Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Pannick Excerpts(6 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I too am anxious to have a better explanation. To me, the Bill seems very unfair, as it introduces two classes of people, one of whom will be disadvantaged at the same time as others are advantaged. It is one step forward and another one or two steps back. I hope that the Minister will be able to give sufficiently strong reasons why this should not happen to make me content, but I am not holding my breath.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife is the landlord of a number of rented properties. My reason for rising is to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when she comes to reply, to clarify something that puzzles me about her Amendment 47. It says:
“The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include … a superior landlord’s personal opinion of … specific species”.
I ask her whether this means that the superior landlord would be prohibited from saying that he or she does not think it is reasonable or appropriate for the tenant to keep as pets rats, skunks or tigers.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I speak today in support of Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I declare my interest with regards to pets, as I own a share of a veterinary practice that cares for pets and I have my own dog. We welcome the Government’s support of a tenant’s right to request to keep pets. Although social housing is not the main focus of this Bill, surely it is fair and reasonable for all tenants to have the same rights to request to keep a pet, regardless of the type of landlord that they rent from, whether it is a private company or a social landlord. As I have said previously on this amendment, it also makes it fair to all landlords. Surely private landlords should not be the only landlords to have to accept pets in their property. I hope that the Minister can find a positive solution today to this issue and that all tenants have the opportunity to keep pets in their homes.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, brought forward Amendment 53A, because it is enabling us to have this very interesting debate. We are talking about the cost of pets, but actually you could transpose the words “children” or “elderly incontinent”, because those two groups equally have very difficult problems. They can damage carpets—if anyone has had children in a house, they will know that they can inflict an awful lot more damage than pets. Unfortunately, the elderly and the disabled can often be equally as damaging.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned that pets have fleas, which is very true. However, if you let your property to people who travel a lot, there is the risk that they might bring bedbugs back, which are much harder and more costly to get rid of than fleas.
Although I understand the reason for the noble Lord’s amendment, we do not support it. We think the Government have struck the right balance with their Amendment 49, which we will support.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 53A. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to deal with one point when he replies. There appears to be no requirement in the amendment that the landlord must be acting reasonably in demanding a deposit. It is easy to understand and entirely reasonable that the landlord may require a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep dogs, but it would not be reasonable to demand a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep a goldfish. It is easy to understand the idea that there is no harm done because the deposit will be returned at the end of the tenancy, but the requirement of the deposit may well inhibit the tenant from being able to have the goldfish and the companionship that it gives.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, once again I declare my interest, in that I am a landlord.
I support Amendment 53A most strongly, but I wonder if I might dwell on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Looking around this Chamber, I see that most of us travel a lot as part of our duties in this House if we live outside of London. I am sure my wife would be the first to complain if I brought bedbugs back to our family home.
Drawing on my experience as both a landlord and a managing agent, I know the cost of the Bill will be that the additional costs of damage, wear and tear, fluff, cleanliness, pest control and all those other little things—as enumerated most ably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—will, particularly in blocks of flats, be borne by those tenants who do not keep pets. I do not think that is right. Quite simply, keeping a pet is an add-on to a tenancy and the additional cost should be borne by those who bring the pets with them.
There are lots of examples of where things can go wrong and I will give an example, from my own lived experience, of a tenant who declared that he did not own any pets at all. In due course, he brought his two large dogs to the property, where he left them while he went to work. By and by, it became clear that my house was being used as a kennel. Not only were the neighbours disturbed by the barking all day and all night but, by the time the tenant had stopped paying rent and I had taken proceedings, £15,000-worth of damage had been caused. When he finally left, I discovered the most foul-smelling and revolting scene: one bedroom had been used as a doggy lavatory for weeks. It would have been even worse had the proposals to stop repossession action been extended from eight to 13 weeks.
This was a gross case, in every respect, although I was lucky to get an insurance claim because the sum of money was so large. But that is not what we are talking about generally in this Bill. We are not concerned about granny who may be infirm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, implied, chewing the table leg or eating the carpet. We are thinking of the middling bit, where it is above and beyond the three weeks. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard that the additional three weeks is not enough, but I accept that we have to fight the battles we can win. If that is as good as we can get, it is a proportionate compromise that I am prepared to accept.
