Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We will use the best available evidence to ensure that the relative needs and resources of councils up and down the country are properly taken into account to reflect a number of the important points that my hon. Friend and others have made. We are working closely with representatives across local government to do that.

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

Lambeth Council and Southwark Council have lost £6 in every £10 of Government grant they had to spend in 2010, yet across London the population is rising faster, levels of deprivation are greater, and the cost of delivering services is higher than anywhere else in the country. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the fair funding review will restore funding to London councils and not result in further cuts?

[James Brokenshire]

We will certainly look at the available evidence on how the relative review of resources is affected throughout the country, and we will take account of evidence from London councils and others. Equally, I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise the announcement in the Budget of additional funding for things like social care. An extra £650 million will go around to councils to help to make that difference.

Private Rented Sector

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Betts]

We made a number of recommendations in our report and—my hon. Friend is right—that was one of them. We recognised that the Government had made some changes to the rules on selective licensing, in line with the recommendation on widening the criteria used to bring about selective licensing schemes in the Committee’s previous report back in 2013. They are also changing the legislation about the definition of properties included in licensing for housing in multiple occupation, which we welcome.

Nevertheless, in essence, our recommendation is that licensing ought to be a local matter, depending on local circumstances. It should be a local decision, subject to the Secretary of State’s intervention only when councils have not followed the proper procedures. As I understand it, the Government are now reviewing selective licensing. One of my questions will be about the state of that review and when it is likely to report.

In our report, we tried to focus on those landlords who are not doing the job that we would expect them to do. To divide landlords up, there are the bad ones, who are not good at getting around to doing things in a timely way—they are inefficient, or incompetent to some extent, and are sometimes accidental landlords. There are then the so-called rogue landlords, who have more systematic failings, leaving a large number of properties in an unacceptable condition. Then there are the really hardcore landlords—we ought to call them criminals, because that is what they are. The criminal landlords run a business to exploit vulnerable tenants in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. They are robbing not merely the tenants but the taxpayer, because they are getting money in and yet not providing homes that are fit to live in. We tried to concentrate on how to deal with those landlords, but our report also recognised actions the Government have taken in a number of respects. Quite reasonably, we highlighted actions that they have taken in response to our previous report on the private rented sector. We are pleased with that as a Committee.

Right at the beginning of the report, we refer to the imbalance of power between tenants and landlords, and to how that needs addressing. However, I will not go through all our recommendations. Instead, I will focus on where the Government have said they will do something—whether that is to consult, review or consider in some way—and ask the Minister where that has got to and what we can expect.

On the Deregulation Act 2015, we call for a review of the retaliatory eviction legislation and guidance on how it has worked. The Government did not seem totally enthusiastic about that at first, but they have now said that they will review the Act, looking at its effectiveness in terms of retaliatory eviction and perhaps at bringing in more formal requirements to have longer-term tenancies. The Government have gone a bit quiet on that since their announcement, so where is that review up to, and when can we expect some announcement?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I put on record my apologies because I am unable to stay for the duration of the debate—I am hosting an event elsewhere in this place about a related matter, which is housing rent arrears arising from universal credit.

On retaliatory evictions, the Committee recommended reform of section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. There is a growing body of evidence that section 21 should be not only reformed but abolished. In response to our report, the Government stated that, on the one hand, they recognised

“the concerns of the Committee around retaliatory eviction”,

but, on the other hand, that they did not accept our recommendation that section 21 needs to be reformed. They said:

“We believe the current legislation strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants and we have no plans to change the legislation in this way.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that, without meaningful action on section 21, those are simply empty words from the Government?

[Mr Betts]

I hope that the Minister will come back on that, because we made a clear recommendation, and it would be helpful to have her response to it. The two things go together. Our report called not for the abolition of section 21, but merely for it to be looked at again. The same is true of retaliatory evictions. The Government are looking at one thing, so will they indicate that they might be prepared to look at the other as well, as part of a joint review?

