The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I hope the entire House will agree that everyone should live in a decent, safe and affordable home. Everyone should, but not everyone can. That is why, as Housing Secretary, I have put decency at the heart of my plans for housing, and taken steps to ensure that all homes are warm and safe. Nowhere is that more needed than in the private rented sector, which plays an undeniably critical role in our housing system.

I want to be clear from the outset that this Government recognise the important role of landlords, most of whom provide good-quality homes for their tenants. But this is a sector in serious need of reform. Millions of people live in fear of section 21 no-fault evictions that could uproot them from their homes and communities, and they are forced to live in homes that are riddled with damp and mould, too scared to complain in case they end up being evicted and homelessness, and knowing that another potential tenant will be desperate enough to move in.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the benefit of his personal experience—an experience that is suffered by far too many families. Hundreds of thousands of young families are in temporary accommodation, in many cases because of section 21. In 2019 the ending of this scandalous practice was included in the previous Government’s manifesto, but we are still waiting. It has taken us just four months to bring the Bill to the House, because we felt that the need for it is critical. Too many young people are priced out of leaving home, unable to move to the big city where they could start their careers because of sky-high rents, and that too must change—I know that many hon. Members agree.

The Conservatives promised to pass a renters reform Bill in their 2019 manifesto, but, in a desperate attempt to placate their Back Benchers, they caved in to vested interests, leaving tenants at the continued mercy of unfair section 21 eviction notices. They dithered, delayed and made excuse after excuse for their inaction. What has been the human cost of that failure? Since 2019, when the Conservatives first promised action, more than 100,000 households have faced a no-fault eviction, with 26,000 facing eviction last year alone. Too many families facing homelessness; too many families priced out of a safe and secure home; and too many families stuck in cold, rotting, damp homes—that is the inheritance that we need to fix.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I will set out later in my speech what we are doing to ensure that renters get a fair deal.

This is why we have moved so speedily in getting this Bill to its Second Reading. We will not take another four years, which is why we have done it in less than four months. I must give credit where it is due, because many parts of the Bill build on the good work of my predecessor in the Department. However, let me be clear that this is a fundamentally different Bill; it goes above and beyond the last Government’s Bill in several critical ways. This is not just a renters reform Bill; it is a Renters’ Rights Bill, a plan to ensure that all private tenants can aspire to a decent, affordable and safe home.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, whose interventions are normally more pithy, that the Bill accommodates the unique circumstances of students. I hope he can see that we are trying to strike a balance. I am sure that his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests proves that he is one of those landlords I would like to commend for being decent landlords. We want to ensure that the standard that I am sure he gives to his tenants is applied across the whole country.

Many right hon. and hon. Members will have heard heartbreaking stories from constituents who have been forced to leave their homes with little or no justification. This Government will remove the threat of arbitrary evictions by finally bringing to an end no-fault evictions. Unlike the previous Government, who put in place last-minute caveats, we will abolish no-fault evictions for new and existing tenancies at the same time, to give all tenants the same security immediately.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I, too, pay tribute to the Housing Minister for the work that he did in opposition and in getting us here today.

In saying that we need to end the cruel practice of no-fault evictions, I recognise the huge pressures on the court system as a whole, which have been caused by years of Tory failure and neglect. To support the changes, we will digitise the county court possession process, working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to create a modern, efficient service for our courts. We will also take steps to ensure that, wherever possible, disputes will be resolved at an early stage, and the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman service that the Bill introduces will play a vital supportive role.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I absolutely agree with my hon. friend, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he did in local government before coming to this place. He will know about the direct impact of this issue, as will many Members of this House. It is not just about having a home; no-fault evictions have an effect on children, and on a person’s life, job, income and everything else that they want to do. That is why it is so important that, whereas the previous Government made no progress in four years, we are now at this stage of the Bill after four months and we intend to continue at speed.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Member for his comment. I hope that he recognises from my opening remarks that good landlords have nothing to fear from this Bill, and we will help them. The new database will help landlords to understand and meet their legal duties, and we will provide clear guidance. I will talk more about how that database will work.

Part 1 of the Bill will introduce a new, modern tenancy system that removes fixed-term tenancies, meaning that tenants can stay in their home until they decide to end the tenancy, and they will only need to give two months’ notice. This will end the injustice for tenants who want or need to leave at short notice but cannot, and allow both landlords and tenants the flexibility to respond to changes in their circumstances.

I want to make it clear that our Bill ensures that landlords will still be able to reclaim their properties when they legitimately need to, through clear and robust possession grounds. We have also considered the unique situation of student accommodation and specialist sectors such as stepping-stone accommodation, for which the Bill also includes a possession ground. In most cases, tenants will have four months’ notice, so that there is time to find a new home, and landlords will have to wait a year from the beginning of a tenancy before they can use the “moving in and selling” grounds for eviction. This honours our commitment to level the playing field decisively for renters, which goes further than the last Government’s ambitions. Of course, landlords will still be able to quickly evict tenants who engage in antisocial behaviour and make other people’s lives a misery, to protect the strong communities that we want to see flourishing around the country.

The Bill will also empower tenants to challenge unfair rent increases that are designed to drive them out. It will prevent tenants from being bound by rent review clauses, putting them in a stronger position to challenge unreasonable rent hikes at tribunal.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I disagree on how to resolve the issue. Rent controls restrict housing supply, which does not help anyone, but our Bill takes practical measures to help renters by empowering tenants to tackle unreasonable rent hikes and prohibiting unfair rental bidding, and we will continue to assess potential action on sky-high rents. Hopefully, we are taking measures that will help his constituents and others across the country.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about deposits and paying rent in advance. This Bill will protect tenants from requests for large amounts of rent in advance, but we are in listening mode. We will keep this issue under review during the passage of the Bill, and we will take the necessary action. We think that we have done enough on that, but we are open to interventions, if people feel that they would help.

Unlike in the previous Government’s Bill, the tribunal will not be able to increase rent above what was originally proposed by the landlord. In cases of undue hardship, we will give the tribunal the power to defer rent increases by up to two months, thereby finally ending the injustice of economic evictions.

However, that is not all we will do to tackle unfair rent costs. We remain committed to ending rental bidding wars, which all too often price hard-working families out of a home. Landlords and letting agents will be required to publish an asking rent for their property, and will not be allowed to ask for, encourage or accept a higher offer. We are delivering real change for working people.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I do not accept that from the hon. Member. We have had scare stories about this before. As I have said, the majority of landlords are doing the right thing. The Bill is about fairness for landlords and tenants, and I think it strikes the right balance. I am acutely aware of the law of unintended consequences. In fairness, the previous Government were batting around these ideas for years, after promising in their manifesto to tackle the issues, but they let down the people who are in these situations, who deserved better from their Government. This Government will do better than the previous Government.

As I set out at the start of my speech, tackling the blight of poor-quality homes is a priority of mine and of this Government. That is why part 3 of the Bill will apply a decent homes standard to the sector for the first time, requiring privately rented homes to be safe, secure and free from hazards.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

We are extending ring-fenced extra resources to councils, because we recognise the need to do that. I want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s comment on children’s health. This Bill will also make good on our promise to extend Awaab’s law to the private sector. When I met Awaab’s family recently, I made a commitment to putting safety first, and it is an honour to pay tribute to Awaab’s legacy, and to his parents’ resolute campaigning for meaningful change for the many thousands of families living in unfit homes. I hope that no family ever has to endure what that family had to.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. That has been at the forefront of our minds, and not just in our work on this Bill. Hon. Members will recall that it is only a few weeks since we had the report on phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry, so when we talk about providing housing, it is at the forefront of my mind that houses have to be safe for people. It is absolutely scandalous that here in Britain at the moment we cannot guarantee that, and I will do everything I can as Secretary of State to fix that problem.

Talking about families more widely, we will also end the abhorrent practice of denying a family a home purely because they receive benefits or have children, by making it illegal for landlords and letting agents to discriminate against tenants on that basis. This Bill is about social justice and fairness for all.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

This is a wider issue to do with the poverty trap that so many people face this country. I am also proud to plug the employment Bill that will be coming forward this week. It is another incredibly important part of this Government’s agenda; the Prime Minister mentioned it earlier today. We want to make sure that the working people of this country feel better off, and are able to get on and do the things in life that we should expect anyone to be able to do—things that we were able to do as a result of the toils of the generations before us.

I want to talk database. Part 2 of the Bill will introduce a new online private rented sector database, to the benefit of landlords and tenants alike. Landlords will need to provide key information about the properties they let out, including around property standards and compliance with the law, helping tenants to understand more about the property and the landlord who they are looking to rent from.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I agree that we should be moving towards doing everything we possibly can to be efficient, and there will be consultations on that issue. One of the things that shocked me in bringing this Bill forward was that the standards are so low for some; we need to really ramp them up. The bottom line for me in bringing this Bill forward is that people should have safe, secure homes that are free from hazards. We can then build on that. We are doing much more as a Government on our ambitions to do that, working with landlords.

The database, alongside greater guidance and support from the Government, will also help landlords to understand and meet their legal duties. Good landlords should be supported and helped. In addition, the database will provide local authorities with the information that they need in their enforcement activities to drive out rogue landlords. In this Bill, I have also taken steps to support local government in its crucial role in keeping tenants safe and rooting out bad actors from the sector. That is why, as well as setting up the database, the Bill will give local authorities stronger powers to root out and punish the small number of landlords who deliberately flout the law, and will increase the maximum civil penalties, so that we punish offenders and further support local authorities.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

There are separate rules for HMOs, but we are also extending ringfenced civil penalties to support councils more, because we need to make sure that there is enforcement. A database will be important when we are looking at what we face, and also in making sure that we can take action. The problem is not every landlord. Most landlords act in a reasonable way, but we need to make sure that action is taken against those who do not.

