Renters (Reform) Bill (First sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before I forget, let me ask members of the Committee whether they have any interests to declare. I am not sure whether the Chairman has to do so, but I own two buy-to-lets, not that that particularly matters.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I declare an interest in that I receive support, in particular as set out in my entry under category 2(a) on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, from individuals with an interest in this area.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I am a joint owner of a property that is let out for residential rent.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So the property portal should be accessible for you to see that detail of it—potentially in public generally, or for the potential tenant?

Fiona Rutherford: Importantly for the tenant. It is there that transparency matters the most. I think that there are possibly bigger issues with making it fully public.

Professor Hodges: One of the points about the portal is that it is a very effective self-regulatory—or indeed managerial—system, because it says, “Have you got an insurance certificate? Have you got a fire certificate? Well, upload it.” It is done, and then you get a reminder saying, “You’ve got to do the next one.” Everyone should be able to see that. There is nothing secret about that information, but it delivers a baseline of regulatory compliance—“Are you compliant with the decent homes standard? Where’s your certificate?” or whatever. It is self-policing, and provides a very simple mechanism for doing that.

Just to give one dramatic example of sanctions, the Civil Aviation Authority never fines airlines in relation to safety issues—although it fines them now and again. It has an incredibly good culture among all the players—air traffic control, the airlines, engineers, and so on—and has constructed that deliberately, and it is the only reason why planes stay in the sky and we have confidence in them. It never fines anyone, but it uses the ultimate sanction—rarely—that I was talking about of saying, “I’m going to stop you operating your aircraft or your airport.” That concentrates the mind and gets the result of them saying, “Okay, we’ve fixed it,” very quickly.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Q Elaborating on that point, would you do that based on a landlord or based on the property itself? Would there not be a danger of evasion through the property group being put in someone else’s name, or using a different landlord, to escape that enforcement?

Professor Hodges: Personally, I am in favour of the broadest possible enforcement powers, but not necessarily their regular use. Therefore, whoever is involved in management and responsibility should be within scope of the discussion, and then of the potential response or intervention.

[Dr Spencer]

Q I am just thinking that in terms of the aviation sector, which you gave the example of, it is very difficult to evade that—but I wonder whether in practice, with what you are describing, that would be easy to get around.

Professor Hodges: Well, whoever owns, or shadow-owns, a building, if you stop people letting the building, that will have an effect on anyone, will it not?

[Dr Spencer]

Q Then you have a different problem: if you sanction by property, the property essentially gets blacklisted. How do you switch that if it genuinely does change ownership?

Professor Hodges: You would have other powers against beneficial owners by saying, “You’ve done this several times; you’re out,” or, “Do it right otherwise you’re out.” That is a regulatory power.

[Dr Spencer]

Q Then you would need a separate database of people who are registered landlords.

Professor Hodges: Not necessarily. I think one database is enough, frankly. You should be able to capture all the data about, “Who owns this?” We have been talking about foreign-owned companies and things in other contexts, and there are techniques for identifying them.

Fiona Rutherford: I am going to make a point in relation to enforcement that I referenced earlier. Local authorities have been brought into this as we are talking about the widest panoply of options that might be available. I am going back to the penalties that I referenced earlier, so forgive me—I am moving out of the ombudsman perspective and the regulatory questions—but this is possibly related to enforcement. While there is a plan with the penalties as and when section 21 can be moved forward, and while the local authorities get a benefit from those penalties, a rate of £5,000 probably does not go far enough to act as any kind of incentive, in so far as you want enforcement to work in that way. Of course, there are other examples: £30,000 is the maximum financial penalty for a breach of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022.

The other thing to say about local authorities is that while they benefit from the financial gain of any fixed penalties as a result of section 21 breaches, there is a real problem with local authorities’ resourcing. I am probably not saying anything that is particularly new to the Committee, but we are asking local authorities to do something more: it is not only enforcing section 21, but the other obligations to investigate antisocial behaviour appropriately. I again reference a report on behavioural control orders that we have looked into and the poor quality of data and understanding around antisocial behaviour. This means that the resources required are quite simply not going to be delivered through the proposed fixed penalties. We very much urge serious consideration around proper resourcing in a wider sense, but specifically in relation to antisocial behaviour and the section 21 enforcement regime.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Briefly on the breaches and penalties, how extensively do you think rent repayment orders should run through the Bill as a back-up? I am talking about the clause 9 and 10 breaches and the ombudsman portal registration breaches. Do you think we should have a much wider inclusion of rent repayment orders—probably as a final resort; we do not want to throw all the onus on tenants—as another deterrent?

