Renters (Reform) Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I see the impacts of the lack of regulation in the private rented sector in my constituency every single week. In Dulwich and West Norwood, rents have been spiralling for many years, and all too often the quality of accommodation falls way below what any tenant should be able to expect.

I have in my constituency a landlord who owns 90 homes in a development called Dorchester Court. The landlord is on the Sunday Times rich list. Their properties are in an absolutely dire state. Wooden props support the window frames. Plastic sheeting acts as an ineffective shield against moisture penetrating the walls. The heating is unreliable in the winter. The water pipes are made from lead, which contaminates the water supply to a level that is not safe for human health. The council has been trying for a number of years to take enforcement action against this landlord, but it has been waiting many months for a court date. In the meantime, the same landlord has used section 21 eviction notices—in a way that, in my experience, is entirely common—simply to ratchet up rents. Tenants are served with a section 21 notice terminating the tenancy, alongside an offer of a new tenancy at a higher level—often a significantly higher level—of rent. If any Member doubts the need for additional regulation of the private rented sector, they should visit Dorchester Court in my constituency, and, in five minutes, they will see how the regulatory framework is failing tenants across the country.

Section 8 allows for landlords to get their property back when they have a legitimate reason to do so. Section 21 is a pernicious, destabilising force in the housing rental market and there is no place for it. The consequences of section 21 are more than simply contractual. They are found in poor mental health and anxiety, in increasing homelessness and financial hardship, in children living in accommodation that no child should have to live in, and in children having to worry about the anxiety that their parents are experiencing because of the possibility of losing their home at any time. It is very disappointing that the Government are delaying the ban on section 21 evictions by allowing a loophole in this legislation. I sincerely hope that, in Committee, they will reconsider their position.

I turn now to an amendment to the Bill that I plan to table. Earlier this year, my constituents lost their son, a first year university student, to suicide—a devastating loss for any parent to bear. Their son had signed a tenancy for his second-year accommodation and his parents had signed a guarantor agreement. After their son’s death, they discovered that the guarantor agreement applied even in the event of his death, and the letting agent began pursuing them for the rent. It was rent for a tenancy that had not yet started and a tenancy that he would never take up. This is a shockingly punitive act against parents who were already suffering the worst possible loss.

In extensive correspondence with the letting agent on my constituents’ behalf, it refused to budge, simply stating that the rent was a contractual obligation and, although it was unfortunate, my constituents were bound to its terms. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the issues raised by this case. She has explained that the Bill will enable any tenant to terminate a tenancy with two months’ notice, but two months’ rent is a financial penalty that no bereaved guarantor should have to pay. This type of clause is not in every guarantor agreement, and it is not necessary. Insurance policies can cover loss of rent in the event of the death of a tenant. I ask the Government to reconsider their position and, in Committee, to accept my amendment, which would straightforwardly outlaw the pursuit of guarantors for rent owed by a deceased tenant and stop any other family having to suffer this egregious additional pain, anxiety and hardship at a time of great sadness and vulnerability.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 40, which stands in my name, but before I do so I will say a little about the Bill more generally.

Legislative reform of private renting is urgently needed. My constituency is in the eye of the storm of the housing crisis, and every year since 2010 the situation has worsened. The waiting list for a genuinely affordable social home has become longer, the number of people living in temporary accommodation has become higher, and private sector rents have continued to spiral. Despite many promises, the Government have delayed action for far too long. Private renters, housing campaigners, charities and Members from across this House are united in their support for bold reform of private renting. But now, after years of delay, we see a Government unable to deliver the effective and urgently needed reforms that were promised, because they are too weak to face down their own Back Benchers.

At the heart of the matter is the urgent need for an end to section 21 evictions, which I have been calling for since the debates on the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Section 21 is the basis of insecurity in private renting, because it gives landlords the ability to evict tenants for no reason at all. Time and again, I have seen in my constituency how section 21 is used egregiously to ratchet up rents and to stop tenants complaining about basic repairs or safety issues, such as damp and mould. Because a section 21 eviction does not need to be justified with a reason, all the power is in the hands of the landlord. Tenants live with the daily threat that they will be told to leave their home, with all that that entails, such as having to find a new home as rent costs continue to rise.