We recognise the important role that tenants play in holding their landlords to account, and we want to incentivise them to do so. That is why we have significantly strengthened rent repayment orders. To empower tenants to take direct action against unscrupulous landlords, the Bill will add new rent payment order offences, double the maximum penalty for offences, and ensure that offenders will more often pay the maximum penalty. When landlords break the rules, tenants must have recourse to action.

Finally, I want to mention pets. It is a shame the Speaker is not here, because this was my bit for him! Our reforms are aimed squarely at improving the lives of people and families, but I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that pets are not just animals but family. That is why this Bill will make it easier for tenants to request the ability to have a pet in their home. It will also allow landlords to require insurance covering pet damage, so that everyone is covered and no one is left unfairly out of pocket.

Angela Rayner

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a balance to be struck. We are ensuring that landlords are protected with insurance. It is about reasonableness—so long as it is not an antisocial parrot that speaks all night, I am sure everyone will agree that this is a good thing.

The Bill will finally address the insecurity and injustice that far too many renters experience. We value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes to their tenants, but there is no place for unscrupulous landlords who tarnish the reputation of the entire sector by seeking to exploit or discriminate against tenants.

This Government were elected with a mandate to deliver change, and this Bill is the first of many with which we will honour our promise to the people. After the last Government failed to legislate for renters’ rights in five years, we have introduced this Bill within our first 100 days in office. This will change the lives of millions of people, so for them, and for future generations, I commend this Bill to the House.

Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a privilege to open for the Opposition on Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill in this momentous week. As the Secretary of State mentioned, Labour reaches 100 days in office this week, for which it is to be congratulated, as not everyone gets to 100 days—Sue Gray didn’t. [Hon. Members: “Liz Truss didn’t!”] Neither did Sue Gray. The point is that not everyone gets to 100 days, so we congratulate the Government. So far, the only real actions we have seen are the noisy infighting and chaos that resulted in the hurried reset we saw over the weekend—oh dear. This Renters’ Rights Bill will only add to the chaos.

The first time the Secretary of State and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I warned her that she is being stitched up by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I also told her that we are here to help, and we are, especially as it has been a particularly rough time to be a woman in the Labour party. It is not just the sacking of Sue Gray—she is soon to be awarded what Winston Churchill called a “disapeerage”—as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) has taken the brave decision to leave the Labour party. I have followed the hon. Lady’s career in this place closely and, although we do not agree on everything, she is very brave.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am still on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, the hon. Member for Canterbury took the brave decision to leave the Labour party. I have followed her career in this place closely and, although we do not agree on everything, she is very brave. Perhaps the Secretary of State will feel nervous as she introduces the Bill, because I know that her Department is already breaking promises of its own. It promised a new national planning policy framework within 100 days, yet there is no new framework. There is just a consultation, as I predicted during our last debate on this subject.

To be fair, the Department has finally produced this Renters’ Rights Bill, after copying and pasting quite a lot of our Bill, but it is still not ready. The truth is that it cannot fix the rental market by tying it in knots with further interventions and directives. The simple truth is that this Bill will not work and the proposals will fail.

We know the Bill will fail because this approach has been tried in Scotland by those great experts in failure, the Scottish National party. Research by Indigo House, the housing expert, has found that none of the Scottish legislation since 2017 has protected the majority of private residential tenants against excessive rent increases or high advertised market rents. It has discovered that tenants have found it more difficult to find a home, and that there is a particularly negative impact on those in greatest need, including homeless households and those with less economic power, such as those claiming welfare benefits.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I have not seen that specific report, but I have seen others that indicate that this is happening. We have to be careful. I appreciate that the Government want to make renting more secure and affordable, and we want to do that too, but this Bill will have the opposite effect, as we have seen in Scotland. As this Government will find out over the course of this Parliament, they cannot buck the market.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Yes, I do recall. The reason why our Bill did not get through is that we recognised its flaws. That is what I mean when I say that I worry about the Secretary of State, because the bright young things in Downing Street who have sent her out with this Bill do not care if it fails. They will take the credit today, but she will get the blame tomorrow, and tenants will get bad regulation, shortages and higher prices, as we have seen in Scotland. Those higher prices will be paid by tenants, especially young people and the less well off.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That question is nonsense. My point is that tenants will not be able to find properties to rent in the first place. From that intervention, it seems that Labour still does not understand these concepts.

We worry that the higher prices will be paid by tenants, especially young people and the less well off. Demand is rising in England, but availability is not keeping up. Forty-seven per cent. of landlords have either attempted to sell a property in 2023 or are thinking of doing so, with the biggest reason being to their fear of new laws.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Private landlords react to legislation, which is why we say that such legislation will reduce housing in the private rented sector. Fifty-six per cent. of landlords cited our Renters (Reform) Bill as a factor in their decision to sell. We already recognise those flaws, and such a reduction in supply is bad for both tenants and landlords. We are losing homes in the private rented sector.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Of course we want people to have security in homes, but to do that we need to increase supply. We did what we could when we were in government, and we will help this Government to deliver. The fact of the matter is that this legislation is not going to help. We would love it if it did—we tried to make it work and we could not—but it would have a negative effect.

Landlords provide a vital service. The private rented sector is essential for those who cannot yet afford a mortgage, for young people and for those who need to move for work. Landlords selling and giving up homes for rent for mortgages do not help many of the people who need to rent. The overwhelming majority of landlords are responsible—I am glad the Secretary of State acknowledged that—and law abiding, and they see their property as a sustainable long-term investment.

The Government claim the Bill will reform the rental market. We do not believe it will—it will break it. Respect for property rights is not just an abstract principle. It underpins confidence in our economy and legal system. If the Government do not protect property rights, investment is damaged. If investment is damaged, growth is hit. It is painfully clear to anyone who understands markets that the Bill will act as a powerful disincentive for anyone to rent out their property. Most tenants do not have friends and family to rent from and, unlike Members of the Labour party, they do not have millionaire donors to put them up, so they will suffer most when supply goes down and rents go up.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

There is a big difference between having a headline in a manifesto and seeing the detail, as many Members on the Government Benches will soon find out. Earlier on, their Prime Minister could not answer the question about whether the Government will increase taxes. Campaigning is easy, but governing is hard.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

We will find out soon enough.

Perhaps Members on the Government Benches are oblivious to these costs and dynamic effects—listening to their interventions, it appears so. I note that no impact assessment for the Bill is available, an omission that has rightly drawn criticism from the Regulatory Policy Committee. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether an impact assessment has been undertaken? If it exists, where is it? If it does not exist, why did the Government not ask for one? I hope this is not how the Labour Government mean to go on.

When I was in government, I provided impact assessments on all sorts of complex legislation. I know that is difficult and can create arguments, but I also know there is a lot more badly thought out and costly regulation where this came from, and we on the Opposition Benches are worried. I know Members on the Government Benches will want to point to the last Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill—I have heard their interventions—but the fact is, that Bill was flawed. I am quite happy to say that, but at least it recognised the practical effect of its provisions and would not have come into full effect until the courts were ready.

The then Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee warned in 2023 that the equivalent provisions in the Renters (Reform) Bill created

“a real risk that the current systems will be overwhelmed, and there will be a logjam with lengthy delays.”

This Government are pressing ahead with measures that will cause gridlock in our justice system, and pit landlords and tenants against each other in protracted litigation.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I do not mean to be patronising, but it is quite difficult when there are very clear issues that have a precedent in Scotland. The question is not why I am being patronising; the question is why the Government are ignoring what has happened when these proposals have been tried in another part of the UK. That is a serious problem. All of us here want the best for children and to see tenants do well. It is very wrong of the hon. Gentleman to ascribe negative motivations when we are pointing out problems with legislation. We on the Opposition Benches are doing our job. We do not think the Bill will work.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I would like to make some progress.

The Government are pressing ahead with measures that will cause gridlock in the justice system, which will create even more problems for tenants. The people the Government are trying to help will not be able to get a home in the first place—none of us want to see that. We have to do better.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin).

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

We need to focus on the contents of the Bill. If anyone has an issue with landlords in this House, it is Labour Members—I notice the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) ran away before the discussion about the Bill started. They should look at themselves, and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells had better check his fellow Members before asking that sort of question.

As I was saying, when the problems of protracted litigation in the courts are combined with the new, extended and highly convoluted notice requirements for recovering a property where the tenant has not paid the rent, a landlord whose tenant is in arrears will face many months of uncertainty and cost. Let me summarise in two words why the Bill will fail: unintended consequences. That is what we get when we start with policy rather than first principles.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That is an excellent point—we should not make the problem worse.

We should start with first principles not policy, but there are no first principles here that will help the Bill get through. We want to help the Bill become legislation to deliver for tenants and landlords. However, as I have heard from the comments that have been made, this seems to be about the left being seen to be tough on landlords and passing legislation with the right sounding title, rather than delivering real improvement to people’s lives.

I heard the Secretary of State teasing my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), but it is hypocritical to criticise those of us in the House who declare our interests—we on the Conservative Benches do that well—when a Labour MP was disgraced in the press for letting out unsanitary homes with mould. The Government should look at why they have Members who are behaving that way.

We want a housing market that works for everyone—landlords, tenants and those who want to own their home. By attacking those who rent out homes, they will damage investment in new homes. They will push landlords out of the market and drive up rents. That is bad for everyone. By piling on excessive regulation, they will push good landlords out and empower those bad landlords who simply ignore the rules. We need to look at enforcement of the rules we already have.

We all agree that renters need a better deal, but this Bill is not going to work. It is not what renters need—we found that out and we want to help deliver a good Bill. If the Government want to help renters, they should drive up housing supply: so far, no sign of that. If the Government want to help renters, they need to reduce immigration: so far, no sign of that. Some 80% of recent migrants have moved into the private rental sector, creating a demand the sector cannot cope with. If the Government want to help renters, they need to enforce existing rules against the bad landlords that do not look after their tenants, rather than create new rules that will make the problem worse.

