Renters (Reform) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Nickie Aiken and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 159 and others tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for tabling the six amendments that he moved and spoke to this morning. They raise a number of important issues and it is right that the Committee and the Government carefully consider them.

As we have heard, clauses 5 and 6 set out the process for rent increases under the new tenancy system and how any such increase can be challenged by tenants. Under the existing assured tenancy regime, a landlord can only increase the rent during a fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy by including a rent review clause in the tenancy agreement. Rent review clauses of this kind are used by landlords to increase rent levels during fixed-term tenancies, but it is far more common for landlords to offer a new fixed-term tenancy at a higher rent when the old one is coming to an end, or to seek to increase the amount of rent payable once a tenant has fallen into a periodic tenancy with no specific end date.

The rents on periodic assured shorthold tenancies can be increased by the landlord serving notice under section 13 of the Housing Act 1988. However, although formal section 13 increases can take place only once a year, under the current system assured shorthold tenants can still be asked by their landlords either to agree informally or to formally sign a new agreement accepting a higher rent level, and there is no limit whatsoever on how high rents can rise by either method.

In theory, the tenant does not have to agree to a rent increase proposed informally or formally via a new agreement, and they can refer increases to a first-tier tribunal on grounds of reasonableness, yet all the available evidence suggests that only an incredibly small proportion of privately renting households do so. An analysis by Generation Rent of market rent assessments undertaken by the first-tier tribunal indicated that only 341 such cases were heard between January 2019 and August 2021. Bearing in mind that there are approximately 4.4 million privately renting households in England alone, it is a miniscule proportion.

The reason why so few tenants determine to make use of the tribunal process under the existing tenancy regime is obvious. If a tenant refuses a rent increase either informally or formally via a new agreement, or successfully challenges a rent increase at tribunal, a landlord can take immediate steps to end their tenancy, most obviously by issuing a no-fault section 21 notice.

With the introduction of the new tenancy system, the ability of landlords to compel tenants to accept rent rises by means of the latent threat of a section 21 notice will obviously be removed. Although there will remain the threat of spurious eviction by means of the remaining de facto no-fault grounds for possession that we discussed at length in previous debates, the new system will be an improvement on the current situation faced by private tenants when it comes to rent increases.

By amending section 13 of the 1988 Act, clause 5 will ensure that issuing a section 13 notice will henceforth be the only valid way that a private landlord—except those of a relevant low-cost tenancy, as specified in the Bill—can increase the rent, and landlords will therefore be able to increase the amount of rent charged only once per year. Supplemented by the provisions in subsection (4), which will increase the notice period for a rent rise from one month to two months, the changes will create more predictability and give tenants more certainty about future rent increases. On that basis, we welcome them.

However, we remain seriously concerned that the provisions in the clauses are not robust enough to prevent unaffordable rent increases from being used as default eviction notices for the purpose of retaliation against complaints, or simply because a landlord wants to try to secure a rent level that is far in excess of what they can reasonably expect from a sitting tenant.

We have consistently raised concerns about this issue since the White Paper was published in the summer of 2022. As I argued in response to a statement accompanying the release of the White Paper that was made by the then Under-Secretary of State at the Department, the hon. Member for Walsall North—he may remember—it is problematic that the Government did not include in the reform package any robust means of redress for tenants facing unreasonable rent rises. Our view remains as set out in that exchange last year—namely, that a one-year rent increase limit, the removal of rent review clauses, and vague assurances about giving tenants the confidence to challenge unjustified increases at tribunal are not enough.

With the scrapping of section 21, the risk of economic evictions by means of extortionate within-tenancy rent hikes will increase markedly. The Government acknowledge that tenants need protection against what they term “back-door eviction” by such means. However, we believe that the Bill as it stands does not protect tenants sufficiently from such economic evictions, and that it needs to be strengthened accordingly in several ways.

In the White Paper, the Government committed to preventing

“the Tribunal increasing rent beyond the amount landlords initially asked for when they proposed a rent increase.”

We believe that that was an entirely sensible proposal. An obvious need under the new tenancy system is to ensure that all tenants are fully aware that they can submit an application to the first-tier tribunal to challenge a rent amount in the first six months of a tenancy or following the issuing of a section 13 notice. Equally as important is that the tribunal process operates in a way that gives them the confidence to do so.