We also called for a specialist housing court. We are pleased that the Government have now announced a call for evidence on the setting up of such a court. Will the Minister explain what will be covered and the likely terms of a housing court’s jurisdiction? Will it cover section 21 notices or retaliatory eviction? Will it cover tenancy fees, which we have recently had legislation on? Will it cover the issues arising from the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)? Will it go so far as to look at the whole matter of leasehold, which we are discussing in another inquiry? Will the Minister explain precisely what it will cover, or whether the Government have ruled on what it will not cover? It would be helpful to have such information.

The first of two other issues we asked to be looked at was that of five-year electrical safety checks. We are pleased that the Government have announced support for that in principle, but when will we get a clear announcement and action on it? In terms of having carbon monoxide alarms not only in every room with a coal fire but every room with a gas fire, I understand that a working group inside the Department is looking at that. Where has that got to? Every day of delay might lead people to lose their life because of carbon monoxide poisoning, which is easy to stop with a very simple measure. Will the Minister give us information about that as well?

We looked at enforcement and local authority powers. That is clearly important, and we questioned the housing health and safety rating system, as we have done before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

That came up in the Tenant Fees Bill, and the Committee recommended a compromise of five weeks. The Government did not accept it, but we support that recommendation, so as Chair of the Committee I cannot completely agree with my hon. Friend. If I remember correctly, the Government have held a consultation on alternatives to deposits, which is a helpful response to one of our recommendations.

We all agree that we must be as tough as we can be, and tougher still, on bad landlords. I hope the Minister will revisit our recommendation. The really bad, criminal landlords may be banned and have management orders against them, but in the end some of them will find ways around that because it is really profitable for them to do so. They have broken the law once, so they will carry on by ignoring banning orders if they can. Why do we not take the properties off them? Why have the Government resisted that recommendation? The proceeds of crime operate in other spheres. Let us get tough on the bad landlords.

[Helen Hayes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Betts]

My peroration was just about finished, but I will let it be interrupted.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend. Allow me to add a small example to the point he makes so powerfully. My constituents were evicted from their private rented property after they complained because the bathroom ceiling collapsed over the bath 10 minutes after they had finished bathing their children. I hope the Minister agrees that, in those circumstances, it is not too much of a sanction to confiscate the property from such criminals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend has met me and others to discuss the cost of delivering services in rural areas, particularly in Leicestershire. His local county council has been a vocal proponent of a new fair funding formula, and I am pleased to tell him that we are engaged with his council and others to take into account those concerns, and we will shortly be issuing the latest round of consultation on those proposals.

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

When one of the councils serving my constituency still faces £43 million of cuts over the next four years—more than the combined total it currently spends on recycling, parks, libraries, children’s centres, roads and pavements, and community safety—does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that austerity is over, or does he share the incredulity of so many of my constituents who wonder how she could possibly be so out of touch?

[Rishi Sunak]

This Government believe in backing local authorities to build strong communities. The hon. Lady mentioned parks and roads. Perhaps she heard in the Budget about £420 million for our councils to fix potholes this winter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced another round of our hugely successful pocket parks programme, and I encourage her local authority to bid as well.

Budget Resolutions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

This is a Government fiddling around the edges when comprehensive reform is needed, and announcing figures with a flourish in the hope that no one will notice that the sums are inadequate.

When the Chancellor spoke of the end of austerity, my constituents across Dulwich and West Norwood wondered what he was talking about. Lambeth Council, one of the councils serving my constituency, has already lost six in every 10 of the pounds it had to spend in Government grant in 2010, but it faces a further £43 million of cuts over the next four years, which is more than it currently spends on recycling, parks, libraries, children’s centres, roads, pavements and community safety combined. Further cuts can come only from services that are already stretched to the limit. When the Chancellor and the Prime Minister speak of ending austerity but make no pledge to reverse the cuts to local government funding, it should not come as a surprise that councillors across the country of all parties, including thousands of Conservative councillors, react with total incredulity and disbelief. The Government have outsourced austerity to local government in an utterly shameful way.