This legislation is typical of Labour in government. We have tabled a reasoned amendment because the Bill fails to fix the major issues and adds yet more rules and regulations to keep the bureaucrats busy, rather than finding solutions to help those tenants who desperately need them.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a real pleasure to close this Second Reading debate, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who participated in it. Members from all parts of the House have spoken with passion and clarity, and there has been a large number of outstanding contributions. I pay particular tribute to the six Members who made their maiden speeches this afternoon, including my five hon. Friends on the Government Benches. The quality was uniformly high, and I wish each of them well in their parliamentary career.

I am encouraged by the broad support expressed today for the main principles of the Bill. The current system for private renting is broken, and renters have been demanding change for years. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in opening the debate, the case for fundamentally reforming England’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and taking decisive action to drive up standards in it, is as watertight as they come. The experience of renting privately must be improved. It already would have been, to an extent, had the previous Government not buckled under pressure from vested interests in the dying months of the last Parliament.

This Labour Government will succeed where the Conservative Government failed by finally modernising regulation of the sector. In contrast to the previous Government’s attempt, we will do so in a way that truly delivers for renters, as well as for good landlords, by addressing the numerous defects, deficiencies, omissions and, most importantly, fatal loopholes that the previous Government’s legislation contained.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We think that the legislation will take the burden off advice charities. The database provisions will ensure that tenants and landlords have access to information, and know better what is required from them under the new system. It is absolutely right that we move at pace to get the legislation through the House.

During the many hours we have debated the Bill, an extremely wide range of issues have been raised, and I will seek to respond to as many as possible in the time available to me. First, I want to address the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition. My opposite number, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), struck a constructive tone, but when the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), made the case for the reasoned amendment, we were treated to a bizarre spectacle; she chid us for copying and pasting many of the sensible provisions in the previous Government’s Bill, but then told us that those provisions would have “added to the chaos”. The problem is that she supported that legislation at every stage. She voted for its Second Reading; she supported it through Committee; and she voted for the carry-over motion to see it progress. She voted for it on Report and Third Reading, and took it into wash-up. She now asks us to accept that she believed it was flawed all along. Well, party leadership election contests can do funny things. She may not have confidence in her manifesto—which, let me remind her, stated that the Government at that time were committed to passing renters reform along the lines of their previous legislation—but we have confidence in ours and we are determined to deliver it.

Mrs Badenoch

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

No. The right hon. Member has had her time.

We strongly refute the central contention in the reasoned amendment that the Bill fails to provide security and affordability for private renters or to respect the property rights of landlords and that it

“will reduce the supply of housing in the private rented sector”.

The Bill strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. While we acknowledge that it will take time for the sector, including build to rent providers, to adjust to a significant change in regulation, we do not believe that this legislation will have a harmful impact on future rental supply—which, by the way, we are taking steps to boost, not least by providing more opportunities for investment in a growing build to rent sector. The reasoned amendment is weak and disingenuous. I urge colleagues to vote it down when we arrive in the Lobby in a few minutes.

Let me turn to a set of specific issues referred to in the reasoned amendment and raised by a number of hon. Members in the debate: namely, tenancy reform, fixed-term tenancies and court improvements. The move to a new single system of periodic tenancies is at the heart of the Bill. The introduction of the new tenancy regime will see the end of fixed-term tenancies and the long-overdue abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions. As a result, tenants will enjoy greater stability and security, and landlords will benefit from clear and expanded possession grounds to evict tenants in circumstances where that is justified and reasonable.

To avoid confusion and to ensure that renters on existing tenancies do not have to wait even longer for the threat of arbitrary evictions to be lifted, we intend to apply the new system to all tenancies in a single stage. We will appoint the commencement date by regulations at an appropriate interval after Royal Assent. Our intention is to give the sector as much notice as possible.

A number of hon. Members mentioned fixed-term tenancies. I want to be clear that it is the Government’s firm view that there is no place for fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system. Fixed terms mean that renters are obliged to pay rent regardless of whether a property is up to standard, and they reduce renters’ flexibility to move when they need to. It is right that the Bill ensures that all tenancies will be periodic in future, ending the injustice of tenants being trapped paying rent for substandard properties.

Good landlords have nothing to fear from this change, either. Tenants simply do not move houses unless it is absolutely necessary. When they do leave, they will be required to provide two months’ notice, giving landlords sufficient time to find new tenants. Nor will the PRS become an Airbnb-lite, as some have suggested. Tenants will still have to pay up to five weeks’ deposit, complete referencing checks and commit for at least two months. Locking tenants in for longer with fixed-term tenancies would mean people being unable to leave dangerous situations and being trapped in situations, for example, of domestic abuse. We are not prepared to accept that.

Ensuring that the Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared for the implementation of the new system is essential. I take on board the challenge that many hon. Members, including Opposition Front Benchers, put to us in that regard. In considering the potential impact of the Bill on the county courts, it is however important to bear in mind that most tenancies end without court action being needed. It would also plainly be wrong to assume that all evictions that presently occur following a section 21 notice will in future require court proceedings under section 8 grounds.

One of the main effects of the Bill will be to reduce the number of arbitrary evictions that take place. That said, we recognise that landlords need a reliable and efficient county court system to ensure that they can quickly reclaim their properties when appropriate, and that we need a well-functioning tribunal process to resolve disputes in a timely manner. We agree that improvements to the courts and tribunals are needed to ensure that the new system functions effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at the outset of the debate, we are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that they are made, and exploring options for improved alternative dispute resolution so that only cases that need a judgment come to court.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I will bring forward further detail as the Bill progresses, but those conversations with Ministry of Justice colleagues are ongoing, and they are constructive. We want to get to a place where the system is ready to take the new tenancy provisions forward. We will not act precipitously, and what we are not prepared to do—this is the most important point on courts—is make the necessary and long-overdue transformation of the private rented sector contingent on an unspecified degree of future court improvements subjectively determined by Ministers, as the last Government proposed in their Bill. We are determined to move quickly to give renters the long-term security, rights and protections they deserve.

A number of hon. Members raised the issue of standards, and many shared horrific stories of tenants trapped in substandard properties. It is essential, in the Government’s view, that we take decisive action to tackle the blight of poor-quality, privately rented housing and to ensure landlords are required to take swift action to respond to serious hazards.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is right. We have engaged constructively and intensively with tenant representative groups and with landlord bodies. Most of them will say that what he describes is part of the problem, because they represent the better end of the market, and that good landlords welcome the new system because it forcefully targets the unscrupulous landlords, mainly at the bottom end of the market, who bring the whole sector into disrepute. That is one reason why the characterisation of this Bill as overly pro-tenant and harmful to, and unwelcomed by, landlords is misplaced. Good landlords should welcome this legislation.

I welcome the support expressed on both sides of the House for the provisions that will see a decent homes standard applied to the private rented sector and Awaab’s law extended to it. It is important that we get the detail right, and I assure the House that we intend to consult on the content of the decent homes standard for both social and privately rented homes, and on how Awaab’s law will apply to the latter, given the obvious differences between the private and social rented sectors.

I want to respond briefly to a question posed by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos). I thank him for his kind remarks about me in his speech. The approach we are taking in this Bill to applying and enforcing the decent homes standard to the private rented sector is not, in our view, suitable for the unique and distinct nature of Ministry of Defence accommodation, but I hope he will welcome the fact that the MOD is reviewing its target standards so that we can drive up the quality of that accommodation separately from the Bill.

A large number of hon. Members raised concerns about affordability, and several argued forcefully for rent controls to be incorporated in the Bill. While we recognise the risks posed to tenants by extortionate within-tenancy rent rises, we remain opposed to the introduction of rent controls. We believe they could make life more difficult for private renters, both in incentivising landlords to increase rents routinely up to a cap where they might otherwise not have done, and in pushing many landlords out of the market, thereby making it even harder for renters to find a home they can afford. However, we are introducing a range of measures in the early part of the Bill that will empower renters to challenge unreasonable rent increases and prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction.

Measures in the Bill will prevent unscrupulous landlords from using rent increases in this fashion. All rent increases from private landlords will take place via the existing section 13 process, so the tenant can challenge them if necessary. That will protect landlords’ rights to achieve market rent while preventing abuse. We will also give tenants longer to prepare for rent increases, and allow only one rent increase per year. For too long—this is reflected in the low numbers of tenants going to tribunal —tenants have feared challenging a rent increase at the first-tier tribunal. We will end this situation by ensuring, by contrast to the previous Government’s legislation, that a tenant will not pay more than the landlord asked for in circumstances where a tribunal might determine otherwise.

We are going further: we will end the practice of backdating rent increases, to stop tenants being thrust into debt if they take a case to tribunal. That would have acted as a powerful disincentive for tenants to take such cases to tribunal. Let me be clear: we do not want the tribunal overwhelmed, but we want more tenants to take a challenge against unreasonable rent increases to the tribunal. The tribunal will play an important role in looking at what a reasonable market rent is in their area, and assessing whether a particular rent increase is reasonable. To protect the most vulnerable residents, in cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the start of the rent increase for tenants caught in those particular circumstances.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I am about to come to the ombudsman, but I would like to make a point about affordability. Concern was expressed by several hon. Members about rent in advance. I would like to assure the House that we have long recognised that demands for extortionate rent in advance put financial strain on tenants and can exclude certain groups from renting all together. We think that the Bill as it stands protects renters against requests for large amounts of advanced rent, but I will happily continue to engage with individuals and organisations who have concerns that it does not, and I am entirely open to keeping that under review as the Bill progresses.

