Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

I suggest that this amendment to exempt purpose-built student accommodation from licensing schemes of local authorities would encourage more provision for students and ease pressures on the wider PRS with no negative impact on the quality of accommodation or its management. I hope it is acceptable to the Minister.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in a family business that rents properties in Norwich in some small way to students. I suppose I ought to declare that I have been a student in both houses and halls, albeit more than 40 years ago.

This is a well-intentioned Bill—indeed, the Conservatives introduced something thematically similar in the previous Session—and it includes some modernisations to rebalance the relationship between the landlord and tenant, and particularly to regulate agents who act as intermediaries between the parties, but this is not the same Bill we encountered before, and in respect of students—I am bound to say of all students, including apprentices—it is pregnant with unintended consequences.

As it relates to students, it denies the obvious fact among the cohort of potential tenants that there is an annual rhythm to the demands and needs that runs from December to August annually. I was particularly taken with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who has just left his place, and I was going to offer to buy him a drink in that round in the bar with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. He tells me he does not drink, so it would have been a cheap round, but there we are. As a principle, efficient markets exist to align with consumer needs, and this Bill will disrupt the ability of the market to satisfy those needs of the many hundreds of thousands of students, not all of whom are fresh out of sixth-form college, to align the certainty of their living arrangements with the reality of their daily lives and particularly with their friends.

The consequence of the Bill, if enacted, is that students will pay more because the supply of rental properties will reduce by discriminating against private landlords. It will reduce the choice of landlord because it lays down in statute the sole type of landlord counterparty that students can contract with if they wish to have the certainty of an annual let, and thus it reduces the competitive pressure among landlords to keep prices down, so students will pay more.

By restricting the student let to a certain class of building, it creates monopoly powers for that expensive specialist provider that my dear noble friend Lord Willetts mentioned, so students will pay more. It will also create an overheated market in September every year because the landlord can guarantee the availability of his house only if the previous people have given notice. So, in that overheated September market, guess what? Students will pay more.

It is not just cost; the consequence of the Bill means that students will be more inconvenienced. It means that second and third-year students, the sort of people who do not necessarily want to live in hall, must fly back from a world trip, working abroad or whatever to sort out a house they could have done earlier. It is harder for friendship groups to get the certainty of a house with their friends. I do not believe that in this debate thus far we have considered the importance of cohorts of friends, who are not related and do not have the family ties that you often get in most tenancies, so you are at the mercy of the person who just wants to cut and run. If there is a joint tenancy among six friends, for example, in a larger house, and one of them wants to go, what does that do? Does it break the tenancy? How does that work? It disrupts the whole group. I believe that in the case of students, the discipline of a group of friends coming together has some value to the market.

Of course, by focusing everything in September, it makes the chaos of clearing even more chaotic than it already is. It prefers the established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows as a means to execute draft contracts more quickly; those sorts of families also make it easier to provide the guarantor. I remember when my daughter was at Newcastle. She had taken up with a group of friends who were going to live in Jesmond, and there were six of them in the house. The landlord sent round a contract that made me jointly and severally liable for the entire rent for all of the people, none of whom I had met. Fortunately, I was last on the list. I noticed that Viscount Boyne, a former Member of this House, had signed before me; it gave me a certain comfort to know that we were going vicariously to rely on each other.

Although this Bill introduces protections for current students, it disadvantages people in the second or third year who are not yet in houses but might want to be. Not everybody wants to live in halls, particularly PhD or mature students. I have been there: you tire of the freshers running up and down the corridor in the night because they have come back late from the pub. If you want to have that quiet enjoyment of a property, you should not be forced into a student block with added charges and expensive rents.

This Bill, if enacted, will also introduce new discriminations that have not been mentioned thus far. I am thinking about foreign students. Let us not forget that foreign students underpin the university sector; at the moment, they are keeping our universities afloat with their extra fees. Foreign students who do not have a credit history, for whatever reason—there are cultural reasons that I will dwell on in a moment—will be prevented from paying up front. They will become unrentable; they will find it very difficult to get a place. Of course, these are the people whom the universities need to balance the books. The difficulty of getting guarantors and the right-to-rent checks are in and of themselves sometimes a barrier and a discrimination against foreign students.

I am thinking in particular of women students from Arab countries. I have two tenants in our own business whose mothers have come from those parts of the world in order to live with their daughters for cultural reasons. They want the annual tenancy agreement to give them in certainty their own way, so they can sort it out once then have the comfort of leaving their daughters—they tend to be daughters—while knowing that they can come back. It is an irony that, later in the Bill, Amendment 190 has a huge amount about discriminating against pets while here we are allowing discrimination against the cultures of women and girls from other parts of the world.

I regret to say that all this in aggregate means that the landlords who have specialised in renting to students, many of whom add pastoral care to the portfolio, will fall away. My wife has acted as a mother, so to speak, to many of our students, helping them with council tax bills and acting on their behalf with utilities—especially those students for whom English is not their first language and who are trying to make a way in a foreign country. All this will go because you cannot have the certainty of a contract between landlord and tenant. Why should it be for the state to determine a narrow monoculture of what constitutes acceptable student accommodation? What happened to the ability of consenting adults to work out their own decisions?

Government Amendment 202 has the absurdity of defining a building that is “occupied by students”, which excludes dwelling houses that are occupied by students. It then it requires halls specifically built for students and meeting the Unipol code of standards to be licensed even though they exceed the standards. How does this pettifogging bureaucratic interfering help the people whom it purports to assist?

When I explained to my daughter last weekend what I was going to say, it took her about 10 seconds to realise that a complicated secondary market will now develop between potential students and landlords, with informal, unregulated contracts and options—as well as fees to secure tenancies in the most desirable households with the most commodious landlords— in a way that harms exactly the sort of people the Government are trying to help: the ones who are the first in their family to go to university. By preventing more than one month being paid at a time, you will end up with more complicated escrow arrangements, fees, more expense, delay and obfuscation, as well as all sorts of connivances between cohorts of outgoing tenants with incoming tenants—on risk, of course—lining up the next year based on good friendships this year. We are formalising in statute nepotism between years to the exclusion of those who are trying to make their way.

The student market is complex, and it should reflect the world as it is. For many students, that is not the monoculture of catered halls of residence. They prefer to be in the town, close to pubs and universities. Destroying this market does not help anybody. It is full of the law of unintended consequence—a law that makes it harder and worse for the brightest and best people who want to get on, and difficult for anyone in higher education to know where they stand. They will all pay more, and this will make it easier for landlords to exploit a hot market every September.