Several noble Lords mentioned—and I agree—that if the pet does not cause any damage, the tenant gets the deposit back in full, with interest. I place on the record that in the statutory deposit protection schemes, interest is not normally paid. The deposit goes in and the costs of interest are retained by the deposit scheme, presumably to defray their costs of operating the system and its administration. I would not want those watching this outside the Chamber to think that we are now going to introduce the requirement to pay interest if the landlord does not accept that.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s ability to increase the deposit through the Tenant Fees Act 2019, but I think we should accept here and now—and Amendment 53 implies this—that there are additional costs and risks to keeping pets, and it is obvious that we should not necessarily wait. Let us have those provisions within the Tenant Fees Act 2019 introduced immediately, but proportionately, so the goldfish is not charged at the same rate as the Newfie—that would not be sensible—particularly in cases where there is furnished accommodation. Then we can have a good compromise that everybody can live with.
Finally, I do not want to repeat this at length, but I believe that if we can come to that arrangement, having that deposit benefits the tenant because at least they get it back, whereas in the case of buying an insurance policy—not that these policies exist, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—that would be an absolute cost because they would pay whether there was damage or not. I strongly support Amendment 53 and if the noble Earl is minded to test the opinion of the House, I will follow him through the Lobby.
Lord Pannick
(iii) the dwelling house has been demonstrably available for purchase on the open market at a fair price for not less than six months and the landlord has not had any suitable offers to purchase the dwelling house.(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(iii), the previous tenant or local authority retain the right for the courts to require evidence and to decide whether genuine attempts have been made to market and sell the property at a reasonable price and no offers at or above that price have been refused.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a 6, rather than a 12, month prohibition on renting out an unsold property to make it impossible for a landlord to benefit financially by falsely claiming to be selling a property in order to require a tenant to vacate. The amendment includes evidential safeguards to ensure sale attempts are genuine and to support greater availability of property for rent.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cromwell has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf, as he is unable to be here today. Amendment 58, tabled in his name, was debated last Tuesday.
I remind the House that the Bill says that, if a landlord asks a tenant to leave on the grounds that the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell, which happens in about one-third of cases, the landlord will then, in all such cases, be prohibited from renting out the property for another 12 months. Amendment 58 seeks to reduce that period to six months, which would mitigate what is an unjustifiably penal provision of the Bill, which damages both landlords and prospective tenants. With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Pannick Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my direct interest in the private rented sector, with cottage lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, together with farming and agricultural lettings. I am also a member of the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association, which have a direct interest in Amendment 63, on which I shall speak and for which I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who sadly is not able to be here today.
Before I turn to Amendment 63, I am also very pleased to be able to support Amendment 60 in the names of my noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I certainly will not repeat everything that has been said, but I shall make just one further point: it is relevant to note that Paragon, a bank that specialises in the private rented sector, commissioned a survey of landlords on the proposals in the Bill and the result was that 71% of landlords put the extended time, from two months to three months, as their top concern.
On Amendment 63, the Bill does not contain provisions to allow the repossession of a residential property if there is to be a change of usage. For example, if a landlord wanted to use the land for office space or commercial or retail usage, the amendment would allow them to seek possession of a dwelling house where it was intended that the use of that property, or the land on which it was situated, would be changed to non-residential and there was permission from the relevant authorities to do so. There are a number of Bills, reviews and reports in motion which cover farm diversification, which the Government are keen to encourage in the light of falling profitability in farming as subsidies are withdrawn or concentrated on environmental activities and concerns. Farmers are therefore looking carefully at their assets to see whether they can be put to more profitable usage. Obviously, this can involve the farmstead house and buildings rather than just stand-alone farm buildings. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is relevant in this context, together with the Rural England Prosperity Fund, which specifically targets facilities and building conversions that help rural businesses to diversify.
In addition, we have the land use framework and a farming road map to look forward to, and it has also been announced that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, will chair a report on profitability in farming and this will include diversification. This amendment assists in enabling this diversification, if the necessary planning permission has been granted. I am thoroughly aware that the Minister is keen not to reduce the housing stock. However, although it is possible that the proposed diversification will affect only agricultural buildings, there may be a more comprehensive development involving a farmhouse or other residential building, particularly if they are closely located to the diversification site. I therefore hope that the Minister will include this amendment as a sensible ground for possession, one which would assist in the development of the rural economy.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Cromwell’s Amendment 142. I declare an interest in that my wife owns rental properties. I agree with what the noble Lord says about the mischief of Clause 15. It is very easy to imagine circumstances in which the owner of a property decides, in good faith, to sell it and the tenant therefore has to leave. The landlord then places the property for sale on the market but finds that, for whatever reason, after four or six months they cannot sell it. Clause 15 would prevent the landlord for 12 months from again leasing out the property. It would do so however well-intentioned the conduct of the owner of the property and however reasonable the new tenancy agreement, and even if the new lease is to the same tenant as the old one, on the same terms, including as to rent.