In a housing crisis characterised by an acute shortage of genuinely affordable social housing, private renting is a form of tenure on which millions of people rely. They must have a degree of security so that they can put down roots, know that their children will be able to remain at the local school, and live without insecurity and the constant fear that they may have to move. Section 21 is destabilising for families and communities. It is therefore beyond disappointing that the Bill will not result in an immediate end to section 21, and that the Secretary of State cannot give a date for when it will end.

The reason for the delay is the shocking mess that the Government have made of the court system. My constituents, who used to be able to attend Lambeth county court, now have to travel to Shoreditch, because the court was closed in 2017. When we challenged the closure of Lambeth county court on the grounds that it would involve a much more complicated and costly journey for constituents facing eviction who wished to attend court, we were promised digital reforms of the court service. We were promised investment in infrastructure to make hearings accessible to anybody who had to attend court, and to ease the complexity of the distance and journey time being increased, but no such investment has been forthcoming. Legal aid lawyers in my constituency who work in the courts speak of the chaos, the crumbling infrastructure and the overburdening workload falling on staff, yet this is the excuse today for why section 21 evictions cannot be brought to an end.

New clause 40, which I tabled, arises from a tragedy that happened to a family in my constituency. Their son, a first-year university student, had signed a tenancy agreement on a house for his second year. In common with parents of university students across the country, his parents were the guarantors for his tenancy, but before their son had finished his first year at university and the tenancy had even started, he tragically died by suicide. Faced with one of the most terrible tragedies that any of us can imagine, these bereaved parents were then pursued by their late son’s letting agent for the rent he would have owed on a tenancy that he would never take up. I wrote to the letting agency several times on behalf of my constituents, but it refused to budge. It maintained that a contract was a contract and that my constituents were liable as the guarantors, so they would just have to pay. Surely we in this House can agree that a contractual provision that financially penalises bereaved parents for the suicide of their child is straightforwardly wrong.

After I raised that case during Prime Minister’s questions, I was contacted by a number of families who had signed guarantor agreements on similar contracts, but also by a number of landlords and letting agents who said that they did not use such clauses in their tenancy and guarantor agreements. This demonstrates that such clauses are simply not necessary. Loss of rental income due to the death of a tenant is an insurable risk for landlords, and it should be a matter for insurance, not for bereaved guarantors.

I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss new clause 40, but I am baffled by the Government’s response, which is to suggest limiting the obligations of a bereaved guarantor to two months, including during the proposed six-month minimum commitment at the start of a new tenancy. While two months’ rent is clearly preferable to six months or a year’s worth of rent, it is still quite literally a financial penalty for the death of a loved one. Bereavement is one of the hardest things anyone can experience, and the Government should use the powers at their disposal to provide comfort, security and peace of mind to the bereaved so that they can focus on grieving the loss of their loved one. It is simply not fair for bereaved guarantors to be charged for the rent that their loved one is no longer alive to pay, and it is not necessary because the loss of rental income due to the death of a tenant is an insurable risk.

New clause 40 would bring this practice to an end and give peace of mind to guarantors that, should the unthinkable happen, they will not have to find hundreds or even thousands of pounds as they grieve. The Minister has said that he will continue to reflect on this issue. I urge him to do the right thing and to accept new clause 40 into the Bill. It is a simple measure that would prevent anyone else from experiencing the additional distress that my constituents suffered when their son passed away. This new clause has not been selected for a separate decision today, but I will continue to pursue this reform. It is the right thing to do. I urge the Government to look again at this issue. It is a reform that would cost the Government nothing, but it would give peace of mind to anybody facing bereavement, as my constituents have had to do, that egregious landlords and letting agencies will not come after them for a cost that they may not be able to afford at a time when they need help, support and comfort, not additional financial penalties.