It is just another example of Labour preferring big business, the operators of these large student schemes, over the nobility of the small family business. There is one silver lining, however: teaching students at a formative moment in their lives the adverse effects of the dead hand of the nanny state telling them what they can and cannot do is more likely to drive them to and promote the cause of capitalism than it is socialism.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. As mentioned previously, I have an interest as a landlord of over two decades, and as a former renter in the private rented sector for some 16 years, I have a combined experience in the PRS of 40 years.

The amendment before your Lordships’ House would allow a tenant and landlord to mutually agree a fixed term, as we have just heard, while restricting the landlord’s ability to regain possession of a tenanted property. It would further mean that the landlord would not be able to increase the rent over the period of the fixed term. Very many tenants would welcome such agreements and the increased security it would give them. Under the proposed periodic tenancies, after 12 months tenants would have no security as the landlord can seek possession on a number of grounds.

Polls have shown that a majority of tenants and landlords want to have fixed terms, and His Majesty’s Government have given no reason why they think they know best. The arguments against mutually agreed agreements on fixed tenancies are, frankly, unconvincing and threadbare. They result in more, not less, security for tenants, and less chance of familial disruption. The Renters’ Rights Bill rightly cracks down on rogue landlords, improves standards in the PRS and seeks to ensure a fair, workable and sustainable rental market.

Noble Lords may recall my Amendment 173 in Committee, which called for tenants to give notice not earlier than four months after agreeing to an assured tenancy, resulting in a minimum tenancy of six rather than two months. Why are the Government insisting that six months would be a disaster, as under today’s assured shorthold tenancies, but two months will be a panacea? The outcome of exclusively two-month periodic tenancies will be less security for tenants and landlords alike, and higher rents.

While I accept the need for flexibility for tenants, I do not see why an additional four months should be regarded as so unacceptable by the Government. Responsible landlords require the certainty of a minimum period to defray the cost of establishing a new tenancy. Many of these costs are one-off and cannot be passed on to the tenant under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. These cover things such as cleaning, inventories, referencing, credit checks, admin and so forth. A higher turnover of tenancies under periodic tenancies, and the financial risks associated with it, will otherwise put up rents. All long-term tenancies could potentially turn into short tenancies and the landlord will have to factor that into the rent. Another concern of landlords will be if a tenant quits in the middle of winter, when much fewer tenants are seeking rental properties. Rentals are often seasonal, and longer void periods will be the outcome. Again, this will be reflected in higher rents.

Ministers argue that it is highly unlikely that tenants will move in and out of rental properties, in effect turning long-lets into short-let properties. But that is exactly what will happen in many cases, especially in coastal resorts and city centres, already plagued by Airbnb and other short-let platforms. Figures produced by Hamptons show that properties being marketed as short-term lets are advertised at prices on average 49% higher than the same types of property for long-term rent. In the London Borough of Camden, short-lets can cost four times higher than long-lets. Deposits for short-let properties are about the same as those for long-term rent. This would make it cheaper for tenants to just rent a long-term property for two months than secure a short let for the same period.

To suggest that people will not game the system is naive. Why would short-term tenants volunteer to pay up to four times the amount of rent when they can save themselves thousands of pounds taking a property advertised for long-term rental for just two months or even less? On day one of the tenancy, they will have the legal right to give two months’ notice. Two-month period tenancies will open the floodgates to legal backdoor short lets which will be impossible to police. This will have other implications, which we are already witnessing. Landlords will gravitate increasingly to short-let platforms such as Airbnb which are more profitable than long lets and virtually unregulated.

With the associated abolition of upfront payments, which will make vulnerable people, the self-employed, pensioners and students—including foreign students—unable to prove their income, why should many landlords continue to take the risk when there is a more profitable alternative? In any event, only 7% of tenants pay anything up front, so I fail to see why this is also an issue for HMG. Banning upfront payments, which your Lordships will discuss later, was very much a last-minute government amendment in the other place, and I suspect it was badly thought through.

All this will result in fewer long-term rentals being available to tenants, less security and a profound shortage of long lets for local people in tourist hotspots. It is already happening, as people in Cornwall, Devon and Wales will know.

Nothing in the Bill will increase the supply of rental property in the PRS which, by some estimates, needs an extra 50,000 rentals per year just to stand still. A six-month minimum tenancy would underpin the viability of the PRS and ensure that more homes, not fewer, are provided for those tenants who need and want a long- term home.

Those should be where people need homes; those landlords entering the market at the moment tend to chase higher yields in the north, ignoring the south, where buy to let is rapidly becoming unprofitable. A six-month minimum fixed tenancy, if mutually agreed, gives all parties plenty of flexibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned, many tenants prefer to have even a 12-month fixed tenancy to give them added security.

The amendment would also implement a recommendation by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in its report on reform of the PRS in 2023, chaired by the very knowledgeable Labour MP, Clive Betts. The recommendation was

“that tenants be unable to give two months’ notice to leave until they have been in a property for at least four months”.

It noted:

“This will give landlords the legal certainty of at least six months’ rent at the start of the tenancy”.


After this period, the tenancy agreement could continue on a periodic basis as envisaged by this Bill.

I fear that, unless His Majesty’s Government amend the Bill on fixed terms and upfront payments, it will make the PRS unstable, uncertain, increasingly expensive and less viable, which would be bad for both tenants and landlords. Sadly, His Majesty’s Government are showing no sign of introducing the significant amendments necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, the Government listen but take no notice. As we have seen in the other place, this does not always work out well.

On 28 April, the noble Baroness the Minister, who cannot be accused of not listening, told the Committee:

“We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms. We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group … We maintain the powers to amend, should we need to”.—[Official Report, 28/4/25; col. 1085.]


I hope that His Majesty’s Government bear this very much in mind, before some of the unintended consequences and regrettable flaws in the Bill see the light of day. I was just one of 26 Peers who voted against HS2 in your Lordships’ House, and it gives me very little pleasure to say after the event “I told you so”.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak strongly in favour of Amendment 1. I declare my interests as I rent properties in Norwich and commercial properties in Great Yarmouth through a directorship.

We live in a free-market economy, which is underpinned by the law of contract, a codified agreement between consenting counterparties. Of course, we must have safeguards and regulatory guard-rails to ensure that one party does not hold the other over a barrel, but the freedom of contract so that mutual needs can be codified and agreed is a fundamental part of the way in which we live and is one of the reasons why we have so many learned friends in this place.

I want to give some examples, from my experience as a landlord, of the type of persons who value the ability to customise the standard contract to suit themselves by entering into a fixed term. It is not the majority, but it is a significant proportion that cannot just be wished away. They include: employees on a fixed-term employment contract engaged in a particular project; students, singly or more commonly in groups, who want to secure their ideal house in advance and are able to do so only if the current occupants are sure to vacate in the summer; the busy doctor, who gets passed around the hospitals each August; and the foreign person, who is used to the concept of fixed terms in their own country and cannot understand what business it is of the state to interfere in these private arrangements. Those tenants value contract certainty so that they can focus on their work and generate wealth for our nation.