My hon. Friend mentioned the ombudsman. The database is also a feature of the Bill, and both are integral to the functioning of the new system. We want the database and the ombudsman to be operational as soon as possible and we think they could be transformative—particularly the database, for the information it can give tenants about landlords’ previous behaviour. All that detail is to come in secondary legislation, and I look forward to engagement from hon. Friends and colleagues across the House about how we should implement both the database and the ombudsman.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), Chair-elect of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—I say that carefully as she does not have a Committee yet—asked specifically which organisation will deliver the new PRS ombudsman service. No final decision on a provider has been made, but the Government remain of the view that the housing ombudsman is currently best placed to take on the role, given that it would allow us to move toward a streamlined cross-tenure redress service.

A number of hon. Members raised specific issues relating to the impact of the new tenancy system on the student rental market. The provisions that we ultimately alighted upon enable students to benefit from the new system while protecting the supply of student accommodation. However, this is an area where the judgments are finely balanced. I have heard various concerns, and I look forward to future discussions as the Bill progresses.

Lastly, a large number of hon. Members rightly raised concerns about the ability of local authorities to enforce against landlords and letting agents who flout the new rules. The enforcement of all the measures in the Bill will not begin immediately, but I recognise the resourcing challenges that many local authorities face and the impact that they could have on effective enforcement. We think that these are offset to an extent by the ringfenced civil penalties that councils can levy when landlords do not comply with the new rules, but we accept that those alone will not be sufficient, so in accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that additional burdens on local authorities resulting from our reforms are fully funded.

It is now five and a half years since England’s 11 million private renters were first promised the biggest overhaul of the sector for a generation and the abolition of section 21 evictions. Those 11 million private renters were badly let down by the previous Conservative Government, who decided under pressure from their Back Benchers to weaken and delay the introduction of their own legislation before abandoning it all together. They are being badly let down today by the official Opposition, who, in arguing for yet more delay, would see thousands more renters unnecessarily put at risk of homelessness because of an unfair eviction, and would prolong the uncertainty that responsible landlords across the country have experienced in recent years. We will not allow that to happen.

Today, we have the opportunity to progress legislation that will overhaul the private rented sector and level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant. Our Bill will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. Everyone deserves a decent, safe, secure and affordable home in which to live. With a view to taking an important step towards making that a reality, I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q I have three questions, starting with court improvements. There is a shared understanding between the sector and the Government that ensuring that the Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared for the implementation of the new tenancy regime is essential. You all know that we took issue with the previous Government’s legislation, which made the tenancy regime hostage to unspecified court reforms.

You mentioned investment, and I wanted to press you on precisely the type of improvements you want to see. You know that, together with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, we are already taking forward improvements towards digitising the court possession process. What are the metrics you want to see in that process as improvements? On the understanding that —I think you will accept this—not every section 21 notice will read across to a section 8, so there will potentially be a bit of an increase, what do we need to see on the section 8 side and the tribunal side to ensure that the system is fit for purpose at the point that we switch it on?

Ben Beadle: I have a couple of things to say on this, Minister. I agree that court reform has been almost like the Colonel’s secret recipe—nobody quite knows what is in it or what it looks like. It is incumbent on us to define what “the courts are ready” means in practice. For us, there are two or three areas that could be improved. First, we are getting many reports of applications that are made to the court actually running out of time because they have not been processed in time. You have the admin part of the sausage factory at the beginning, because it is not so much about the number of judges. I sit as a magistrate and I often sit around waiting for cases to come to me and to be input into the new common platform. There are delays built into the administrative process that cause frustration.

The other issue we have seen is the wait for a bailiff. Once you have patiently waited for your court hearing date and you have possession, that will be what it will be, but waiting for a bailiff can take months in some areas. Sometimes there are really poor excuses—earlier this year, we saw the stab-proof vests not being available. If it is a high-risk area, you need somebody waiting out in the car and somebody on the door. London is predominantly a high-risk area, which is why we see such slow eviction timescales.

Personally, we want to prevent evictions. Landlords do not go around evicting tenants willy-nilly, but when they have a legitimate case, we do expect it to be dealt with expediently. To me, court reform looks like sifting the cases more appropriately and more speedily; digitising that process so you see the ping and the pong of the evidence going backwards and forwards; and, when you get possession, an automatic link to the bailiff, rather than having to reapply. Those are three tangible things. Ultimately, though, it is seven months at the moment, and it needs to be lower.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Your point about sifting is well made. We want to see only cases that require a judgment coming to court.

Ben Beadle: Indeed.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q What do you think we should look at for options around improved alternative dispute resolution mechanisms?

Ben Beadle: One of the things with section 21 is that you have an accelerated process because it is a matter of fact—if you have served all your relevant documents, it is “Tick, tick, tick. Away you go.” I think there is some merit in using that system for undisputed or very hard cases of mandatory grounds, such as where you have significant rent arrears and, although the landlord has tried, there is no chance of recovering that tenancy—hopefully the landlord has followed our pre-action protocol to signpost tenants where they need to go. There are some elements of the system that could be reused.

The other part is away from the court system and into the first-tier tribunal. We have had extensive discussions with the first-tier tribunal. Not many people challenge their rents at the moment; I think we all accept that. We want tenants to be able to challenge their rent, particularly if it is unfair or subject to a significant increase. But the way the Bill is constructed means there is no barrier, or no disincentive, to challenging your rent, and I do not think it quite strikes the balance. First, the tribunal can only award or downgrade the rent so, as a tenant, I have nothing to lose. Secondly, with the way the implementation is being put across, you run the risk of a real deluge on a system that is, frankly, antiquated—you have to fill out a Word document and email it to all parties.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Would you accept the corresponding argument from the other side that there are already very low numbers of tenants taking their cases to tribunal, and that if each of those tenants is looking at potentially one, two or three months’ worth of arrears if they challenge a rent increase and fail, that will act as a powerful disincentive against anyone going to tribunal at all?

Ben Beadle: But that rent will not be applied until the date of the hearing, as I understand it, so although I understand the counter-argument, Minister, the point is that you could actually challenge a rent increase. You serve your two months’ notice; you challenge it; you wait for the tribunal to deal with it; you have your hearing cleared; and the landlord either gets it or the amount gets lowered, but that money is then not backdated.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q That is useful. So you accept the “not backdating” point. I thought you took issue with the backdating and wanted it at the point of—

Ben Beadle: No, no—well, I take issue with it, in that it is not fair and it is not proportionate in the circumstances, and it will do nothing to help on court reform. That is why we have set out a managed implementation for these things. I totally get your point that it was held hostage previously, but there are some really fundamental points around the court system being on its knees, and I think there is a way of implementing regulations so that that is mitigated. The first-tier tribunal is a classic example of where you could make some nips and tucks to what is set out, to protect the first-tier tribunal from a steep rise in cases because it will not be able to cope.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Understood. By the way, there is no dispute on the Government side of the Committee as to the fact that the court system is on its knees after the past 14 years.

I have one last general question, which maybe you could come in on, Theresa. There are broad framework powers in the Bill for both the database and the ombudsman. The database will be critical for landlords in understanding their obligations and demonstrating compliance, and the ombudsman will potentially provide routes to landlord-initiated mediation. As we come to flesh out the detail in secondary legislation, what do you want the database and the ombudsman to do? What is the most critical thing, from a landlord point of view?

Theresa Wallace: I am very supportive of both, and I think we definitely need both. My fear is that the database could end up just being a landlord database, with the landlord’s name, the property details and the address, so that the local authorities know where those landlords are. That is part of it—I completely accept that—but I think that we have a huge opportunity with this landlord database, and so much could be done with it. We really could reach a situation where we could stop properties that are not fit for purpose being let, if the database is built with that end in mind and we can digitally upload certificates. I think that we absolutely need central registers for gas and electric, and we need one standard certificate for each so that they can easily be read digitally to see whether they are in date, whether there are any code 1s and all sorts of things. I think that that would be amazing, but I actually think that we should go a step further.

A long time ago, the Lettings Industry Council came up with a model of a property MOT. Think about how you MOT your car, and it is checked in the background that you have got your tax and your insurance. We could do that with properties. We could have very easy and simple pre-let checks, so that a property is viewed visually. You have energy performance certificate providers that go and do their EPC checks, and you could easily have online or face-to-face training for providers to do a visual check so that you can see if you have damp and mould, slips and trips or other things. I think that it could be done very cost-effectively, and I think that the portal would pay for itself as well as providing local authorities with some income for enforcement. Enforcement is something that we absolutely need, and I know there is not the resource for it.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Thank you.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you both for coming to give evidence to the Committee. Can I pick up on two points? The first is on rent increases. The Government have been very open that we have no plans to implement rent controls, and we have been clear about our reasons why. I take the point that you might have a different view, but we will set that to one side for the moment. What are your concerns around how the process in the Bill could be used by landlords as an effective section 21 by the back door? Perhaps we can have a bit of an exchange about this, but why do you think it does not provide that protection against unreasonable, within-tenancy rent increases?

Tarun Bhakta: It is difficult to set that to one side, so you will forgive me if I do not.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q But how would you improve the provisions in the Bill?

Tarun Bhakta: First, we believe that the Government need to look at the proportions by which rents are increased. Currently, the tribunal is able to access only the eventual rent, whether or not that is a market rent, so in effect it works with a ceiling, rather than looking at the proportions of rent increases. This is really important, because through the tribunal and our services outside the tribunal we see very large proportional rent increases. This is what matters to tenants: they cannot afford large proportional increases in their rent because of that shock, particularly where they are on fixed incomes and receive housing benefit or pensions.

The data at the tribunal is really telling. The average size of a rent increase permitted by the tribunal in the last hundred cases was 23%. The majority of renters tell us that they could not afford a rent increase of more than 10%, yet two thirds of cases in the last 100 cases in the tribunal ended with a rent increase for a tenant of 10% or more.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q To be clear, that is because the tribunal is saying that the previous rent is so far below what it judges to be the market rent?