The Bill allows for a situation in which tenants who are handed section 13 notices with what they consider to be completely unreasonable rent increases might apply to the tribunal to challenge the increase, only to see the rent level rise higher. That will act as a powerful deterrent to tenants making such applications. As a consequence, the Bill risks emboldening landlords to press for unaffordable rent increases in the knowledge that tribunal challenges will remain vanishingly rare, as they are now.

The Government’s explicit intent might well be to deter a proportion of tenants from challenging section 13 rent increases. After all, with 4.4 million households now renting privately in England, even a minor uptick in applications to the tribunal will place it under enormous pressure. Without additional resourcing and support, that could lead to extensive delays. Ultimately, however, it is for the Government to ensure that the first-tier tribunal can cope with the implications of the new tenancy regime that they are introducing, not for tenants to have to stomach unreasonable rent rises because there is a chance that they will not do so.

On a point of principle, we believe that the tribunal should only ever be able to increase the rent increase requested in the section 13 notice issued, or to award a rent amount lower than it. Amendment 160 would ensure that that would be the case by specifying that where a rent assessment is carried out by a tribunal, the rent subsequently determined by the tribunal cannot be higher than that originally requested by a landlord in the section 13 notice. We believe that that change, which would ensure that the tribunal process was in line with the commitments made by the Government in their White Paper, and reasonable and proportionate. I urge the Minister to accept it.

We also take the view that the Bill needs to include greater protection for tenants who would suffer undue hardship as a result of a section 13 rent increase. Once the provisions in the Bill are finally enacted, a considerable number of tenants—in particular those in hot rental markets where rent levels increase rapidly—will without doubt be unable to afford an increase in rent as set out in a section 13 notice. Many will simply give notice and leave the property without taking the matter any further.

A significant proportion of those who attempt by means of the tribunal a challenge of a rent increase perceived to be unreasonable, in an effort to secure a rent lower than proposed in the section 13 notice, but fail, will ultimately leave the property. That would even be the case if the Government accept amendment 160 and the tribunal cannot increase the amount further. We believe that those who would experience undue hardship as a result, such as tenants at risk of becoming homeless, because they have to leave what has become an unaffordable, should be afforded a little more time—it is only a little more time—to try to secure a property that they can afford.

Taken together, amendments 161 and 162 would achieve that aim by changing the point at which the rent increase becomes payable from the date at which the tribunal makes a determination to two months after that date. The effect of that pair of amendments would simply be to give vulnerable tenants a reasonable period of time in which to make new arrangements as a result of a rent rise that was unaffordable for them. We hope that the Government can see the merit of accepting the amendments and will give them serious consideration.

We also believe that three other important changes to the Bill are required in relation to rent. The first concerns section 13 notices. As I remarked earlier, the clause amends this section of the 1988 Act so that from the date of commencement it will be the only valid way in which a private landlord, except those of a relevant low-cost tenancy, can increase the rent, once per year. In practice, however, we know that, particularly at the lower end of the private rented market and in the unregulated shadow rental market, a great many landlords will inevitably increase rent levels without issuing a formal section 13 or 13A notice. Amendment 159 would ensure that in instances where they might, a tenant would have the right to seek to recover costs through a debt claim in the court. It would also provide the Government with the power by regulation to have such claims recoverable by tribunal, if Ministers felt that was a more appropriate body to determine such claims.

The second issue concerns rent requested in advance of a tenancy’s commencement. In the White Paper, the Government committed to introducing a power to prohibit the amount of rent that landlords can ask for in advance, and we supported that proposal. We will come to discuss measures aimed at discriminatory practices in relation to the granting of tenancies when we debate the various Government amendments that are to form new chapter 2A of part 1 of the Bill. However, irrespective of how effective those groups of amendments might ultimately be—we have our doubts, which we will set out in due course—blanket prohibitions are not a silver bullet for discriminatory practices in the private rented sector.

A number of informal barriers to renting privately are regularly faced by large numbers of tenants. They include requests that renters appoint a high-earning guarantor—an issue to which I hope we can return in a future sitting—and asking renters for multiple months of rent in advance. According to research carried out by Shelter, a staggering 59% of tenants reported being asked to pay rent in advance when attempting to secure a property the last time they moved; some were even asked to pay in excess of six months’ rent up front. Tenants reported taking out unsecured loans, using their credit cards or going significantly into their overdrafts to make the advance payments. One in 10 of those surveyed reported being denied a property for which they could afford the monthly rent simply because they were unable to pool together the sizeable advance rent payment that the landlord requested.