I like this amendment because it gives an additional benefit to the tenant: not just the fixed tenancy but the fixed rent. That seems a fair compromise, not least because the landlord does not need to price uncertainty into the contract—the uncertainty of a void. As a landlord I value certainty, even at the expense of locking out rent rises, because if I know there will not be a void, I can give a better price and everybody wins. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

The Government boast a commitment to

“transform the experience of private renting”.

They are doing that all right; they are making it harder for a significant minority to meet their reasonable needs. There are so many unintended consequences—the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Truscott, mentioned some of them. For a moment I thought I was going to be on my own, but I am delighted to see that there is cross-party consensus on the importance of this amendment.

I too was thinking about the abuse in holiday hotspots, where it is common ground that we want to encourage year-round occupation of homes in these coastal areas—although not the second council tax that appears to be emerging alongside. I fear the unintended consequences of this Bill. Let us contemplate a tenancy in Cornwall, taking on in June. The proposed tenant says, “Yes, I’m going to stay for a whole year”, but in the event they leave just after the August bank holiday. The problem is that by giving two months’ notice, it is a clear abuse; and to counter that abuse, landlords will factor in the risk of the vacancy. So they will jack up rents, and the person who genuinely does want to stay for the whole year is disadvantaged. Of course, they may wish to show good faith by paying in advance, but that will be discarded as well. I just cannot see how this helps anyone.

I will talk about students in more detail later, but I am concerned that we are going to seriously disrupt the student market, not just for their convenience. Often in freshers’ week—I saw it in my own experience when I was younger—friendship groups get rammed together and pretty quickly decide they want to go into a house together, and why not? Halls do not suit anybody. The purpose of the fixed tenancy is the discipline that binds them all together. They are not related—at least not when they start; I have been in houses where that does happen—but you get a situation where one person may want to quit half way through, and it reverses the obligation. Rather than that person being forced to find another student to take his or her place, it becomes the obligation of all his former friends to undertake that core activity. The responsibility is flipped, and I do not think that is good either.

There are so many other things I could say, but this is a good amendment. It does not wreck the Bill but enhances it. It works with the grain of the way a significant minority of people, consenting adults, wish to conduct their affairs and come to a sensible contract for those it suits. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said. There are limits to where the state should interfere; it should allow free citizens to exercise the choices that they should be entitled to make. This amendment deserves our full support.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I listened almost with shock at what noble Lords were saying because I feel as if I am living in an alternate universe. They live in the cosy one—I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, talked about him and his wife as landlords, and I can absolutely believe that his tenants loved him and enjoyed living with him. But sadly, that is not reality—it is not the situation. People say the Government have no right to interfere; if a Government have no right to interfere in making a roof over people’s heads—the basic issue of having a home—part of government business, please tell me what they can interfere in. Defence of the realm, yes, but ensuring that people can have a safe, secure, affordable home certainly has to be the business of government.

This Bill is scarily radical. I am often guilty of saying that the rhetoric does not match up to the reality, but the rhetoric around this Bill—the biggest changes since whenever, radically changing the system—is correct. The system is meant to be changed because it is broken. It is very brave and very bold. His Majesty’s Official Opposition probably think it is very stupid, which they are entitled to think because that is their job. The real issue around this Bill is that we are leaping into the unknown. We do not know what the impact will be. We have been told that Armageddon will happen; we will have to see. We and the Official Opposition do agree that there should be formal reviews in the Bill where its impact can be scrutinised in Parliament in full—because it is that radical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, at the heart of the Bill is a duty to protect young people, because it is primarily young people who rely on the private rented sector. Students are no exception: many are leaving home for the first time, stepping into higher education with courage and ambition. For them, the need for clarity, stability and fairness in housing is especially pressing.

Fixed-term tenancies for students, as proposed in Amendment 2, are not a loophole; they are a solution that works. They have brought order and predictability to a cyclical market. The Government recognise this, having already made concessions for purpose-built student accommodation, but that exemption applies only to the most expensive end of the market. What if the student cannot afford a glossy new block with a gym and a neat working space, and instead shares a modest flat in a converted home? We urge the Government to take a consistent approach and extend this provision across the board, because there is a great student migration and a releasing and re-letting of homes at the end of each academic year. It is a finely balanced cycle, and if we tamper with it blindly, we risk breaking it altogether.

That cycle is already under pressure. Student towns and cities are seeing a decline in student-appropriate housing. If we continue down this road, we will put higher education out of reach for many, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds who rely on affordable shared housing.

That is why my Amendment 5 is so vital. The current restriction on ground 4A, which limited it to properties with three or more bedrooms, is both arbitrary and unfair. Many students, in particular postgraduates, international students and mature students, live in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties. In Committee, the Minister said:

“Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]


The Minister is right: it captures the bulk, but not all of them. When housing is scarce, we need all available options. When choices are limited, we must protect every viable home. Let us be clear: ground 4A is not about throwing students out of their homes, it is about ensuring that landlords can confidently re-let for the next academic year and that students can confidently plan their lives.

Amendment 6 rightly asks why six months has been chosen as a cut-off point for ground 4A. This blanket time limit could disrupt rental cycles, discourage landlords from letting to students and ultimately shrink the student housing supply even further.

The Government worry that students may rush into housing decisions too early. That may be true for some, but many students want to secure accommodation early to avoid the stress during exams. Many student tenancies begin in late summer, and students typically start looking well in advance. Limiting searches to up to six months before an August move-in means starting in February. Under the current proposals, properties may not be listed until much later in the year, forcing students to house-hunt during their final exams. That is not necessary, fair or workable. The Government should let students decide when they wish to sign the contract.

Without fixed terms and a workable ground 4A, students will face prolonged uncertainty, and it will be harder for them to plan, budget and study. We must also remember that eviction proceedings are exceptionally rare in this market. The problem is not landlords turfing students out but students facing unnecessary delays and stress when trying to secure accommodation. The current proposals simply do not address this reality.

Finally, Amendment 7 seeks to include apprentices in the definition of students. Like university students, they would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy aligned with their training periods, offering much-needed stability. I hope, having listened to the Government’s arguments in Committee, that they have reflected and that we can agree that it is only fair that apprentices and their landlords have access to the same arrangements as university students.

The Government have already made partial concessions, but now we need a principled and wholehearted attempt to preserve a functioning, fair and inclusive student rental market. Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 7 are constructive and proportionate. They reflect what is already working, they address what is currently broken, and they would help ensure that going to university remains a viable choice for young people across the country. I urge the Minister and the House to support these amendments. We would be minded to test the opinion of the House, for the reasons that I have underlined. I beg to move Amendment 2 in my name.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I declare once more my interest as a landlord who rents properties, often to students. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will not be jumping up and down on every group today, but I do want to challenge the quite obstinate prevention of fixed tenancies for students—and, importantly, groups of students—many of whom will be moving into their first home outside hall.