Tarun Bhakta: That is exactly right, and 16 of the 100 cases we looked at saw an eventual rent increase of more than 40%. We know, both through our services and through our research, that that is not manageable for tenants. That is the kind of rent increase that pushes tenants out of their homes or into debt. The problem is using a ceiling of market rent to judge the eventual rent increase.

Setting limits on proportional rent increases is commonplace across Europe. I know the Government have said they will not introduce any measure of rent controls, but it is quite unhelpful to lump all rent controls together when there is such a range. Rent controls is not a policy, but a category of policies. It is common across Europe to limit the proportion by which rent can increase during tenancies. The purpose of that is not to bring down rent or tackle affordability in any major way, but to protect people from those disproportionate rent increases that force them out of their homes.

In the tribunal there is evidence of landlords, where they are not able to secure section 21 eviction for whatever reason, turning to rent increases. There are at least four cases in that 100—this is only where the tribunal have provided background notes, which is not very common—where a landlord has clearly sought to evict the tenant and has not been able to, so has turned to a very large rent increase, and all the tribunal has been able to do is permit a large rent increase. In many of those cases we assume the tenants will have had to leave the property.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q To pick up the point made by the previous witnesses, we took the view, which is quite finely balanced, that the potential disincentives to landlords of losing potentially up to three months’ rent increase—though we want to bring the tribunal process timelines down—could be accommodated by the sector, as opposed to tenants being disincentivised to take the case to tribunal in the first case by having the rent increase kick in from the point that the section 13 notice was served.

You heard the concerns from the previous witnesses about how that would operate and the unfairness of that. With your experience, how would you say the new system would operate? We have been very clear that we want more tenants to take challenges to tribunal, though we do not want the tribunal overwhelmed. What would you say to the charge that the decision the Government have made, to put the point of payment when the tribunal makes its determination, will see a flood of cases come in and all advice groups will tell tenants to take every single rent increase to tribunal?

Tarun Bhakta: We are often accused of plotting to tell everyone to take things to court. We do not think that would be the case. As you say, we want more tenants to be able to challenge their rent increase at tribunal because, particularly in the last couple of years, we have seen extremely large rent increases for tenants during tenancies. The reason we do not think there will be a flood of cases to the tribunal and the reason we would not advise tenants to do that is that, if you look at this evidence, there is very little that the tribunal is able to do at present to address those large rent increases. We would not advise tenants to simply delay the inevitable, because, looking at the data, a large rent increase is somewhat inevitable—it might not be the exact rent increase the landlord asked for in the section 13 notice, but there is strong evidence that the tribunal will permit a very large rent increase.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Could you quickly set out to the Committee the process of going to tribunal, for those who are not aware of it? There is sometimes in the commentary this idea that it is incredibly easy, which is put paid to by the very low numbers that go. What is the process? It is onerous in many ways, so am I right that it is a significant jump for tenants to take a case to the tribunal in the first place?

Tarun Bhakta: Yes, absolutely. Before I talk about what the process looks like for tenants, which Tom can maybe add to, we need to understand that, for tenants who do not interact with courts or tribunals or anything like that in their daily lives, going through one of these processes, whether we know it to be arduous or not, sounds and feels scary to tenants. That is really important to understand. The vast majority of tenants do not want to go through these processes. It is not fun—it never has been fun—but there is also the fear of what might happen and of how it might damage the relationship with the landlord. All those things weigh heavy on tenants’ minds. That is a really important factor to consider. The proposals that we have for limiting rent increases would, in effect, do away with the need for tribunal decisions, but for a very rare and small amount of cases.

When it comes to the actual process of tribunal, there is such poor data out there about rents in the wider sector that it is very difficult for tenants to gather that evidence. It is somewhat on them; it is also on the landlord, but it is somewhat on them to gather and provide that evidence. The tribunal will do some of that work, but tenants are expected to, or generally do, provide evidence at the start.

Tom MacInnes: From our perspective, it is basically exactly that: people do not have the time or, really, the capacity to take these things to tribunal, and they often decide that it is not worth it.

To the point about the data available out there about what a reasonable or market rent is, there are so many different sources. Even at an Office for National Statistics level, there is not complete agreement. We really welcome the end to bidding wars, for instance, for new tenancies, but our concern is that an unintended consequence might be that a landlord would put in a very high price to start with and then bring it down, and it is that high price that gets logged and sets the market rate.

For us, the role of the portal is to establish what the actual rents are—a basis that everyone can proceed on together, rather than it being some debated fact. There is a real role there for making that stuff public and known. Then you get two well-informed sides of an argument.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q One final question, just so that I have understood your concern. Do you question whether the tribunal has the expertise to look at all of the sources of data and evidence that are out there in relation to rents, and to make a fair assessment about market rent?

Tom MacInnes: I do not know whether it is about expertise, but it is simply an observation of what always happens—it tends to end up on the high side. What the rates are is just so contested.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you, gentlemen, for coming to speak to us this morning.

It would not be a Bill Committee evidence session if every interest group was not telling us that it had a way to improve the Bill in some way and from different perspectives. We have heard a lot this morning about the various concerns and how they are being addressed. In general terms, however, particularly given your concerns about the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, do you think this Bill strikes the right balance and levels the playing field between landlord and tenant?

Tom Darling: I will start by introducing the situation in the private rented sector as it is today. The Resolution Foundation said this year that

“the UK’s expensive, cramped and ageing housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy.”

The private rented sector is the worst of our ageing housing stock; in fact, it is the worst of the worst. It is the least secure, the worst quality and the most expensive of the housing tenures in this country, and we have the worst of any major country in the world. That is embarrassing and that is what we are talking about here. We need root and branch reform. We are happy that the Government have acknowledged that more significant reforms are required than those that the previous Government put forward, but we still need to see some changes to the Bill to go even further and deal with the scale of the crisis we are dealing with.

Ben Twomey: We are delighted that the Government are pressing on with this work very quickly, and there is a promise in the manifesto to end section 21 immediately—as quickly as we can get this law passed. That is really welcome, as it will protect people from homelessness.

There are also lots of things in the Bill that I have no notes on. For example, the bidding wars legislation seems well-written; it seems like it will make a genuine difference to people like me, who have experienced being invited to bid on homes just because we reached the front of a queue and the landlord realised that they could up the rent. Some of the provisions—including the introduction of Awaab’s law into private renting—are beginning to create more of an even playing field, as you say, for renters compared with other tenures.

I want to take a moment to talk about someone I will call Ayesha from Hertfordshire. She is a schoolteacher and a single parent, and she has been struggling to keep up with the relentless rises in rent that she has faced in recent years. She says, “There are moments when I feel so overwhelmed and exhausted, like I’m carrying the weight of the world on my shoulders. I try to stay strong for my children, but the stress and anxiety are always there, lingering in the background. I just want to provide them with the life they deserve, but with the way things are going I fear that I might not be able to. It’s a lonely, terrifying feeling, and it’s hard not to feel defeated by this constant struggle.”

It is important for people like Ayesha—given what is being said in this Committee, this Government and this Parliament as a whole; every MP in this room promised to end section 21 and, in more words or less, promised a fairer deal for renters—that this Bill takes the opportunity to resolve these issues. Maybe we will come to this, but we believe that that will involve limiting the ability for landlords to raise rents—not raising them to the market rate, but instead limiting them to the level of inflation or wage growth, so that rents begins to match the real, lived experience of people who are renting.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Let us come on to that, because the Government obviously will argue that the provisions in the Bill, and how we have overhauled and strengthened it from the perspective of tenants, are designed precisely to help people like Ayesha, who are struggling with the insecure and unfair system that exists. We take no issue with Tom’s analysis of the problem; that is why we designed the Bill in the way that we have.

On rent increases, Ben, I understood that you were effectively talking about a cap—to the level of inflation or wage growth. A previous witness rightly drew our attention to the nuances around different forms of rent control. Given the evidence out there across the world, which I have looked at in great detail, do you not have any concerns about the potential negative impact on supply discouraging investment into the sector? We have heard about the supply challenges, impact on property standards and the very practical concern that if we implement an inflation-linked or wage growth cap, every single landlord in the country will raise rents every year to that cap, whether they would have done so under the current system or the system we propose or not. You must engage with the challenges on the other side from the measures you propose.

Ben Twomey: I am very happy to. The idea of raising to the cap just does not happen in many countries; landlords do not do that. When you have a sitting tenant, I guess there are elements of the risk being reduced once you know that person, and that is not really accounted for when you take on the market rate. There is also an element of knowing the human being in the home, which changes the behaviour of landlords to some extent.

The use of the market rate is flawed, to say the least. It is not real; it is a made-up number. It is not the actual rent, it is not a transaction, and it is not even an agreed rental price, but the advertised price that a landlord has put out there. More than one in five homes advertised on Rightmove in the last year had to be re-advertised at a lower rent before they were actually let. That really skews the figures, because landlords will seek higher rents to begin with, and what is actually agreed by the tenant is very different. Looking at actual rents would be useful, and that should be recorded on the property database.

There is the matter of linkage as well, which relates to the first-tier tribunal if that is going to be used as the mechanism to challenge rent increases. At the moment, if you were looking at the market rate, you would have a lot of confusion. As a tenant or a landlord, you would not necessarily know where you were going to place the rent rise or whether you would come out the other end of the tribunal happy with the result, whereas if you link to inflation or wage growth—whichever is lower—you can place a number on that every year or every month, if you want to. With that number, all renters would be empowered to know their rights. Landlords would not risk going to court, because they would know that they were within the safe amount that they could raise the rent by, and it would become a much clearer process for everybody, rather than an obscure, complex and financially burdensome process for tenants and landlords, and for the Government to implement.