Adult social care services across the country are at breaking point. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has seen evidence of care home and home care providers handing back contracts to councils that they cannot afford to run, and we know that 1.4 million vulnerable people who are in need of care are not receiving any care at all. A lack of social care capacity continues to present huge challenges for the NHS, both in terms of acute hospital admissions and delayed discharge, and to create misery for countless families who are battling to secure the care that their vulnerable loved ones need. Into this system the Government have announced the injection of some short-term funding to address winter pressures, but there is no short-term fix for care homes that have closed. Dealing with that requires months of planning, refurbishment, recruitment and training, which can be delivered only if there is long-term certainty about funding.

The funding for 2019-20 announced this week in the Budget also falls far short of the £2.6 billion that is widely accepted as the funding injection required just meet current social care needs, and more funding is required to plan for and meet the expanding care needs of our ageing population. Social care funding needs comprehensive reform if we are to create a system that can look after everyone who needs care with the dignity and compassion that any of us would expect for our loved ones. It is testament to a Government mired in internal division and thinking only of how to avoid short-term defeats that they are not up to the challenge of reforming social care and can only find inadequate, piecemeal, short-term sticking plasters.

Children’s services in many local authorities are struggling to fulfil their statutory obligations, still less to proactively support families who may be at risk. There is a crisis of recruitment and retention in children’s social work because of the risks involved in working in a system that is stretched to the limit. Yet the Chancellor’s Budget speech did not even mention this vital frontline service. Schools in my constituency are making extraordinarily difficult decisions to cut teaching assistant and teacher posts in order to make inadequate levels of special educational needs and disabilities funding stretch further, and to sustain extra-curricular activities. School staff are going above and beyond every day to sustain the quality of our local schools. On the Friday before half-term, I and many other parents at my youngest daughter’s school were in tears as we said goodbye to a deputy headteacher with more than 20 years’ service who had taken voluntary redundancy because the school could no longer afford her post. When the cuts are striking at the heart of school communities in this way, the Chancellor’s announcement of a pitiful amount of funding for “little extras” is simply insulting.

Last Friday, I joined a police response team in Southwark on their late shift. We spoke of the huge challenges of increased knife and gun crime and gang violence, moped and cycle-enabled robberies, which particularly affect secondary-age children, and increased burglary. Last night there was a double shooting in my constituency. Members of the team told me how their job is being made harder by cuts in police numbers; by the closure of our local magistrates and youth court, which means that they have to travel much further to attend court to give evidence; and by the larger numbers of people in mental health crisis for whom they end up being the first port of call. Yet the Chancellor announced not a penny of extra funding for neighbourhood policing or for the criminal justice system.

Overshadowing the whole Budget is Brexit, which will create chaos for our economy, cause many businesses to grind to a halt, and drastically shrink the tax receipts that we need to fund our public services. This Budget is a cynical attempt to create positive headlines in the midst of Brexit gloom. My constituents see austerity as it is, because they are living with its consequences every single day. Saying it is over does not make it so. That will require comprehensive reform, and a commitment to empower local government and fund public services that can be delivered only by a Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s point and I will certainly look into these matters. I could write to her with some of the details, if that would be helpful.

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

In the last year, just 12% of homes delivered by housing associations—the very organisations set up to deliver affordable homes—were built for social rent. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the social housing Green Paper will acknowledge that the combination of viability assessments and a completely broken definition of affordability is letting down communities across the country that desperately need new social homes to rent?

[James Brokenshire]

I do expect the social housing Green Paper to be wide-ranging and to deal not simply with issues of supply, but with issues of stigma for those living in social housing; I expect it to confront that very firmly. I remind the hon. Lady that we have delivered more council housing than in 13 years of a Labour Government, and we are committed to all forms of tenure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I certainly recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns. In fact, we will shortly be consulting on the barriers to longer-term tenancies to inform our work and assess what further ways landlords can be supported to offer more secure tenancies.