I want to outline some of the adverse consequences of this Bill if enacted unamended. It will reduce the supply of rental properties by discriminating against private landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, speaking in the earlier group, seemed to fail to understand the dynamic effect: if landlords leave the market and there is lower supply, costs will rise and students will pay more.

It will reduce the choices of property available to students, because this Bill allows student tenancies only in halls of residence. This will not suit everybody. It reduces the choice of landlord. It favours the monopoly supplier—the institutional provider of halls of residence —rather than the private landlord. In my personal experience, my wife has become “mother”, so to speak, in particular to foreign students who have rented with us on their first time overseas. All that will be swept away, because institutional providers of student accommodation do not have that in their ambit.

It will create an overheated market in September, that is for sure, and—guess what?—that will cost more for students. It will also cause massive inconvenience for second-year and third-year students at university. I agree with my noble friend that this should not be just about universities; those with apprenticeships should also benefit from these amendments. But it means that second-year and third-year students will have to fly back. They may have got a work placement overseas. They will have to fly back early to try to secure a home when they could have sorted it out well before, in February or March.

The consequences of this Bill mean that it will be harder for friendship groups to get the certainty of a house with their friends. I have mentioned issues around clearing. The Bill will prefer established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows, who understand and are able to transact draft contracts more quickly. It will aggravate the difficulty of getting guarantors lined up at pace.

It introduces protections for the current students— I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said in the previous group—but we need to balance that against the disadvantage to students one year behind, who also have rights and who also want to secure a place in their following year.

Students will be forced into these new student blocks. Some of them are really luxurious. There are cinema rooms and pizza places—the whole thing—but it is costing a fortune, and not everybody wants to go to that expense when they can make savings in the private market.

I spoke earlier about the importance of the fixed tenancy, which is a discipline that keeps everybody together and protects everybody’s interests. It is important that we dwell on this, particularly for students. Unlike in the wider private rented sector, where family relationships or other stronger forms of relationship exist, friendship groups at university can be more transient. We have spoken a lot already about the balance of power between tenant and landlord, but we should also consider the balance of power when someone in a friendship group in a house wants to cut and run, leaving his former friends high and dry. That is a real perverse situation that runs against natural justice and good order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. In Committee I was one of those probing the Government’s intentions on purpose-built student accommodation, houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—and the application of ground 4A to those properties but not to smaller units in the private rented sector that some students might choose to live in.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply in Committee and have thought further. Indeed, I have listened carefully to the debate so far and I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, although I agree with him that it will be very important for the Government to monitor the impact of the student market on the private rented sector. I will explain why I take that view.

I have reached the conclusion that there is a good reason to restrict the application of ground 4A to purpose-built student accommodation—the very large blocks—and houses in multiple occupation. The danger of not doing so is that some unscrupulous landlords renting smaller units of accommodation which do not qualify for the term HMO might decide to call tenants students when they are not students, to get around the provisions of the Bill. I think that would be a serious defect in the Bill. Indeed, as the Minister said in her reply on this issue in Committee:

“The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]


I have come to the conclusion that the Minister is right on that matter and, for that reason, ground 4A, I submit, should be restricted to purpose-built student accommodation and houses in multiple occupation.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

It is quite straightforward that we know who students are. The universities issue certificates and those certificates are handed to the local authority in the case of council tax, so they can get the 100% council tax allowance. It is not difficult to identify who those students are. Does the noble Lord agree? Has he thought whether the existing statutory process for determining who a student is would be sufficient to avoid the jeopardy that he has suggested?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

The very point that the noble Lord raises is that I do not think it would be sufficient. Indeed, when I spoke on this issue in Committee, I suggested that the council tax register, because whole-student households do not pay council tax, would potentially be sufficient; I just do not think that is the case. It is not just about university accommodation. it is about students more generally. Indeed, there is an amendment coming up on the Marshalled List to define who is a university student. So I think it is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has indicated to us.

I have concluded that those students who are in smaller units of accommodation will be protected anyway, as tenants under the Act. I have concluded that, on this matter, the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I hope very much that the Minister will be able to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which is that they have to keep this matter under review.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in my Second Reading speech, I drew attention to the role played by high housing costs in driving poverty. I was thus pleased to add my name to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, although I am supportive also of the other amendments in this group and hope that what I have to say will add to the case for them too.

Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation illustrates the extent to which high rents in the private sector are associated with poverty. Shockingly, it points out that around

“half of private renters were only in poverty after their housing costs were factored in”.

Two more reports specifically on child poverty, published this year, reinforce the point. The first, by IPPR, argues that:

“Housing costs are core to understanding child poverty”.


It notes that the number of children counted as in poverty is about a third higher when housing costs are factored into the measure, and that the private rented sector has become increasingly significant in the lives of children.

The second report was co-published by IPPR together with CPAG—of which I am honorary president—and Changing Realities, which involves people with lived experience of poverty. The report observed that rent increases are

“stressful for families to manage, and … the Renters’ Rights Bill as currently drafted will continue to enable large increases in rent … providing they are deemed to reflect ‘market rents’”—

a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It suggests that this

“risks exposing tenants to sudden and unaffordable hikes in housing costs, undermining the Bill’s stated aim of providing greater security and fairness for renters”.

The report quotes one tenant:

“I’m getting really worried about my rent going up this year. It keeps rising every year yet the local housing allowance is frozen for this year! … It’s frightening”.


Both reports underline how the situation is aggravated by freezes in the local housing allowance and by the operation of the benefit cap, which hits larger families and/ or those paying higher rents in particular. As the amendment states, any review of rent affordability must include in its remit the effectiveness of policy interventions to improve affordability relative to incomes. I would argue that this would need to include policies on the incomes side, which are making it impossible for some families to meet their rent commitments alongside other essentials.

This seems to me a very modest amendment that would complement the Government’s welcome commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy. I know that the Child Poverty Taskforce is aware of the importance of housing to the strategy, but it is unrealistic to expect it to carry out the thorough review of rent affordability proposed in the amendment.

I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to give a more positive response than the one she gave in Committee, which I found rather disappointing. What is needed is something more robust and holistic than the regular monitoring to which she referred, important though that might be. A review of this kind would be in the spirit of the Bill and would help to ensure that its impact is not blunted by the continued damage created by excessively high rents in the private sector.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to try to understand what the definition of rent is if we are going to control rents or somehow curtail them or attenuate the increases.