Tom Darling: Can I briefly answer the point around supply? You heard my analysis of the situation in the private rented sector earlier. It is worth saying that since the year 2000, the private rented sector has doubled in size. Those are the outcomes that we are dealing with now. It is the worst tenure in the worst advanced economy, and that is after 20-plus years of investment ploughing into the sector and it growing massively. Right now, we are living the experiment of what happens if you try to cannibalise the existing housing stock and turn it into an ever-increasing private rented sector.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That was under the old system, and we want to transform the system, but I take your point.

Tom Darling: Of course.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Given the time we have left, can I move us on? An important element of the Bill that often gets overlooked is rent repayment orders. We had quite a sensitive discussion on this matter under the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, but my experience has been that enforcement is particularly effective where you have local authorities geared up and tenants able to exercise their rights through rent repayment orders. Can you offer a general comment on whether you think we have gone far enough in trying to expand and strengthen the rent repayment order arrangements under the Bill?

Tom Darling: I am happy to answer that. We were very supportive of the expanded use of rent repayment orders when we worked on the previous Government’s Bill. They are a great opportunity for tenants to avail themselves of the possibility for compensation. Some of the awards that have been increased by the Government would potentially be life-changing amounts of money for most renters. Half of renters have no savings; as a renter and someone who is very much not on the frontlines of this crisis, I try to keep that in mind the whole time. If you are getting a big award in terms of compensation of one or two years of rent repayment, because your landlord has done wrong, that is a potentially life-changing sum of money, so we are very supportive of that.

I think you are right to identify that enforcement works best when the tenant is incentivised to work with the landlord. That works best when the problem is ongoing and the tenant is in situ in the tenancy. One of the problems we have with the new eviction grounds—we have seen this with the poor enforcement of the new tenancy regime in Scotland—is that when the tenant moves on from the tenancy it is hard to motivate them to follow up and check that the eviction was legitimate.

Our concern is that to properly enforce the system, tenants almost need to be motivated by a sort of righteous anger to get back at their landlord. That is one of the reasons why we think post-eviction evidence should be required from the landlord, and potentially no-fault eviction compensation too, where the tenant does not have to pay the last two months of rent before they leave. That way, there will be a broader-based disincentive for landlords to use those grounds. For the vast majority of tenants, after they have been evicted, they just want to move on with their lives, and they are not thinking about their previous landlord or previous home, or checking Rightmove to see whether the landlord has re-let the property and fraudulently used that eviction ground.

Ben Twomey: I completely support the call from Tom for no-fault eviction compensation. That would recognise the harm of no-fault evictions to tenants, which I think every MP here has recognised, and try to disincentive the use of any new grounds of no-fault eviction.

On the rent repayment orders, I will quote the late, great Simon Mullings, a housing expert who gave evidence to the Renters (Reform) Bill Committee, and who would have been here had he not sadly passed away very recently. He talked about an “army” of tenants who could be ready to enforce the legislation. That only works if it is really clear what their rights are and the route to achieving the compensation or repayment of rent is straightforward.

There is another area that could be strengthened. At the moment, if a landlord is not registered with the database or the ombudsman—the redress scheme—they need to have repeat offences before a rent repayment order is available. If I, as a tenant, found that my landlord was not registered, I would have to challenge that, wait for the local authority to make warnings based on what I had said, and then continue to live in the home, feeling probably much less secure than I previously did, without receiving a rent repayment order.

If we want to make sure that landlords are not punished because they were not aware of their obligations, perhaps a smaller rent repayment order would at least give some incentive to a tenant to raise the issue on that first offence. More thought needs to be given to how to stop rent-hike evictions that could happen later, because a rent hike, being an eviction by the back door, could be another way in which I as a tenant or someone else pursuing that would feel insecure, were we to come into conflict with the landlord.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q To continue the theme around rent controls and rent stabilisation, the reforms introduced in Scotland have had lots of benefits, but they introduced rent controls in a way that we are not proposing to through this Bill. Given that you have said we should not worry in any way about rent controls of any form—if I have summarised you correctly—what would your explanation be for the fact that rents have risen faster in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK, including London, since those reforms were introduced?

Tom Darling: I am happy to answer that. Obviously, we have been talking a lot about Scotland, and you will hear later about the “Rent Better” report, which has essentially written the book on it.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That issue is highlighted in the report.

Tom Darling: Yes. Our view would be that where these systems have worked, they have been part of a broader strategy that sets a clear direction for both tenants and landlords. I am sure you will have other landlord organisations here today that will talk about the need for certainty. There definitely has not been that in Scotland. There has been political instability and the chopping and changing of policy every couple of years, essentially—from the 2017 reforms to the pandemic freeze, the rent cap and now moving to a system of between-tenancy rent controls, and the latest political instability. I am sure landlord organisations will tell you that that makes it very difficult to have any certainty about what you are doing with rent levels in the future.

We would argue that if a Government with a big majority early on in their term set a clear direction on what the policy would be, landlords would be able to deal with that. You see that in European countries where there are big landlords who do just fine under systems where there are rent caps.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

But you do not dispute that rents have risen faster in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK since those rent controls were introduced—

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Richard, thank you for your time this morning. I have put it to other witnesses that, in general, the potential of the database and the ombudsman to make a real difference as part of the new system is often underplayed and I do not think it gets enough attention. You rightly made the point that there is a spectrum between “must” and “could”, but the intention is very clear, on the tenant side, to provide access to services to deal with complaints, and there is potential on the landlord side around landlord-initiated mediation and the role the ombudsman could play there. Can you give us your best sense of how much the new PRS ombudsman could alleviate pressures on other parts of the system, including the courts?

I have a follow-up question; I will ask them in one go, Mr Betts, and leave more time for others. We have been very clear already that the new ombudsman will need to work collaboratively with others to resolve complaints and that will be set out in statutory guidance. What do you think needs to be included in that guidance to ensure, in particular, that the ombudsman is working effectively with local authorities?

Richard Blakeway: Those are really important questions. The Bill introduces a new framework of rights and responsibilities for both landlords and tenants and, as you set out, the ombudsman service—whoever is appointed as the ombudsman—plays a part in that. I would say as an aside very early on that I welcome the Government’s recognition of the strategic benefits of bringing together the social rented sector and the private rented sector, particularly given the common body of existing and new legislation that is tenure blind and speaks to both the private and rented sector, whether that is the existing Landlord and Tenant Act or the potential to extend Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard. I think there is a real benefit to system coherence and the right relationships, as you highlight, and also to making sure that benefits do not unintentionally fall in the wrong place, by appointing the housing ombudsman as the provider of redress.

I think there are three key relationships. There is the lead enforcement body, and working out the role of that body. In particular, looking at clause 109, information sharing between the ombudsman service and the lead enforcement body will be vital, so codifying that role will be important.

There is the tribunal, which we have alluded to. One of the really important pieces of work is to develop, very early on—I would have thought in advance of any statutory instruments—a draft scheme for the ombudsman service, and to collaborate with a number of bodies, including the courts, on what is in the scheme and therefore the decisions that the ombudsman might take, and what is outside it and clearly rests with the courts. I have given the example of section 13. The ombudsman could potentially play a role in looking at aspects of section 13, which might relieve pressure on the courts.

There is then the relationship with local authorities and enforcement. On the database itself, I think there has to be a decision about who owns the database and is going to provide it—whether it sits with the Department or the lead enforcement agency, for example—and the pace at which it could be developed to support the introduction of the redress service.

One of the other areas to consider, where there may be a pressure that emerges in the system—a pressure that I think the legislation recognises but could go further to address and relieve—is enforcement. The Government have rightly indicated that there is concern around compliance with ombudsman remedies. There was a survey in, I think, 2018 that showed 46% of private landlords not complying. At the moment, the Bill includes a kind of last resort to try to enforce compliance, which would be introduced later through statutory instruments. I wonder whether consideration should be given to bringing that forward, so that compliance issues are not having to be directed towards local authorities, and creating pressures there.

I also wonder whether the legislation could go further by, for example, amending clauses 66 and 96 to include rent repayment orders as part of non-compliance with ombudsman decisions. The Bill is rightly clear that if a landlord does not sign up to the ombudsman service then it could be subject to a rent repayment order, but it is silent on whether a landlord that is non-compliant with the ombudsman’s decisions should also be subject to a rent repayment order. I think that if you were to introduce that, that would strengthen compliance and reduce the need to direct things around the system to try to address them.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Thank you all for coming to give us your expert opinion. I have two questions, one specific and one general. First, to follow up on grounds 1 and 1A, I understand the general push for all grounds to be discretionary, but we took a view that these should be mandatory, in terms of getting that balance right. But I very much hear the points being made about evidential requirements.

Could I ask you to draw out a bit further how you expect this to work? In a sense, when we talk about discretionary grounds, we are always told, “Let’s trust judges”—that was certainly the case with the previous Bill. In a sense, what we intend to do here is trust judges’ judgment on whether those grounds have been used appropriately, and we would expect the type of evidence that they look at to include things like a letter instructing solicitors or an affidavit. But do you not expect the courts to operate in that way on the basis of the Bill? Do you expect them to act in a more light-touch way, as you have suggested? It is not usual practice for Governments to force the courts to consider certain types of evidence, and if that is the case—if you accept that—where do we go to try to influence the courts to look at certain categories of evidence, to ensure that these grounds are being used appropriately?

Giles Peaker: In terms of how you can specify things, to some degree, it is a question of wording. Grounds 1 and 1A are expressed as an intention, and if the intention is there, the ground is made out. If a landlord has written to the court to say, “I intend to sell”, it seems quite difficult for the court to go behind that, unless the tenant has evidence to the contrary. So partly it is around language. Intention—settled intention—needs looking at. But with different wording, a different evidential requirement may well follow—so potentially, as you say, the landlord would have to evidence engagement with an estate agent or a solicitor on a sale, or would need evidence from the relative who was intending to move in, to the same effect.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Would you accept that this is less of a problem if we are confident that the 12-month no re-let period is enforceable? Then, in a sense, there is a serious disincentive for landlords to act spuriously.