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

The legal framework and guidance governing the relationship between lodgers and landlords has not been updated since 2006, pre-dating the growth in online lettings platforms and the affordability crisis, which has led many more people to become both landlords and lodgers. In this relationship, both parties can find themselves vulnerable. The current framework of protection is not fit for purpose. Will the Government take action to bring the framework that governs the relationship between landlords and lodgers up to date?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We keep these matters and the regime under constant review. If she would like to write to me on the specific things that she takes issue with, we will of course look at them.

Tenant Fees Bill (Fourth sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Melanie Onn]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which goes to the heart of this. There is no point in doing this if the legislation is not enforced or does not do what the Minister intends—namely, rebalance the relationship of power between tenants and landlords. Enforcement is key, because if rogue landlords do not fear that the fine or the potential banning order will reach them, why would they bother to worry about whether they are operating within the legislation?

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

On the Select Committee, we went to see the licensing scheme in Newham in action. One important feature of that scheme is that the council undertakes proactive enforcement work against properties it suspects are being let by landlords who have not yet registered. It is an important part of the resourcing requirement that councils need to make the scheme as effective as possible, but that has not yet been taken into consideration. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about being proactive and about the intention of trading standards officers or others to undertake that initial work, rather than just relying on the enforcement element of the legislation. I hope the Minister has heard those points, takes them seriously and receives them in the manner in which they are intended. We will not be pressing this matter to a vote, but we reserve the right to return to it on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Enforcement by district councils

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tenant Fees Bill (Second sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 7th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Melanie Onn]

Q What you said about the fines is timely. I had just written down a note to ask about the limits of the £5,000 fine. We are concentrating quite a lot on the enforcement side, but there is also the element that it is intended to be a deterrent. You clearly do not think that £5,000 is a deterrent.

Alex McKeown: No. At the moment the rogue agents just fold their companies and re-phoenix, or they simply do not pay. There was a case in Redbridge a few years ago. A rogue letting agent was issued with a £5,000 fine by the local authority three times and they carried on trading. They said, “We are not going to pay it and there is nothing you can do.” Obviously, there are criminal sanctions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, but when it comes to the fines, the agent continued to trade. They were featured on the Channel 5 programme, but they continued to trade. So the fine is not enough of a deterrent because, ultimately, they just folded their company and the directors walked away.

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

Q I want to revisit the issue of confidence and how protection can be given to tenants to come forward. When the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, we had evidence of the very low expectations of tenants. The quality of accommodation in certain parts of the sector is poor. They are often very vulnerable people and they are proactively told, “This is as good as you can expect and this is what the standard is,” which is combined with the vulnerability inherent in the landlord-tenant relationship and people’s fear of losing their homes. That was reinforced when we went out with Newham Council to do enforcement visits under its selective licensing scheme, and we met tenants who were living in properties that were clearly not fit for purpose and in breach of regulations, but they were told that was fine.

The Bill mentions the need for effective communication with tenants about their rights. We know that the retaliatory eviction legislation is not working and not functioning. How do we get to a framework of protection for tenants that ensures people are sufficiently aware of their rights and also confident enough to come forward and report breaches so that the agents and landlords responsible for those breaches can be put out of business?

Alex McKeown: That is quite a difficult one. The tenants are always going to be scared of being thrown out because so many letting agents do not care about illegal evictions. Again, the housing teams are under so much pressure that they cannot take action when there is an illegal eviction and someone is locked out of their house and loses everything. I go back to having fines against directors as a deterrent and then the criminal sanctions further down the line. Money is always a deterrent to people. They prefer not to pay. They would prefer to have a company criminal record than pay out £30,000. As my colleague says, criminal prosecutions are expensive. It is down to resources, again. What we have often found with the criminal prosecutions is that even with some of the safety aspects, the fine will be £2,000, so we might as well go for the civil penalty—but it is difficult protecting those vulnerable tenants.

Councillor Blackburn: Perhaps I may briefly reflect on our experience in Blackpool of having a very high-profile scheme of selective and additional licensing, working with the local media, and using our own communications channels to get across to people exactly what the council are doing—taking journalists and other interested parties out with us, as has clearly been done in Newham, to see exactly what happens. That has had twin effects. It has raised awareness among tenants that the council is involved and is on their side rather than the side of the landlord. It has also had the effect of some of the worst landlords and letting agents deciding that it is easier for them to go and do business elsewhere. Again, on the awareness-raising side, I think there is a great deal we can do to communicate the fact that “The Government and your local council are on your side here, but you need to take us into your confidence and trust us.”