I entirely understand the Government’s wish to prevent landlords from abusing their rights, but the breadth of this restriction is, to my mind, plainly disproportionate to the feared mischief. This is not only unfair on the landlord; it will inevitably have an adverse effect on the housing stock available for rental purposes.
I appreciate that Ministers have stated that this Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but it seems to me very doubtful indeed that this clause complies with Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention, on the right to property. The European Court of Human Rights and our domestic courts have explained that the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of property owners and those of the community in general. I cannot see how a blanket provision which penalises a landlord by preventing them from renting out their property, for a period of 12 months, however bona fide their conduct or however fair the terms of the lease, could possibly be said to respect a fair balance.
The mischief which the Government seek to prevent requires a more tailored response. I hope the Minister will be able to say, in response to the concerns that have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Cromwell and myself, that she will be prepared to meet with us to discuss ways of making this clause more proportionate by recognising an exception for landlords who have acted in good faith and responsibly.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 64 in my name is in regard to the family. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support for this amendment. The Bill allows a landlord to take possession of a property for a family reason. This is a small extension to the number of reasons for which a landlord could take possession of a property. That reason is that a property is to be used by a carer for a family member who requires full-time care.
The amendment clearly sets out that the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s family home and be used by the carer. The reason for the close proximity is so that the carer can attend not only on a daily basis but, more importantly, be available to attend in emergencies, quickly and efficiently. These can be on a regular occurrence in some cases. The types of properties that I have in mind are: annexes on homes; a flat in a block of flats where the landlord’s primary residence is located; properties in less urban areas, such as rural villages, hamlets and remote farms; and small property clusters where properties are in short supply.
I appreciate that tenants would be forced to leave a property, but this amendment does not seem to shorten the four months’ notice period. The Bill allows some landlords the opportunity to gain possession for an employee or a worker for agricultural purposes under ground 5A in Schedule 1. I have assumed that the reason why this exemption has been included is that agricultural workers need a property close to their place of work due to the nature of the work, and at all times of day. The need of a carer is similar to that of the agricultural worker: they need to be close to the patient and could be on call and work unsociable hours.
Most landlords’ and tenants’ relations are generally good, and most likely, the landlord would make the tenant aware that the tenancy could be terminated if a property needs to be for a carer. To leave a property is an unsettling upheaval for a tenant and their family, but they would be given four months’ notice. If there is good communication between parties, everybody lives in the knowledge that this could be a possible outcome and plan accordingly.
Financially, if you own an appropriate property, this is the most practical way a landlord or their family can provide the most cost-effective accommodation for a long-term carer, and when the family is facing a high demand on its finances. Only a limited number of landlords will use this possession right, but if needed, it would be welcomed by the family, as it would give flexibility in times of sadness and when time requires the need for it.
I thank the Minister for her engagement on the Bill and for our short discussion on the amendment. I note the Minister’s suggestions that alternatives could be found to house a carer, but my response is that to find a property in the correct location and which is suitable for a carer would be extremely difficult in this current high-demand rental marketplace.
The second suggestion was that the tenant has the right to a secure home. The other side of that debate would be: would it not be a reasonable case that the landlord has a right to gain possession of their own assets for the benefit of their well-being or a family member’s own caring needs?
Properties are owned for many purposes: in some cases, for financial reasons, like investments, and to provide regular income or pension funds. It may be available to rent during a job relocation or as a future residence in a desired location. All these landlords who own such properties could gain possession under the Bill when needed. However, if the property owner who may wish to use a property for a legitimate family reason, to care for a family member, cannot gain access to the property at the time of need, then this amendment seeks to rectify this.
In summing up the group beginning Amendment 10 in Tuesday’s Committee, the Minister said that those amendments did not meet
“the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 615.]
I believe that a long-term carer of somebody crosses that bar to enable possession for a family.