It is true that clause 1 defines a rental period as one month—a change from the current situation in which periods of a periodic tenancy can be of any length. One reading of the Bill might suggest that a single rental period is all that a landlord will be able to request under the new tenancy regime. If that is the case, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed as much and detailed precisely how clause 1 would prevent landlords from requesting multiple rent payments in advance. Nothing that we can see in the Bill would prevent a landlord from requesting several rent payments at one time before a tenancy was signed.

We believe that the solution is new clause 62, which would ensure that the maximum amount that could be lawfully requested by a residential landlord in advance of a tenancy would be five weeks’ rent for tenancies of less than £50,000 per annum and six weeks’ rent for tenancies of over £50,000 per annum.

The third and final change that we believe is required relates to rental bidding wars—the product of soaring demand and inefficient supply which is, I admit, to a large extent concentrated in our cities and larger towns. The phenomenon involves multiple tenants competing fiercely for individual private lets. Landlords and the agents acting on their behalf, overwhelmed by applicants, now regularly play prospective renters off against each other, with some offering to pay months of rent up front as a lump sum, to sign longer tenancy agreements or to agree to rent levels far in excess of the advertised monthly rate.

Under the new tenancy system, long-term fixed-term tenancy agreements will not exist. We hope the Government will accept our new clause 62 or introduce an amendment of their own, as they promised in the White Paper, to prohibit landlords from asking for rent in advance. That leaves competitive bidding wars in respect of monthly rental periods as the only means by which this inherently inflationary phenomenon could continue—a phenomenon that the unscrupulous can undoubtedly use to discriminate against certain types of tenants and, even where no such discrimination occurs, pushes many to the limit of what they can afford financially.

Taken together, new clauses 58 and 59 would effectively prohibit bidding wars for private rented properties by requiring landlords or persons acting on their behalf to state the proposed rent, based on an estimate of the property’s market rate, in the advertisement for the premises. That should prevent landlords from inviting or encouraging bids that exceed the amount stated.

The new clauses are based on legislation introduced in New Zealand and Australia, the former having banned the practice entirely in February 2021 and the latter having seen it prohibited in most states—including, most recently, New South Wales in December last year and South Australia in June this year. We hope the Minister will give the new clauses due consideration. I look forward to his thoughts about them and about other five amendments in this group.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I thank the shadow Minister, who had some very reasonable thoughts about this issue, for his speech.

Currently, I am dealing with an example of what I believe to be the worst behaviour by a corporate landlord that I have ever come across in 18 years as a councillor or Member of Parliament. I am talking about rent increases. AXA Insurance, which now owns Dolphin Square in Pimlico in my constituency, is carrying out a major refurbishment of that estate; that is understandable. However, it is now asking tenants, some who have been there for many years, to move out of flats that it wants to refurbish and into others. But, if they do move out and into another flat, their tenancy breaks, and they have to take out a new tenancy, which includes a 40% increase in rent.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Nickie Aiken and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Nickie Aiken]

Good.

Sue James: But it needs more.

Ben Twomey: I would add that it lacks detail at the moment, and we are very keen to see that detail. I mentioned that we are particularly interested in eviction notices and the outcomes of evictions being logged there; otherwise, there is not really much improvement in the way you monitor and enforce against abuse of some of the new no-fault grounds. So eviction notices are really important. Getting the rents charged on there will be really important, and we should think about energy performance certificates going on to the portal so that they can be enforced. When I talk about enforcement, I think it is really important that local authorities are empowered and have the necessary resources to enforce against bad practice—the kind of practice that can lead to people being unsafe in their homes.

It is also about having a place for tenants to access this information, as they have a vested interest in what happens afterwards. The only way to give them a vested interest is to have an incentive, and we think that is through rent repayment orders. We would encourage the portal to be made accessible to tenants. For example, where they can see that no-let periods have been abused, there should be a rent repayment order. If the landlord is not compliant with the portal, there should be a rent repayment order. Also, if the landlord is not compliant with minimum energy efficiency standards, we think that there should be a repayment—you would equalise it in that way. At the moment, where licensing schemes exist, for example, and the local authority pursues landlords for a fine, often that money does not actually get back to the person who has lost out—the tenant. It is important that rent repayment orders go directly to the tenant wherever possible.