Professor Hodges: Following the principle that the pathway and the process should be as simple as possible, we should not have a system in which people have to go to different institutions—a judge, an ombudsman, a regulator or a local authority—to get everything fixed if that can be done in one place at one time. The logic of that takes you towards giving power to the ombudsman, the judge and the regulator to issue rent orders at the end of a case. Why should anyone have to start again and go somewhere else to get that result? They should say, “Okay, on the proposition, the landlord was wrong—badly wrong, probably—in this particular circumstance. Fix it and we will come and make sure you’ve done all this stuff. The right result is to repay the rent.” Give them the power to do that and to be holistic.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Third sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I am the joint owner of a property that is let out.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

May I take your advice, Ms Fovargue? My understanding was that we only have to make our main declarations at our first meeting. Do we have to reiterate them each time?

[The Chair]

You will have to reiterate them each time.

[Dr Spencer]

In that case, I declare an interest: I receive support, in particular as set out in my entry under category 2(a) on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, from individuals with an interest in this area.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I am a vice-president of the LGA and I let out a property.

Examination of Witness

Judicaelle Hammond gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

Q I have a quick question about insurance, which you touched on briefly. Who should pick up the tab: the landlords or the tenants? Should there be something on that in the Bill?

Jen Berezai: I think it is good that there is the option for either. We ran a survey with the NRLA and Propertymark called “What’s the Damage?” because we wanted to drill down a bit deeper into the landlord’s experience. Those who saw insurance as the way forward were pretty evenly split between the landlord paying for the insurance, or the tenant paying the landlord, or the tenant actually buying the insurance policy. That seems to be determined by portfolio size and, to a degree, average rent. I think it is good that there is the balance, because some landlords want one thing and some want the other.

At the moment, if you find a pet-friendly landlord, the likelihood is that they are going to charge you pet rent, which they can do under the terms of the Tenant Fees Act; it is only the deposit that is capped. The average is about £25 per pet per month, which means that you are paying £300 extra rent per pet per year. That is just per pet, whereas an insurance policy covers an address, so you can have a cat and a dog or a couple of cats—whatever it might be—and your premium is less than pet rent and the cover is greater.

[Dr Spencer]

Q I am also a massive cat lover—thank you for the work that you and Cats Protection have been doing in this area. It strikes me that some of this is about landlord attitudes. Are there any other ways in which the Government could reassure landlords with regard to taking on tenants who have pets? Could there be guidance on the interpretation of the reasonableness clause? What are the other ways and mechanisms we can use to help landlords not to be so afraid to take on tenants with pets?

Jen Berezai: One thing that needs looking at is the current “yes pets” or “no pets” option. If you go on any of the search portals, those are the only options you get. There is no option for “pets considered”, but there needs to be because each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

As far as encouraging landlords goes, it is a bit utopian, but there could be some sort of incentive for a landlord not to discriminate against a pet-owning tenant. At the moment, if a landlord has 11, 15 or 20 applications for a property, they can choose the course of least resistance, take the easy option and ignore the pets. There could be some way of incentivising that, but I do not know what that might be or what might be realistic. I think it is more of an education exercise.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Members, I thank our witness for coming to give evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mr Mohindra.)

Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I support amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144, which would require evidence to be given when using grounds 1 and 1A. While that is important, I again think—I always live in hope—that some clarity from the Minister about the courts being required to obtain at least the first part of that evidence could achieve this without that necessarily being written in the Bill. I believe that the second part would need some legislative clarity, which is why the amendment is useful.