One can see the base rate just by googling property websites. It is a good idea to get a feel for the cost of a basic, low-cost, unfurnished property in the worst part of town, but that is not necessarily the market price, which is determined by a number of factors: the property may be furnished; it may be serviced accommodation; there may be porterage; there may be other benefits— I am not going to go as far as swimming pools and gyms, but I know they are available in some circumstances. Parking would be another one. All these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases, which may be determined by factors outside the landlord’s control. A property that has inclusive parking may become significantly more valuable, one could anticipate, if the local council applies permits on the streets around it.

I am tempted to support Amendment 25, but I am reluctant to do so because at the moment all these extras are rolled into the single price. The logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we will get menu pricing, rather as we see on low-cost airlines. There may be an attractive flight—£5.99 to fly to Spain or whatever—but by the time you add in the baggage, the booking fee and everything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point that the risk of the price going up over the four-year period may be somewhat attenuated, but those extras amounting to what I would call the landed price, or total cost of ownership, could vary accordingly.

Another significant point that we need to take into account is that there may be Section 20 repairs or improvements, particularly in the case of furnished accommodation where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade the fixed furnishings, such as tables and chairs and possibly soft furnishings as well. All of this complicates what is a rolled-up figure at the moment. The logical conclusion is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, so it is going be harder to compare for the potential tenant. But it is going to be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way in the circumstance of a First-tier Tribunal appeal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent—that £5.99 figure. It is very difficult.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I cannot support it because I think the logical conclusion of it will be that we will get a fragmentation of the landed rent so that the tail wags the dog. The landlord will be so focused on restricting the base rate that those other things will get lost.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have concerns about a number of amendments in this group on the basis that they are unduly prescriptive and risk the introduction of what could be regarded as, in effect, a form of rent control.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seek to protect the tribunal from being overloaded due to the Bill. While we agree that there is significant risk of overload, we have concerns about how the arrangements would function. In particular, we do not feel able to support a system that ties rental increases to CPI. CPI is a generalised index that reflects the prices of bread, fuel, clothing and so forth, but not rental market dynamics. What happens in areas where market rents are falling but inflation is high, or where incomes are stagnant while CPI rises? This approach uses a national economic measure to benchmark against a highly localised rental market, and the result would almost certainly be a distorted rental market. That said, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the impact of the Bill on tribunals’ backlogs, which we discussed at length in Committee.

Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raises some important points. There is no doubt that rent affordability is a serious issue, and the amendment rightly draws attention to a range of important factors: the regional disparities in rental costs, the strain of high rents placed on household finances and the need to understand how effectively the First-tier Tribunal is working in practice. However, I must also sound a note of realism. We do not need another report for its own sake. We need actual change that improves the lives of renters and restores fairness to a housing system that too often feels stacked against ordinary people. If this review is to go ahead, it must not become just another document left to gather dust on the shelves of the department—it must lead to action. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline how the Government will respond to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness in her amendment, which we agree are all points which matter in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

These amendments promote a balanced approach that recognises the diverse needs of tenants and landlords alike. Mutual agreement on rent in advance can foster stability and greater security in tenancies, especially for vulnerable groups. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, it feels as if we are going back to Amendment 1 at the start of this debate and the theme of that essential freedom to contract between consenting parties, which had support on both sides of the House from the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Truscott, and others. Amendment 43 is a practical solution and an optional one. It provides a route for an otherwise unrentable tenant to find a tenancy and it is a practical expression of good faith. We have had some examples of where the freedom—it is a freedom and not an obligation—to offer up to six months’ rent in advance can be helpful.

My noble friend Lady Scott mentioned the case of students, especially foreign students. Foreign students often want to secure accommodation before they get on the plane to come to this country. At that point, they may not even have a UK bank account. They certainly will not have references or a track record. The only practicable way they can secure a tenancy with that impaired record is to pay in advance.

Earlier today, we spoke about the potential abuses in holiday hotspots, where somebody may say, “I am going to stay for a whole year”, as they contract in June, whereas in fact they immediately give notice to quit after the August bank holiday. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who is not in his place, told the House that the differential between the Airbnb rate and the year-round rate is something like 49%. This is a way for somebody who was sincere about entering into a long-term arrangement for, say, six months—but it would not have to be exactly six months—with a potential landlord to demonstrate that they were not just the carpetbagging, holiday-hotspot people. They could pay in advance and that would be helpful.

My noble friend mentioned those with an impaired record. It would be possible to have a guarantor who stumped up for those people with a weak covenant strength. For those who have cash—I appreciate that not everybody does—coming to an accommodation with the landlord for paying up front sometimes results in considerably less rent, and in those cases both landlord and tenant benefit considerably.

Amendment 43 would help both the landlord and tenant to come to an arrangement to their mutual advantage. I know it is not for everybody, but without this provision the unrentables will remain unrented. The Bill’s objective, as we have heard from the Minister, is to get people into safe, secure, good accommodation, and for a small number of people the amendment would provide the otherwise unprovidable. I support it entirely.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 43 and 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I can give a practical example of this. A very nice couple from Chile wanted to rent one of our flats. They had no credit record at all here in England so there was no way to check that. There was no efficient way to check the previous landlord, which is the other step that a landlord normally takes to ascertain whether these are suitable tenants to go into the property. They had the money. Both of them were coming to work in London for a year for an academic purpose. Enabling them to pay some money in advance—I have forgotten whether it was six months or more—was therefore a sensible compromise. They turned out to be delightful tenants and highly reliable, and we were delighted to have them in our house.

I also want to speak to Amendment 46. It is to protect landlords when a tenant has signed up to take the property on a certain date but has failed to pay either the first month’s rent in advance or the deposit. I suggest that it would be entirely wrong, because the tenancy agreement had been signed and so forth, if the landlord were then obliged to take that tenant into the property. Remember that a landlord cannot chase unpaid rent for three months, and then there is the delay in getting a hearing in the county court, so that would be onerous for the landlord to deal with. Moreover, if the tenant has not paid either the first month’s rent or the deposit in advance, he probably does not have the money available, and the high probability is that the landlord will have to suffer that tenant in his property for three or four months without any payment at all.

I therefore thought it would be sensible to make it quite plain—my amendment starts:

“For the avoidance of doubt”—


that the landlord does not have to give the tenant keys to the property or allow them to get into it when the tenant has not paid. I added a further bit to the amendment to enable the landlord, if the tenant fails to pay the first month’s rent or the deposit for a further 28 days, to take the next step of having the lease annulled. That is to make it plain in the Bill what the position of the landlord is after having entered into an agreement with a tenant who then does not pay either the first month’s rent or the deposit.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Miller. I speak as a landlord of rental properties in Norwich, as declared in the register. Naturally, we should consider the rights of people who own companion animals, but that must go hand in hand with the rights of a landlord who may be concerned about damage to his property and the rights of neighbouring residents who may have to deal with the consequence of noise, mess, smell, and so forth. Once again, there is a balance to be struck, but this amendment strikes the wrong balance.