Giles Peaker: Yes, hence my talking earlier about the reason to fill in the gap between the notice seeking possession or the court order, and potential enforcement, which is a bit of a lacuna at the moment.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q That is very helpful. My second question is more general, which will give each of you the chance to range a bit more freely. I know that you were engaged with the previous Bill, so you will know the debates that took place. It was very much our intention with this Bill to address the various deficiencies, omissions and, critically, the loopholes that existed. It would be good to get your views on whether you think we have broadly done that, and if not, whether there are any remaining loopholes in the Bill that you can see more disreputable landlords trying to exploit.

Justin Bates KC: I will go first, because this is what we spend our time talking about. Clause 30 is wholly defective and should not be allowed to stay in this form after the Bill Committee. It is a loophole. Clause 30 presently says that something will not be an assured tenancy under your new regime if it is for a tenancy of more than seven years. So I will grant you a tenancy of seven years and one day, and I will reserve to myself, as landlord, a landlord-only right to break, exercisable after six months on two months’ rolling notice. There you go: I have just recreated section 21 and there is nothing you can do about it.

You need to look at clause 30 very carefully. The reason it is in there is to fix a different problem. It is there because certain shared ownership leases and certain long leases have accidentally ended up being treated as assured shorthold tenancies, so that is what you are trying to close. The better way to solve that problem is to amend schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, which is the main Act you are grappling with, to say that shared ownership leases cannot be assured tenancies, and that long leases for terms of more than 21 years—which is the normal definition of a long lease—cannot be assured tenancies. And then take clause 30 out, because what will happen—as sure as night follows day, and as the entire history of housing law since 1915 shows you—is that landlords will offer seven years plus a day with a landlord-only break, because this is not an area where there is equal bargaining power. It will be, “Take it or leave it, and I’ve just brought section 21 back in through the back door.” So please look very carefully at clause 30.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Any more for any more? Liz Davies KC: I have two points. It is excellent that you have prevented bidding wars. Clause 4, I think, is about advance rent, and we were just discussing this outside. You cannot prevent bidding wars without also having a limit on advance rent of one month, because otherwise, you have outlawed bidding wars but the landlord will then be happily prepared to let to the tenant who is robust enough to be able to offer six months’ rent in advance, rather than one month’s rent. You get back to tenants’ financial circumstances in bidding—so that point is about advance rent.

The other point is smaller and more technical, and is on the subject of homelessness. Because you are taking out assured shorthold tenancies from the homelessness regime, which allows local authorities to find people private rented sector tenancies, and you have done a lot of drafting amendments to take out the words “assured shorthold”, you have also taken out a mechanism in the Housing Act 1996 that currently allows a homeless family—where they are given an assured shorthold tenancy and that ends within two years—to reapply as homeless and where they do not have to show a priority need. It helps to deal with the revolving door of homelessness, potentially in the private rented sector. You have abolished that—I imagine inadvertently, because you are taking out the words relating to assured shortholds. However, I would suggest that you try to get that back in, so that in the more unusual cases—once this Bill has gone through—if a homeless person is given an assured tenancy in the private rented sector and it comes to an end within two years, they will be able to come back to the homelessness authority. It is section 195A of the Housing Act 1996.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q In response to the previous Government’s White Paper, “A fairer private rented sector”, you questioned whether we should look to introduce a decent homes standard to the private rented sector. Is that still your view and, if so, could you elaborate on why?

Judicaelle Hammond: Yes, sure. I think it needs updating because it was designed for problems in the social sector. It might or might not be applicable to the private rented sector. It also does not deal very well with older properties, which is the vast bulk of what our members have. To judge the private rented sector against the decent homes standard as it currently is would be, I think, misleading, and it would have all sorts of unintended consequences. For example, in small cottages in rural areas, there are typically very small kitchens and so on. They would not necessarily fit, and it would destroy the character if you were to change that—

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Sorry to pull you up, but we have not consulted on it yet. We have not told you what it consists of yet; you are pre-empting it. Is it the principle?

Judicaelle Hammond: No, it is not the principle. The issue at the moment is that what we have got, which is the decent homes standard that applies to the social sector, would not work in the private rented sector in the rural context. The other thing that we do have, however, is the housing health and safety rating system and, indeed, the minimum energy efficiency standards. We reckon that that probably covers the ground, but it absolutely needs to be enforced. I think you have already got levers there. That is what we would say.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Thank you.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Perhaps I can just check this, because I am not entirely clear: did your organisation author the Nationwide Foundation report?

Anna Evans: Yes.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q So I think it would be worth teasing something out, because it was an interesting report. To touch on what you just said, I took from the report that the tenancy reform in Scotland seven years ago had a number of benefits for tenants, but it has not adversely affected landlords. As you say, the system has bedded in and they have adapted to it. The shadow Minister said that this is largely the same set of reforms that happened in Scotland, so could I encourage you to touch on any differences between the approach we are taking in this Bill and the Scottish experience? Could you then perhaps touch a bit more on the specific impact of the rent control measures in Scotland—which we are not proposing—on that supply issue? I recognise that there is a wider supply question about the housing market in Scotland more generally, but what did your research suggest was the impact of the rent control measures that were introduced in Scotland?

Anna Evans: I will take the rent control issue first. This was nothing to do with private residential tenancy; it was the result of emergency legislation on the cost of living, which was brought in in 2021-22. That brought in a rent increase freeze and then rent increase caps. If we look at the data following that on rent increases, there are arguments around this, but basically average rent increases have not frozen or been curtailed. Some would certainly argue that rent increases in Scotland have been greater than what you could see across the UK.

We should remember—I was looking at evidence on this earlier—that landlords, certainly in Scotland, usually increase rents at a change of tenancy, not on an annual basis. What happened when rent control came in, with a range of other pieces of legislation and regulation, was that it became more of a hostile environment—that is what landlords are saying—and so as a result, they tended to hike rents up more at a change of tenancy. But we have found that most landlords want good, stable tenants for a long time. Most actually do not increase rents during a tenancy, but only take the opportunity to increase rents at a change of tenancy, and because of the environment and the hostility that they were feeling, they thought they had better increase rents at change of tenancy. Does that answer your question on rent control?

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Yes, that is very useful. Thank you.

Anna Evans: In terms of the differences between your Bill and the private residential tenancy, I have to confess that I am not an expert on your Bill, so I cannot answer that in detail, but I can say that the PRT is an open-ended tenancy. It has no fixed-term period. There is the eradication of eviction with no grounds. Eviction proceedings are simplified to 18 statutory grounds and there has to be a reason—what are the grounds for eviction? There are extended notice periods and also a phased implementation. I think that is a key point. A lesson that the current Housing (Scotland) Bill is looking at is whether short assured and assured tenancies should actually just be terminated now because there has been long enough. There is still a good proportion of assured tenancies in existence—we estimate probably about 20%. Short assured tenancies are certainly less secure, so one lesson would be that if you are changing, do not do it over seven years; do not delay.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q I would argue that we are giving students special treatment. To be entirely candid, I took some time to come to a view on what we should do in this area. We want students to benefit from the new system, but it has unique characteristics and we want to protect the supply of student accommodation. I do not know whether you are familiar with the previous Government’s Bill, but we have narrowed the grounds for possession in an attempt to capture a typical student and not a non-typical student—say, an adult learner with children who is living in a more non-typical student property. Do you think we have that right? Are there any ways in which you would tweak it?

If we were looking to take action on sign-ups in advance, what is a reasonable period when landlords should be able to ask students to sign up in advance that does not, as you say, force them all to sign up far too early and in ways they may regret or have to re-examine? What is an appropriate period in which a sign-up would be reasonable? Lastly, do you understand why the sign-up arms race, as I might put it, has developed? It is hard to find an explanation for why all landlords are locked into a cycle of earlier and earlier sign-ups; it seems to have developed organically. Could you outline why you think that problem has arisen in the first place?

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: To take the first point, in the Bill you have proposed ground 4A for possession of student tenancies. That is definitely a helpful addition and we were glad to see it brought forward. However, at the moment it is just for HMOs, which we assume is deliberate wording, so it is for properties with larger groups of three or more people living in them, and you have excluded one and two-bedroom properties. We think that will result in a loss of smaller properties from the student housing sector.

The sector is quite particular. These properties have been set up close to universities, and the businesses are run in a particular way. I can understand why you might think that one and two-bedroom properties would perhaps have more mature students or students with families living in them. Often they do, but the reason why all students rent all properties in the student market is to do with them being at university. Generally, they are in that city and living in that housing only because they are at a university nearby.

We think that excluding one and two-bedroom properties is problematic, because they are quite a big part of the market—more than you would think; it is not just mature students or students with families. A national advertising platform called Accommodation for Students has given us some data on this, and 31% of the properties listed on its website nationally are one and two-bedroom off-street houses. If you were to lose that amount of property from the student market, that would be problematic. I think that is likely, because if you are in a one or two-bedroom property and you can have an indeterminate tenancy and give notice at any point, you may give notice in January when there is no demand for students, and that property will end up leaving the cycle of the student market and going into the professional market.

The average is 31% across the Accommodation for Students website, but in some locations it is even higher. In Newcastle and Preston, over 50% of the properties advertised are one and two beds, so it is not just mature students; it is younger undergraduates who are living in those types of houses because they suit their needs and they are available. Losing them would be very problematic over time and would reduce the supply of housing available to students.

The second part of your question was about cooling-off periods and early renting. Why does it happen? I think it is a mixture of things. Students want to secure a nice house, so they go out early and try to beat the rest of the market. In some cities, there are shortages of accommodation because student numbers have increased considerably over recent years, and there is a cap on the amount of off-street housing that there can be because of planning—article 4 direction—so we are not making any more shared student housing.