Alex McKeown: I will just add this: we have all mentioned HMO licensing, selective licensing and additional licensing. I started dealing with letting agents in Newham, so I am well versed in licensing, and I think it works very well in areas with a high percentage of rogue agents, because they will not get the licence, and there is that way forward.

The other thing I will mention is clause 12, which says that trading standards will assist tenants to get their prohibited fees back. As to the likelihood of that happening—it just is not likely. That is one of the problems. However, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report refers in paragraph 99 to tenants being able to go to the first-tier tribunal. What I think would encourage tenants to complain to trading standards and give us statements would be if we could serve our penalty charge notices and, a bit like in a criminal prosecution, add the compensation order for the tenant to our case in the tribunal, rather than saying, “We are going to go to the tribunal with our penalty charges”—and then we have to start a new action in the county court.

It seems disjointed. If we can say to the tenants, “We will get your money back. We are going to deal with this. We will put it into our case, so it all goes into the same tribunal hearing,” I think that will work better. I think that will assist vulnerable tenants a lot more.

[The Chair]

I am jumping in, because I can see we are going to run out of time. I know the Minister is chomping at the bit to have some fun with you, but I am sorry, Ms McKeown, I am going to have to go to the shadow Minister.

Tenant Fees Bill (Third sitting)

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 7th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Rishi Sunak]

That is something that we are certainly looking at exploring in the guidance that is being developed in conjunction with various consumer rights groups, particularly around the “How to rent” guide, ensuring that potential tenants are aware of the things that they should be asking, which ought to be relatively common sense. As I said, there will be explicit notice in that guidance around the things that tenants should make themselves aware of. Those are the types of questions they should be asking to ensure that they have full sight of what that particular property and tenancy will mean for them.

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

We heard evidence this morning of the situation that many tenants find themselves in, having committed by way of a reservation to let a particular property, where they are unaware of many of the terms of the tenancy, including perhaps some of these contractual obligations, until it is far too late for them to back out of it, because money has already exchanged hands, they are already committed and they face consequences from pulling out at that stage. What does the Minister have to say to tenants in those circumstances?

[Rishi Sunak]

I would say to tenants in those circumstances that it is absolutely not a good idea to enter into an agreement without seeing the actual document that you are signing and committing yourself to. It is obviously good practice, as will be mentioned in the guidance that is to be published, that all potential people renting should seek to have a proper shorthold tenancy contract. That would be good practice that most people would aim for. There would be an obligation on them to take some responsibility for that, rather than entering into a situation where they are unaware of their obligations. I should make some progress, but if the hon. Lady wants to intervene one more time, she is welcome to do so.

[Helen Hayes]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again on that point. I think the Minister misunderstands the nature of the culture in much of the letting agency industry, where tenants are frequently told, “This is the only property available to you. It is the best offer at this time—you absolutely must. There is a queue of other potential tenants.” In practice, they do not have the type of choices at their disposal that the Minister seems to believe they do.

[Rishi Sunak]

I am confident that with the awareness that will be spread as a result of this Bill—we have heard a lot about the simplicity of this Bill, which will make it more effective for potential tenants to enforce and know about their rights—the circumstances in which that happens will be reduced. In case letting agents themselves are putting on the pressure, as the hon. Lady will know from being on the Select Committee, the Government are currently consulting on enforcing standards for the letting agency industry, a code of practice and potential licencing of that particular industry. Those are the kinds of tactics and behaviour that that consultation will look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

Yes, I heard the shadow Minister’s points on this. It is important to note that there is no evidence for this because there are currently letting fees. Tenant fees are charged, and that is what we are all here to get rid of. The side effect of tenants no longer having to pay any fees will be that there will be no financial disincentive when they apply for a property. The disincentive to speculate currently applies, but when we legislate to remove tenant fees, which is exactly what we are doing, that safety lock and mechanism will not be there. That is why people consider it to be a side effect. Looking for evidence of something that has yet to happen is unlikely to be fruitful.