It is obvious that keeping a pet elevates the risk of damage, especially in the case of furnished accommodation. This Bill contemplates that all tenancies are the same, but there are different sorts of properties and in furnished accommodation the consequences of damage are greater. It fails to recognise the reality of different types of accommodation, whether they be period or listed or of some historic or archaeological merit making the building incompatible with pets. There are often circumstances, particularly in blocks of flats, where there are communal amenities—for example, common courtyards or gardens, often where children play. All these are different to the detached rented home in the countryside where there is much more space. This Bill contemplates a one-size-fits-all approach, regardless of all the different types of properties one may wish to tenant, whether they be furnished, unfurnished, in the countryside, or flats.

It is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to allow a large dog in a small flat where there is no outside space. Confined animals do not just chew, although they do. They bark and upset the neighbours, and the needs of neighbours must be considered. This Bill is all about the tenant, and I can understand that that is important, but it is to the exclusion of any other stakeholder, and that cannot be right. The landlord must make the judgment and take into account whether the applicant, perhaps a night-shift worker with a large dog, is suitable for his property. I will concede that there is a world of difference between the different types of pets: goldfish, spiders, dogs, cats and ferrets—may I be the first to introduce a Second Reading having just heard the First Reading of that particular Bill? Let us make those distinctions with the chewing variety. By just calling them pets, we are denying the obvious distinction between two legs, four legs, 100 legs, no legs, fishy ones with scales and so forth. There are different types of animal contained within this catch-all. That cannot make sense.

The one point where I agree with Amendment 47 is in proposed new paragraph (a), where it says that the landlord should not form predisposed opinions of the tenant. I agree with that, but not in the way you might think. I once had the chief executive of a county council as a tenant. Her cat ate my sofa. The white polyester fluff was everywhere. I did not know where the cat ended and the sofa began. These things happen, but my point is: however well-heeled or fragrant that tenant might have been, she had no control over the pet whatever. It is important that we consider that it is the pet which potentially does the damage, and not the tenant, because that lady worked long hours and travelled widely. She was not there. The chewing cat was incompatible with her lifestyle, and my furnished apartment took the consequences.

Let us move on. The Bill contemplates that the tenant with a pet has that pet at the outset, but neither the Bill nor the amendment adequately takes into account the possibility of a tenant who may acquire a pet during the tenancy or somehow mendaciously mislead as to the nature of an existing pet or even hide it away altogether. When we are considering pets—this is probably a bit too late because that is in Clause 4, which was done last week—we have to contemplate that wilful misdescription amounts to a breach of contract.

I have no intent to be overbearing or heavy-handed, but these are examples where the rights of the tenant must coexist with their neighbours. At the moment I have a case of a tenant who repeatedly allows his small dog to urinate against the wall in the communal courtyard. That is damaging the brickwork, which is for my account, and is really unpleasant for the kids because it is the only place for them to securely play away from the traffic that passes outside, and that is really not fair on everybody.

I have mentioned the distinction between the goldfish and the Staffordshire terrier and between the spider and the snake. While I am not scared of spiders or snakes, some are. One of the clauses in the Bill is about predispositions towards certain sorts of animals. Scaredness is a different sort of cat completely, the scaredy-cat. It is right and proper that people with a predisposition against those sorts of animals are protected.

I regret to say that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well meaning but does not live in the real world between the differences of location, different properties, different furnishings, different types of animal—fur or feather—and the neighbours. These examples are not grounded in prejudice; they are grounded in the balanced welfare of all residents, and the landlord has a role to arbitrate to everyone’s benefit. I am afraid I cannot support Amendment 47. I make no comment on Amendment 48.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, not because he is the Convenor of the Cross Benches, although that could be a bonus point, but for three reasons. First, my family have never kept a pet, but why should I be part of a legislature that would deny somebody seeking consent to keep a pet simply because they live in social housing? To me, that is clear discrimination. It cannot be right that you would say, “Because you’re in social housing, you cannot request the consent of the landlord”. It is their right to ask for consent. That is not to say that it would give an automatic right to the social housing person to keep a pet.

Secondly, we are constantly told that this wonderful nation and the other three are nations of pet lovers. Do we want to say that somebody in social housing cannot be a pet lover? Who would want to say that?

The third reason is our beloved Majesty, the late Queen Elizabeth II. Do your Lordships remember when there was somebody who was going through a lot of trauma and she invited that gentleman to come and spend time with one of her corgis? Noble Lords will remember that the person said, “This has put my trauma in perspective”.

Those who want to keep pets because they live in social housing, and because they are animal lovers, should be given the same right as others to request consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate and thank the Minister for her reply. I found very helpful her response to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—which we do support—saying that she will write to ensure clarity and consistency.

I had a slight dread when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, got to his feet, because I thought it would be something really tricky, which of course it was. On the circumstances in which superior landlords can have an opinion on specific pets, I am trying to include superior landlords in the same way as the Bill already includes landlords. I understand the issues the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised, but they are for direct landlords, not superior landlords, and we debated those very fully in Committee. It is people with portfolios of hundreds of flats having a blanket refusal—or not—I am concerned about. The noble Lord talked about a simple detached home in the countryside.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

We can bandy around the distinction regarding the superior landlord with the offshore pension fund and hundreds of thousands of dwellings, but what about the small charity that owns a listed building held in trust for possibly hundreds of years? It surely must be entitled to its head leaseholder laying down certain provisions. It is not just about a common or garden large house in the countryside versus a flat; there have to be guardrails. Does the noble Baroness not understand that, as well-meaning as her amendment is, she has failed, I regret to say, to consider some of those narrow points and therefore it is incomplete? I find myself having huge sympathy for the Minister on this one; the amendment is incomplete.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the issue of pet-related damage is understandably a source of concern for landlords. This group of amendments raises important questions about how we balance—that word balance again—the increased rights granted to tenants to keep pets with the responsibilities and protections that landlords need.

It is simply not reasonable to argue that the existing tenancy deposit, which is designed to cover damage under current arrangements, is also sufficient to cover the additional risks introduced by granting tenants a new right to keep pets.

The Government have already accepted that pets pose a greater risk by including pet insurance measures in the Bill. That was a clear recognition that pets are likely to cause additional damage. However, as we consider these provisions, it is crucial to reflect on the experience already gained in Scotland, where tenants’ rights legislation has evolved to allow pets in rented properties, while seeking to balance landlord protections. In Scotland, the introduction of pet-friendly tenancy provisions and related insurance requirements has offered valuable lessons. While these measures have expanded tenant freedoms and encouraged pet ownership, they have also revealed challenges, particularly in ensuring that landlords are adequately protected against damage and in making sure that any additional costs or deposits are fair and transparent.