Sue James: I totally agree, and I would like to pick up on the issue around the basic requirements of gas safety and stuff. At the moment, that is a huge protection in section 21; a landlord cannot get a possession order unless they have all those protections, and that does not appear in the Bill. We absolutely need to have them included, and the portal could be a place to put them. We would then have transparency; a tenant knows when they are looking in the portal that this is a good landlord and that they have complied with everything. I think that is so fundamental to changing the nature of the private-rented sector.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q As we have you here and you have unique access to residents and organisations that represent residents, I wonder whether I could push you on some areas that are not covered in the Bill. Some of them were flagged in the White Paper and some were not, but they are a problem for renters every day—at least on the basis of my postbag—and we might deal with them in the Bill. I am thinking of things like guarantors, advanced rent and bidding wars, which we are hearing a lot about at the moment, particularly in the part of London that I represent. Could you speak about some of the potential solutions that we might look to work into the Bill?

Ben Twomey: The question of guarantors is really important. Usually, there would be a guarantor if you are not earning a certain amount to cover the rent—usually, you should have an income that is two and a half times the rent and, if not, you require a guarantor. For younger people, for people on low incomes, that can be quite difficult, so they would need a guarantor.

We have been working with the National Youth Advocacy Service to look at the barriers facing care leavers when they access private rented homes. This has been a major barrier for care leavers. At the moment, 60% of local authorities do not offer people the ability to be a guarantor for care leavers. Local authorities are the corporate parent for care leavers, so they are basically taking on parenting duties. We think that is a big problem. The 40% that offer the guarantor scheme in principle vary in the way that they do so. We think that it is for the Government to step in and say, “If, as a state, you are going to take on parental responsibility, you should be a guarantor to make sure that young people who are care-experienced are not being locked out of rented accommodation, compared with their peers.” That would be a major step forward.

To touch on bidding wars, we have found in our research at Generation Rent that there are seven times more bidding wars than there were just five years ago. We have gone up from 3% of tenants experiencing this to 21%, from our research. I experienced it when I moved down to London relatively recently. I was asked how much more I would want to give and how much longer I would want to stay in the property as a fixed-term tenancy. It is very, very common now. We think that the issue needs to be addressed. There is nothing in the Bill at the moment, but there should be some consideration given to this. When a landlord offers a price for rent, they are almost, by definition, offering a rent that they are comfortable with. Just because of the changes in market forces—that is a change not to their costs, but to the number of people queuing round the block for them—it should not be that they can then increase the rent as they please and encourage others to enter into these kinds of bidding wars, which basically pit tenant against tenant. The only one who is benefiting from this is the landlord.

Sue James: To pick up on that point, this is not in the Bill, but the position of the Renters’ Reform Coalition is that, at the moment, unless you restrict the amount that landlords can put up rents, you potentially have an economic eviction, and we would suggest that you restrict that to the lowest of either inflation or wage growth.

To touch on what is in the Bill, section 14 of the 1988 Act allows the tenant to apply for the tribunal to have a look at the rent. Originally, it was restricted to whatever the landlord was requesting, but in the Bill it is now the market rent. That would potentially have a chilling effect on tenants who want to challenge the rent that has been set. As an adviser, I might say, “It is limited to what your landlord has suggested,” but at the moment, with the way Bill is, that could be the market rent if the landlord has asked for less than that. Does that person then challenge it? That could have a chilling effect. When thinking about rents and, as Ben said, bidding wars, that absolutely needs to change, because it is really difficult. There are queues of people for every tenancy and the protection needs to be there, so thoughts around that would be really welcome.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Nickie Aiken and Matthew Pennycook

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she is not the only hon. Member for whom this is an acute problem: I have heard Members say in several debates over the past year that this is a huge problem in their local areas. She will remember that there was a real difference of opinion in Committee about how bold the Government need to be in response to this problem and how quickly they need to act. I urge the Minister to think again about what additional provisions can be put into the Bill to go beyond the registration system.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

In Westminster alone, we have 13,000 short-term let properties, so we are fully aware of the issues. I often advocate licensing schemes, but I think that a registration scheme under new clause 119, which I support, is a good first step. It is important to remember that no two local authorities are the same, and we have to respond to them. Does the shadow Minister agree that this is a good first step? A licensing scheme may be appropriate eventually, but let us go with a registration scheme first.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree and disagree with the hon. Lady. I agree that it is a good first step, and I disagree in the sense that the Government cannot consult for a number of years on what additional measures might be required. We are ultimately talking about local discretion to apply, whether it is use classes or a licensing scheme, but we think that, such is the acute nature of the problem in particular parts of the country, a registration scheme is not enough. We cannot wait until 2024 for additional measures.