[Helen Hayes]

There are of course letting agents, including in my constituency, that ceased charging fees to tenants some time ago, so I am afraid that I do not accept the Minister’s assertion that there is no evidence to be looked for on this. Without evidence from those agents that already follow this practice, I cannot accept that the Minister’s arguments are well founded.

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady talks about a subset. I am also talking about groups of agents. It is not necessarily the case that speculating might or might not happen, but it is important to guard against it happening. That is surely fair, and landlords are reasonable in asking for some protection against it. This is not about unfairly withholding money from people. In the cases that I will come on to, and as we have already discussed, there is no reason why deposits will not be returned to tenants acting in good faith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I believe I am right in saying that, from a tenancy agreement being signed, it is a matter of days. If the hon. Lady allows me, I will get back to her with that information. My memory is that it is seven days, and it can be used in lieu of the deposit itself, but I will happily come back to her on that point. She is right that it will not be stuck there in the system so that it cannot be used for a subsequent purpose to do with the tenancy. I think that is the general point she is making.

Allowing a landlord to ask for a holding deposit enables tenants to demonstrate that they are sincere in their application for a property. It ensures that landlords and agents are not out of pocket if a tenant registers an interest in a property, only to withdraw it when something better comes along.

Secondly and importantly, we want to ensure that landlords do not take an overly cautious approach and pre-select the tenants that they perceive would be most likely to pass a reference check. Removing holding deposits from the list of permitted payments would put the tenants who most need the protections that the Bill provides in a position where they are less likely to be considered.

Finally, holding deposits act as a means of security for the landlord, who is at risk of losing out on a week’s rent if a tenant withdraws from the application, fails a right to rent check, or provides incorrect or misleading information.

[Helen Hayes]

The Minister will be aware that a High Court challenge was recently permitted in relation to the right to rent policy. It is being taken to judicial review on the grounds that it is a prejudicial policy. First, does he agree that the right to rent policy is much more likely than an absence of holding deposits to cause landlords to take a prejudicial view of tenants? Secondly, will he confirm that, in the event that the judicial review is successful and the conclusion is that the right to rent policy is unlawful, holding deposits that have been withheld from tenants on the basis of that policy will be repaid to them?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot comment on an ongoing legal case, nor speculate on what policy might be depending on its outcome. I remind her that we are considering an amendment that would do away with holding deposits in their entirety. That is not the recommendation of the Select Committee, of which she is a considered member, which wanted to tweak how holding deposits work.

The Bill does not require landlords and agents to take a holding deposit. The amount can be capped to prevent abuse, and the tenant will get their money back if they proceed with the tenancy and provide correct information. Of the tenant respondents to the Government’s consultation, 93% agreed with the general premise of the proposed approach to ban letting fees for tenants, with the exception of a holding deposit, refundable tenancy deposit and tenant default fees.

--- Later in debate ---

In this morning’s session, the NUS’s Izzy Lenga said that students, who perhaps are that little bit less experienced, can often end up fulfilling duties that are not altogether fair. The gardening duties that she described are the sort of thing that some tenants might unknowingly accept a significant bill for having a professional fulfil. Clarity from the Government on this issue, and laying it down in legislation, is key.

[Helen Hayes]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Sharma. I wish to speak briefly in support of amendment 10, which appears in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and for Croydon Central.

The amendment seeks to address a loophole that was identified by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, of which I am a member, during the pre-legislative scrutiny inquiry that we undertook. The loophole was the biggest issue with the Bill that the Committee identified. We spent a great deal of time receiving and considering evidence on this matter, and discussing possible solutions.