Either pets cause additional damage or they do not. If the Government now claim that they do not, they must provide clear and compelling evidence to justify overturning their original assessment. Without such evidence, it logically and fairly follows that the landlord should be permitted to take a separate pet damage deposit.

We believe it is inevitable that some damage will result from pets. That is why we support Amendment 53A, which would introduce the option of a dedicated pet damage deposit. This would provide landlords with an essential route to recoup costs, while also protecting tenants from unfair charges by clearly defining that this is a separate and transparent element of a tenancy agreement and that, as we have already heard, if no damage is done, they get this charge back.

We recognise that some landlords may choose to welcome pets without requiring additional deposits—or, in the future, insurance—and they should be free to do so. But where landlords require further protections, there must be a fair and transparent mechanism for tenants to provide it at the outset of the tenancy.

Finally, the experience in Scotland reminds us that implementing pet-friendly rental policies is a delicate balance that must be tailored to the practical realities that landlords and tenants face. As the Bill moves forward, it is essential that it draws on such lessons to achieve frameworks that work fairly across the whole United Kingdom.

If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 53A, we will support him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation. Amendment 61 seeks to address a growing and deeply concerning issue in the private rented sector: the overuse, and often misuse, of guarantor requests. This amendment was expertly moved by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett in Committee, and I thank her for her support today along with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—all of whom have given continued support to addressing the issue of the overuse of guarantors.

I am sure that noble Lords across the House will accept that landlords should retain ways to manage financial risk. However, the increasing use of guarantor requests is creating a new form of exclusion, particularly for vulnerable renters. This is what Amendment 61 is about: it is not about banning guarantors altogether but restoring proportionality and fairness in their use.

Guarantors have become a significant barrier to housing for many. Recent data from Generation Rent shows that almost 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 were asked to provide a guarantor. A further survey by Shelter and YouGov showed that over 100,000 private renters per year are blocked from renting a home in the private rented sector due to a guarantor request they cannot fulfil.

Meanwhile, only 2.9% of landlords attempted to claim unpaid rent from a guarantor in the last two years, despite an estimated 1.85 million tenants being asked to provide one. Guarantors are therefore becoming commonplace, yet they are rarely needed in practice and often never pursued when payment issues arise. Noble Lords may be asking why. A YouGov survey by Shelter asked the same question. When questioned, 25% of private rental landlords said that they asked for a guarantor because “My letting agent advised me to”. Another 16% said, “I thought it was standard practice”, while 12% said, “I’d heard from other landlords it was a good idea”. Simply put, guarantors are over-requested, largely unused and, worst of all, increasingly serve as a proxy for discrimination.

When a tenant can show that they can afford the rent through a standard affordability assessment, the additional requirement of a guarantor becomes both unnecessary and unfair. It many cases, it adds to an already substantial financial burden, alongside the five-week deposit and the first month’s rent in advance. The evidence shows that this practice disproportionately affects people on lower incomes, those without access to financial support networks and groups already at greater risk of housing discrimination: women, single parents, renters with disabilities and black and Bangladeshi households are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor. A renter with a disability is 20 % more likely to face such a request, and a black renter is 66% more likely. These figures cannot be anomalies; they are a pattern. In Committee, we heard from my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett about older renters securing their pensions, being asked intrusive questions and then being required to provide a guarantor. From the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, we heard of a self-employed single mother being asked for a guarantor even though she was earning £45,000 a year—well above the UK median income. Too many renters simply do not have someone in their network who can act as a guarantor. Unless this issue is addressed, we risk entrenching a two-tier system in the rental market: one for those with access to wealth and another for those without.

The justification for these requirements often rests on an overstated fear of rent arrears, yet government figures show that only 2% of private renters were in arrears in 2023-24, and the English Housing Survey puts it at 5%. Of course, that is not negligible, but it does not warrant such widespread and disproportionate use of guarantors. There is an eviction ground for rent arrears, which is the primary backstop for when tenants fail to pay their rent.

Moreover, Amendment 61 aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own guidance that guarantors should be requested only when a tenant cannot fully demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This amendment strikes a balance, allowing landlords to use guarantors when genuinely necessary, while protecting tenants from unjust exclusion. It is supported by a wide range of voices: Shelter, Independent Age, UNISON, Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Mayor of London and others. It is also worth noting that this amendment not only calls for legislative clarity but invites the Government to go a little further by introducing national guidance on fair and proportionate tenant referencing. Such a move would help standardise best practice and prevent local variation from undermining equality in the rental market.

In summary, this amendment is proportionate and reasonable and would not remove a landlord’s right to safeguard their interest, but it would ensure the right is exercised in a way that is just, consistent and in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage is minded to accept this amendment, but if that is not the case, I ask my noble friend four final critical questions. With guarantor requests increasingly becoming standard process, rather than when they are needed, will the Government issue guidance to landlords on when to request a guarantor? Will the Government look at what support they can provide for people who are at risk of homelessness because they cannot find a guarantor? Will the issue of guarantors be examined in detail as part of the post-Bill implementation work? Will my noble friend commit to working on these issues with Shelter, the Renters’ Reform Coalition, noble Lords in this House and many others on these issues, to find other ways to support the growing number of renters being locked out of the PRS because of the overuse of guarantors?

Without this amendment or government action to address the issue of guarantors, the Bill’s measures to tackle discrimination risk being undermined by the very practices it seeks to reform. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly against Amendment 61. It is well-meaning, but I am afraid it is a blunt instrument full of unintended consequences. I do not deny that to require a guarantor for most tenancies is disproportionate and unnecessary, and the Bill makes welcome provisions to regularise what has become standard practice for the most part. However, I want to alert your Lordships’ House to some perverse consequences for three particular types of potential tenant who are among the quietest voices: the foreign student; the groups of students; and those with impaired reputation or difficult personal circumstances. Guarantees make the unrentable into rentable, in some cases. It makes opportunities exist when refusal would otherwise be the only other choice.

Let us dwell for a moment on the case of the foreign student. The foreign students come from far away; they have no reputation, there is no covenant strength and they may not even have arrived in the United Kingdom. They certainly do not have a UK bank account at this point and they probably do not have a UK mobile phone either. In many cases, the only way in which they can secure a property to live in before they arrive is to have the support of a guarantor; a guarantor allows them to have a roof over their head.

