind your Lordships that, during a Division in particular, I need a clear sight of the clerk at all times. It is therefore strictly forbidden for any Peer to move between the Table and me so that I cannot see the clerk.

Motion B

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will address Amendment 18, Motion C1 in place of Motion C. To recap very briefly on the substance of the amendment, the Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property fails to sell.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me for interrupting, but we were on Motion B and I was under the impression that the noble Lord wanted to speak on Motion B, but it appears that he has gone to Motion C. Am I correct?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My mistake, I will sit down and restart later.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Oh, they are in the same group. It is not my afternoon, is it? Pray continue.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

We could set this to music if the noble Baroness wishes. Where did I get to? I will not start again, the House has been too patient, but I will start halfway through.

The Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell. They are not allowed to re-let it for 12 months. The property must stand empty and unrented for that 12 months. The amendment does not quibble with that punitive intention of the Bill. It accepts that, in order to prevent a few bad landlords trying to abuse the system, all property, belonging to all landlords, that fails to sell will stand empty and be impossible to live in for anyone seeking rental accommodation. The amendment simply sets that punitive period at six months and requires the landlord to furnish proof to a court of a genuine and reasonable, including reasonable pricing, attempt to sell the property during that time.

The House of Commons debate on this amendment acknowledged that the landlord being hit with 12 months of no income, along with the costs of their property standing empty for a year, is a problem. However, this was considered to be “relatively minor” and simply an

“inconvenience … to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell”.

It was claimed that it is “far too easy” for

“any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict”

to abuse the proposed period of six months, and that

“landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; cols. 651, 646, 652.]

I am sorry to say that no facts were presented, quantified or examined, and no evidence was provided, just these dismissive anti-landlord assertions.