This Committee heard strong evidence this morning from representatives of the trading standards industry that the least scrupulous parts of the lettings industry will try to find ways around the ban on fees to tenants. It is my view that the loophole on default fees represents one of the ways in which they will try to do so, as the Bill stands. The Bill places no parameters on the charging of default fees and, while the Government have indicated a willingness to look at the issue, it is regrettable that the Committee does not have, by way of an amendment or draft published guidance, any way to scrutinise the ways in which it is proposed that that will take place.

It is already common practice for some agents and landlords to add spurious sums of money to the charges that a tenant has to pay both during and at the end of a tenancy, in the event, for example, that a key is lost, as garden maintenance charges, or through the blurring of the line between fair wear and tear and damage. We know that that happens. The Bill presents a risk that such practices may continue and increase as letting agents seek to make up the income that they will lose as a consequence of not being able to charge fees to tenants. It is easy to imagine the circumstances in which such charges might be imposed on tenants. In my view, that would be a significant failing of the Bill.

Amendment 10 seeks to ensure clear, transparent parameters within which default fees can be charged to ensure that they are reasonable and proportionate. Without the amendment, the Bill will be at significant risk of failing in its ultimate objective of reducing costs to tenants, and may even make matters worse by allowing costs to be imposed on tenants that are random, spurious and opaque. On the whole, the Bill has the potential to deliver significant improvements and benefits for tenants, but the Government will make a serious error if they do not take firm and robust action to close this loophole. The Bill will be poorer for that and may well fail in its ultimate objective as a consequence of overlooking this point. I therefore urge the Minister to set out in detail how the Government propose to close this significant loophole and to accept amendment 10, which presents a robust way to do so.

[Rishi Sunak]

I am pleased that hon. Members accept the principle of default fees and agree with the general view that it is not fair for landlords to pay fees that arise from default by the tenant. Our approach to default fees has been to avoid listing the types of default, as such a list would be likely to need updating in future. Although the amendment seeks to set out default fees through secondary legislation rather than on the face of the Bill, the principle against such a fixed list stands.

--- Later in debate ---

We very much believe that default fees do not represent a loophole. Under the legislation, they are permitted only if the tenant is made aware when agreeing to the tenancy that they can be charged such fees in the event of a default. They are listed in the agreement specifically up front—there is nothing hidden about that. The amount that can be charged is capped at the landlord’s loss—that is also in legislation. The idea that there could be extreme default fees is simply not borne out by the legislative position. The landlord would need to say in the tenancy agreement that if the tenant breaches an obligation imposed by the agreement to take appropriate care of keys, the tenant is responsible for the replacement costs, and the replacement fee can be no more than the cost incurred by the landlord in replacing the key. In our guidance we will state that it will be best practice for the landlord to provide evidence of their loss.

[Helen Hayes]

I fear that, once again, the Minister’s remarks fail to take into account culture and practice in the lettings industry and the extreme imbalance of power between landlords and tenants. What is to stop a landlord from saying, “Well, it cost me £150 to replace that, so that is what you have to pay”? That happens all the time. Notwithstanding current legislation, there is no protection in reality for tenants against such charges.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment, but the point of the legislation is that there will be far greater protection for tenants and a deterrent for landlords from behaving in the way she outlined, because there will be significant financial penalties and banning orders at stake for landlords who misbehave. There is a process for tenants to seek redress, partly informed by the recommendations of the Select Committee, such as going to the first-tier tribunal that does not exist today. The combination of all those things makes it much less likely that a landlord would behave in such a manner, for the simple reason that they would be behaving illegally. If that were to be found out by trading standards, the first-tier tribunal or any redress scheme, the penalties for that misbehaviour could be incredibly significant.

This legislation will have the impact required. The guidance we will put forward will specify that it will be best practice for the landlord to provide evidence of their loss, which they will do precisely because they know in the back of their mind that if they put out a speculative number and are challenged, the consequences will be significant for them. All in all, I ask the hon. Member for Great Grimsby to withdraw her amendment.

Tenant Fees Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I presented a petition to the House on behalf of my constituents back in June 2016, calling on the Government to take action to curb letting agent fees. In responding to the petition, the Government gave no indication that they were considering any action on fees other than requiring letting agents to publish a full tariff of their fees. That response was very disappointing.