However, let us be clear: it is a crime to knowingly make a false statement to the court. We need to make it clear to landlords that that crime will be followed up. It can only be followed up if we then determine that the property was not then taken into possession and that there was no malicious element to it—there can be other reasons, of course. Without that element of enforcement, and therefore knowing what has happened in a number of months’ time, that will never happen. This could quite easily be implemented through the property portal sending automatic messages to the court, which would not overburden our court process. I again ask for some clarity from the Minister that this is how the property portal and court reform is intended to work. That would probably alleviate some of these issues.

I have tabled a number of other amendments in this group, which I would also like to speak to. The first one would provide for the six-month protection to be renewed on the basis of rent renewals. At the moment, a lot of assured shorthold tenancies—not all of them, Mr Gray, I grant you, but probably the majority of them—have rent renewal clauses, such that that when the rent is increased, there is a new tenancy. The landlord will say, “I’m increasing your rent. Please sign the new tenancy for the year ahead.” Every year, the landlord says, “Well, you’re moving on to the periodic. I would quite like you to sign the new tenancy with the new rent.” That is what happens for most of my constituents who are in the most precarious part of the market, which we are trying to address. That gives them six months’ protection every year, on an ongoing basis, every time their rent is increased.

I know that the National Residential Landlords Association has described this idea as bonkers, but I think that is because it does not quite understand what I am trying to get at here, which is to retain what we already have currently. Although it seems that the Bill is increasing the protection of tenants—and the security of landlords, by knowing that the tenant will be there for a period—the danger is that it will reduce it because, de facto, most tenants currently have six months protection in every 12. The proposed change would provide six months’ protection over an indefinite period, which is clearly far less. Six divided by infinity is an impossible mathematical equation, but it is clearly less than six months divided by 12.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is zero.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Quite right: zero protection—well, it is mathematically zero, but I think we all know that six months’ protection is a bit more than that—so there needs to be something.

When a landlord comes along on that annual date, the landlord might say, “I don’t want to make any changes. I don’t want to increase the rent.” Then, to some extent, the question is: why should any further protection be afforded? But if the landlord comes along and says, “I want to increase your rent,” and the tenant agrees that they are going to increase the rent—it does not go to a tribunal; it is all agreed—it seems quite reasonable to ensure protection on both sides, for example to provide for a new six-month protection period, just as happens at the moment.

That is why I have tabled these amendments, because I do not think it is in anyone’s interest for tenants suddenly to be leaving. Although the six-month protection does not prevent tenants from leaving, it does produce a mindset that the tenancy is now at least fixed for six months, based on what the landlord is offering and the higher amount that the tenant is now offering to pay. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I would love to see the Government accept the principle of it. If not—of course, I am not foolish, but there is always wishful thinking—it would be useful to hear an indication from the Government of which measures they think might be put in place to ensure that rolling protection.

The other amendment that I wish to speak to concerns the ability for a tenant to be offered the property before it is for sale. If it is a genuine sale, on the open market—the amendments would require a solicitor’s letter or an estate agent’s letter; I think that is reasonable and fair enough—no landlord would have any problem with making this offer for a short period. In my experience of selling houses, it takes more than four weeks between interest and getting it on the market anyway. I am talking about the landlord offering it to the tenant at the rate at which they are going to initially list it on the market. The landlord might reduce what it is on the market for later, because of market factors. I am not saying that that needs to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the initial listing should be offered to the tenant—a right of first refusal—in those four weeks. Again, I do not think this is unreasonable. Of course, in the majority of cases, the tenant will not be in a position to buy; but if, in a small number of cases, we can prevent turmoil and give the landlord a quick sale, it is in everyone’s interest to do so.

Again, I am not delusional and do not think that the Minister will accept this proposal, but I hope that the Minister might indicate how he will be encouraging, through court papers, potentially, and court reform, all those questions to be asked, just as we saw during covid, when court papers required the landlord to ask whether the tenant had been affected by covid. That was not a Bill change—a law change—but it was in the court papers. I am talking about how the question could be asked in court papers. There does not necessarily need to be a change in the discretionary grounds, but the very fact of asking the question could change the mindsets of landlords and, I think, is important.

Finally, under amendments 204 and 203, which I have also tabled, no rent would be required for two months—