Then we have the groups of students. I refer to the case of my daughter, when she went off to Newcastle. There were seven students who were friends, although none of them really knew each other that well; they certainly were not related to each other, and there were no family bonds to tie them, whereas the Bill contemplates that the tenant is a single tenant. It is quite reasonable for a landlord renting to students, if they cannot have payment in advance—I will not talk about that because we discussed that on day one of Committee—to require some sort of guarantor so that the downside risks can be compensated. Not all students want to live in expensive halls of residence; they are disadvantaged at an early part of their lives.

Let us think also about those with an impaired reputation—people who may have left prison or are suffering from domestic abuse or family breakdown. I have been a guarantor for hundreds of families in these sorts of situations, but the Government seek to make my well-meaning interventions unlawful. Let me explain. Sitting in your Lordships’ House, I see the Minister and my noble friend Lord Jamieson who, like me, have been leaders of councils. We know that councils, in certain circumstances, have to step in to avoid homelessness. We know there are not enough registered social landlords and that the private sector landlords are our friends—they are part of the solution, not the problem. However, we cannot expect the private sector landlord to be the only one who takes a chance to get that person, who may have become homeless, a roof over their head.

In common with many other councils, my council—and I am proud that we pushed this hard—went for guarantees. We stood as guarantor for somebody in difficult circumstances so that the private sector landlord, who was prepared to take a chance with us, could provide a home. This is an essential part of managing a housing market. It is all about supporting the most vulnerable. It works; it is a success. If you have been a council leader—I am sorry that I failed to identify the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who has also been a council leader in these circumstances—this is about helping families get back on their feet.

In considering Amendment 61, I ask noble Lords: in what universe can this misdirected, misguided and counterproductive amendment help those with the quietest voices get a roof over their heads? Providing a guarantor is the way in which the unrentable can rent, and there is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfasts if they could, via a guarantor, be housed. I cannot support this amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and I am grateful to her for taking over the amendment. She is much better placed than I am to speak to it, and has done so very persuasively. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, called it a blunt instrument and was hyperbolic in his description of the amendment. According to Shelter, the Bill and this amendment would restrict the scenarios in which a landlord can legitimately request a guarantor to those in which a prospective tenant cannot prove that the rent is affordable to them.

So it does not seem to me that the amendment excludes the groups that the noble Lord described. If it does so, then perhaps we can have a refined version of it, but the fact is that there are problems without an amendment of this kind. My central argument in Committee—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The noble Baroness talks about the burden of proof. In the three examples I gave, proof is not available. I can understand the intent and the well-meaning behind Amendment 61, but if it is to form part of the Bill, noble Lords need to ask themselves how those people in difficult circumstances are going to demonstrate the proof. They cannot, so a guarantor is the only way forward.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

This amendment does not preclude the use of guarantors; it just limits their use. I will leave it at that. As I said in Committee, if there is a better way of doing it, then fine—perhaps the Government could bring forward an amendment that ruled out any unintended consequences. I am not convinced that there are any—but anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and am absolutely delighted to support it. We spoke about this in Committee, but I still feel that there is an opportunity here. This is not about banning all guarantors—if that needs clarifying—and that is made very clear in the wording of the amendment. This is about trying to stop the blanket use of guarantors, which, I am afraid, is occurring and is highly discriminatory.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, referenced student groups. But I am a little bit confused, because my understanding is that the student groups that have been in touch with me over the last few days about this amendment are in support of it—unless the noble Lord has any examples of student groups that have been in touch with him that are against this amendment, then I am happy to sit down to allow him to tell me.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I have not canvassed student groups, but I know the example of my own family—my daughters went to Oxford and Newcastle—and the strictures that were placed on them. So I am talking from my personal experience rather than that of the representatives of other organisations.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

It is my understanding that student groups are happy with this amendment and against the blanket use of guarantors. The current use of guarantors is, I am afraid, a proxy for discrimination against vulnerable groups. There is evidence that black renters are 66% more likely to be asked for a guarantor—I know that has already been said, but it is so profoundly shocking that it bears repetition. If you are on benefits, you are 60% more likely to be asked; if you have a disability, it is 20%. The great Equality Act 2010 is being driven over with the use of guarantors and I am delighted to support this amendment.

I read with a lot of care the Front-Bench speeches in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested that guarantors can be a lifeline for those with poor credit or no rental history, but on these Benches we genuinely believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The harsh and stark reality is that 550,000 private renters were unable to secure a desired home in the last five years because they lacked a guarantor.

There is not a single organisation that I am aware of that campaigns and advocates on behalf of people who could be described as those who need that kind of lifeline, who are on no or a low income, which opposes this amendment. That includes working-class, international, estranged and care-experienced students who struggle to find suitable guarantors because they do not know anyone in those highest quartiles, which are the only guarantors that many landlords will accept. They just do not have those contacts or connections.

The noble Lord further suggested that tenants have market discretion or choice if a landlord is imposing a blanket guarantor policy. That defies the logic of the current marketplace, where the low-income tenant is never in the luxury position of shopping around. Again, that choice rests only with those whose income is in the higher quartiles.

On the Minister’s point in the same discussion about guarantors providing confidence, we must ask: at what cost to fairness? Landlords already have really robust tools: a five-week deposit, the first month’s rent up front, and affordability checks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, guarantors are rarely invoked in practice. Like the noble Lord, I am currently a guarantor for my son, who is a student, so I completely understand that this is what we currently do. But in the past two years less than 3% of landlords have ever attempted to claim lost rent from a guarantor. When they did, it was 16 times more likely to be difficult than easy. Landlords have other, much more appropriate business risk management tools, such as rent guarantee insurance, rather than relying on a tenant’s family member, and so many of these tenants do not have a family member who is earning way above the median income, which is what is demanded.

Even before this legislation has come into effect, there is a worrying rise. A 2024 Generation Rent survey of its supporters found that 30% of private renters who had moved in 2023-24 had been asked for a guarantor—up from 22% of people who had moved in 2019. Always in this context, I fear that the debate is held on a presumption that renters lack responsibility somehow, unlike other tenures. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, only 2% of tenants were reported as in arrears in 2023-24. The vast majority of tenants are responsible individuals, who, by the way, often forgo other things, such as heating and eating, in order to pay rent, because they understand the severe consequences of not doing so and because the market is so limited for them.

This amendment is not a radical proposal. As Generation Rent and Shelter argue, it simply ensures that guarantors are used sparingly, appropriately and only when absolutely necessary, when a prospective tenant genuinely cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This entirely aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own current guidance.

When the Minister responds, if the Government are unable to stop this loophole for discriminatory practice, will she at least make it clear, either today or perhaps in a letter to follow, that guarantors should be used only as a last resort, that the Equality Act should be used if there is further evidence of discrimination, and that landlords already have the means to ensure that tenants pay through other mechanisms? I hope that her words today will ensure that the widespread use of guarantors is not the next version of no-fault evictions.