The publication of tariffs in my constituency has simply confirmed what private renters have always known: that fees are enormously variable and that in many cases a combination of fees, holding deposit and tenancy deposit can run into hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds each time a tenant moves. Letting agent fees are no small matter financially, whether someone is trying to save for a deposit to buy their own home or simply trying to keep their head above water and make ends meet. The instability that many private renters face means that they are not only paying high fees, but can be forced to pay them every six to 12 months, so they face the utterly dispiriting experience of seeing what little savings they manage to accumulate being wiped out again and again each time a tenancy comes to an end.

Fees, combined with spiralling rents, are one of the reasons why many renters cannot afford to buy. They are also one of the reasons why many of my constituents who are in the greatest housing need and on long waiting lists for genuinely affordable social housing increasingly fear the private rented sector, if they are able to access it at all. So I welcome the Government’s change of heart on letting agent fees. I welcome the adoption of a Labour policy, and I welcome the Bill.

The Bill seeks to iron out a significant confusion in the letting agency market, which is the question of who the client is. Since landlords procure the services of letting agents and have a choice about which letting agent to choose, and letting agents provide a service to landlords in finding them tenants, the landlord is the client. Tenants do not have a choice about which letting agent to go to in order to access the type of home they require. They cannot decide that they like a particular property but would prefer to rent it via a different agent. As such, they are not the client. Any services the letting agent provides that involve the tenant, such as obtaining references and credit checks, are simply part of the process of securing that tenant for the landlord who is their client. It is therefore not fair or reasonable for two different parties in a letting transaction to be charged for the provision of services. No other part of the estate agency industry operates in that way, and there is no justification for it to continue.

While I welcome the Bill, there are some important ways in which it can and must be improved. The first and most significant relates to default fees. The Bill allows for default fees to be charged by landlords and agents of tenants but does not specify any parameters for that. Great concern has been expressed by many witnesses to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny inquiry on the Bill and others that the provisions relating to default fees are simply a loophole that will allow arbitrary sums to be claimed from tenants by the back door.

Although default fees have to be specified in the tenancy agreement, there is in practice no way for a tenant to identify and challenge unfair fees at the point at which a new tenancy begins—and by the time they are being charged, it is too late. Letting agents’ representatives admitted in evidence to the Select Committee that they would try to charge disproportionate default fees to make up for a reduction in other fees. This would be completely unacceptable, and while I welcome the Government’s intention to provide further clarification, it is vital that this is absolutely watertight if the Bill is to succeed in its main objective of reducing cost to tenants.

Secondly, I am concerned that the Bill is insufficiently clear on the circumstances in which an agent can retain a holding deposit. In circumstances where a tenant has wilfully provided false information, it may be acceptable for an agent to retain the costs of undertaking checks, but we know that there are many circumstances in which incorrect information can be provided where this is not the fault of the tenant. For example, the tenant may be unaware that their credit rating has dipped, or an employer may hold out-of-date salary information, and there are many other such circumstances. The Bill must ensure that tenants are protected against incorrect information being provided by someone else. The failure to do so could result in tenants who have lost a proportion of their savings being prevented from accessing another home, with dire consequences. I urge the Government to ensure that the Bill is sufficiently robust on this matter.

Finally, I must emphasise that although the Bill is a welcome step, there is still much more to do to reform the private rented sector and to redress the imbalance of power that exists between landlords and tenants. The Government have shown a willingness to adopt Labour policy with regard to banning letting agents’ fees. May I urge the Minister to go further and legislate for longer and more secure tenancies, intervene to address the spiralling rents that cause hardship for so many of my constituents and act to stop revenge evictions because the current legislation simply is not working? We need comprehensive reform of the private rented sector to give security and stability to the increasing numbers of my constituents who are reliant on it, and in particular for the growing numbers of children living in private rented accommodation on whom the need to move frequently can have a particularly harmful impact. While I welcome the Bill, there is much more to do, and I urge the Government to go further.