Students are aware that there is a shortage, and if they want to get the house that they want, they will try to get out there earlier and earlier to beat the market. That is why it happens, but it is really problematic, so we would like it to not happen. We have suggested that if you could say to students that they could cancel that agreement up to four months before the tenancy was due to begin, it would stop early renting. There would be nothing in it for landlords to try to get properties signed earlier and earlier, because students would be able to drop out. We do not think that would be problematic. It will not be an issue for landlords as the properties will still be let, but hopefully it would stop the silliness.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q That is very useful. I have one final question. The previous Government did this as well, but the case for a specific ground for possession to ensure that the cyclical nature of the student market continues arose from engagement that said that we had to treat this differently. We do not have much data, and I wonder if you have any from your experience or what you pick up on anecdotally. How often do you think the ground for possession would actually be used? If I am being entirely candid, in my mind I can imagine it sitting there and maybe being of use on the odd occasion, but broadly I do not think that students overstay. Am I right in thinking that?

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: No, they do not at all. It is not a problem. No-fault evictions are very rarely, if ever, used in the student housing market, because the need is cyclical, and generally most students will very happily move out when their tenancy is finished. I think it would be used very rarely, but it sends a useful signal that it is time to think about leaving.

The real issue for me, and the more problematic thing that will stop the cyclical nature of student housing, is the ability of students to give two months’ notice. I understand not wanting to treat students differently from the rest of the market, but the need for housing is so tied to the particular reason of being at university. Most landlords deal with their tenancies on the basis of 12 months, and they set their rents on an annual basis. If you say, “Your tenant is able to give notice, and they might choose to leave in April or May,” those landlords will respond to that and think, “I will have to increase my rent, because I have an annual rental figure that I need.”

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Their yields are quite generous as they are, compared with what is normal.

Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I do not have a tiny violin for landlords, but I am just saying what we think is likely to happen. It is a commercial operation and landlords need to cover their costs, and we think that if landlords perceive more risk they will seek to put up rents.

Your previous witness talked about the situation in Scotland. One of the things we would really like the Government to do before going much further is an impact assessment on the student market, particularly looking at Scotland, because the evidence there about student homelessness as a result of the tenure changes is compelling. The Government in Scotland have a committee looking at how they can tackle the issue of student homelessness, and I think that is a bit of a warning for us all that we could very well be in that place in a couple of years’ time if we do not think about the student market, its particular characteristics and what it needs.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Melanie, can I address a specific question to you about suppliers? There has been a lot of discussion today about the mismatch between supply and demand. We have touched on the provisions in the Bill about how tenants can challenge within-tenancy rent increases and so on. In terms of overhauling the private rented sector, the Bill is part of a wider transformation of the housing system that we want to carry out. There is absolutely a chunk of private renters, particularly in the bottom half of the market, who should be in social rented housing, and we want to build more of that, but we also want to grow future supply in the PRS. What do you think the Bill will do specifically to build-to-rent providers? Do you think they will accommodate themselves to these changes? Are there lingering concerns that you think will impact on investment in that future supply and professionalising the private rented sector as we grow it?

Melanie Leech: The first thing to say, as you know, is that institutional investment into the build-to-rent sector specifically is a growing part of the housing supply mix. It is bringing in genuinely additional investment, because it is the type of investment that does not typically invest in build to sell—you have people wanting to use large amounts of capital to generate secure income streams so that they can match against pension liabilities, insurance liabilities and so on. Probably the key word in that is “secure”. Anything that damages investors’ confidence that the income they will get from their investment is at risk will undermine our potential to unlock investment into homes and the rental sector. Currently, the peak year for build-to-rent delivery was 15,000 homes. We think that you can double that to 30,000 homes, with the right conditions, and some of my members would go further and say that you can double that again. We are looking at an investment stream that could be a very significant part of helping to deliver the Government’s aspirations to build more homes.

What I have already talked about, in terms of the ability of the courts to cope with the reforms, is an important indicator of confidence. Investors will look at that and think, “This changes the basis on which I have invested. It makes it more difficult for me to manage the property efficiently.” I think the issues around rent determination also have that potential, so there is nervousness around needing to use section 13 and rent increases. There is a suspicion that tenants have nothing to lose by challenging any rent increase, so it is about getting the framework right around how we define what an unreasonable rent increase might be and how we manage those cases that might come before tribunals. There are some issues around that that we would like to see more clarity around and redressed.

In general, we are really supportive, because in the part of the market that I represent the decent homes standard already would not cause us an issue in terms of implementation and so on. We are trying to raise standards in the private rented sector, and we are raising standards in the private rented sector, but the key thing is to implement the reforms in a way that does not undermine investor confidence, so that we do not inhibit the supply of homes.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q While I have got you on that point, we heard from Ben Beadle earlier a view that landlords would adapt to the date payable of a rent when challenged—I think this is what he implied—by changing the point at which they serve their section 13 notices to perhaps account for that lead-in time. What would you expect to see? Would annual increases be standard or given at a particular time? How do you think that the sector, build-to-rent and the more typical cottage landlords would adapt to that change?

Melanie Leech: This is pure speculation, because I have not asked members this question. History suggests that once legislation is passed, those affected by it figure out the best way to protect their interests in the light of the new framework, so I would broadly expect that to happen. But if we are asking ourselves how we get back to a position where investors can have confidence, we should probably ask ourselves why we are asking that question in the first place. We should be creating a framework within which investors can have that confidence.

For example, some of the nervousness will be around the fact that, if you have a litigious tenant who takes you to the tribunal and ultimately to the courts over a rent increase, and the decision goes in the landlord’s favour, you have still lost several months. You cannot backdate the reasonable rent increase for which you have just won the court’s authority, so you have lost a lot of money in terms of both the rent accruing and the amount of time you have to spend going through that process. Let us just remind ourselves that when I talk about landlords here, I am primarily talking about pension funds and insurance funds, so it is our money.

Timothy Douglas: I think that is the point. While we need supply—and we need supply from all sources—landlords in the private sector are a broad community. The bulk of private rented sector landlords have one, two or three properties. What is disincentivising investor confidence is not necessarily the competence of this Bill, but the sector would welcome a review of all taxes and costs that have impacted private landlords in the past five years. We have seen the reduction in mortgage interest relief, the 3% additional surcharge when you buy a rented property, tinkering with capital gains tax—some are taxed as businesses while some are not—and changes to the wear and tear allowance. If we really focus and want to be sensible about incentivising landlords and the investment community, we have to shine a spotlight on taxes and costs.

Alongside this legislation, we need to enact the registration requirements in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 on short-term lets as well. Otherwise, we are going to see a further exodus of landlords to the short-term lets market, which is less regulated and has fewer controls in place.

We need to build more social homes. Ultimately, as you will know, Minister, our argument remains that we need to retain fixed-term tenancies as an option. They give the landlord and the tenant a guarantee of the length of time they will be there and the rent that they will pay. Families renting with children near schools, as well as nurses who have placements, are coming to our agents saying that they want to know how long they are going to be in situ. As I say, we need to provide long-term tenancy options for those who want them and ensure that people do not go to the unregulated short-term lets market.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Can I challenge you on that point, because I have never understood it? Under the rolling, periodic tenancy system that we are introducing, a family that moves into a property can determine when they leave. As long as there is no antisocial behaviour, for example, they can decide when they leave, so they have all the advantages of a fixed-term tenancy. I am not picking up on this cry among tenants for fixed-term tenancies. Perhaps you can elaborate on where you are coming from on that point? What are the additional advantages that are not provided by this rolling, periodic system?

Timothy Douglas: We have just been talking about the other side of the coin, which is investors.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

No, not investors. You made a point about tenants.

Timothy Douglas: Yes, but that is the crux of it. Unfortunately, if you push too far on the fixed-term tenancy option, the grounds are not robust enough for landlords. Unfortunately, they do not know how long the tenant is going to be in situ. They cannot plan their investment, and they do not know the return on their rent. It is a mutual agreement. We are not saying that it is one or the other. We are saying retain it as an option. Why are we legislating to reduce choice and flexibility?

Agents are telling me up and down the country that that is what tenants want. The leading letting agent in London, which manages 65,000 tenancies, says that fixed-term contracts are popular within the private-rented sector. Many tenants opted for tenancies between one and three years, with the average first term lasting 23 months. At the end of the initial term, 65% of tenants choose to renew. Only 1% of tenancies are ended early by landlords; 5% are ended by tenants. People know where they stand and where they are going to be. It is an option that should be included in the legislation. We have talked today about students as well. It would solve all the problems in the student market.

We are tinkering there with issues that just do not exist. Retain fixed-term tenancies for all, or at least within the student market, or extend ground 4A to one or more sharers. You are tying yourselves in knots in so many ways.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Could I follow up on the point about local authority enforcement? The Bill introduces an effective, consistent and proportionate framework for enforcement, but we have to ensure that local authorities can enforce in practice, and we know that there is variation across the country in their ability to do so. There is also the wider context about resourcing of local government over the recent period. We are clear that we want to primarily target along the “polluter pays” principle, with bad landlords covering the cost of their own enforcement.

You mentioned the fines—£7,000 for first or minor compliance issues, and £40,000 for more serious ones— and they can be levied repeatedly. I just want to get a sense of how much of the cost of enforcement you think those fines can account for. We recognise that it will not be enough, and that the new burdens principle will have to operate, but have you got a sense of it in terms of, as you say, how many cases are resolved before it reaches that point? What will be the willingness under the new system to levy these kinds of fines, and what proportion of the enforcement costs do you think, on average, local authorities might see those fines account for?

Dr Henry Dawson: Thank you for your question, Minister. At the moment, we have the use of civil penalty notices, and I would defer to a report by the National Residential Landlords Association to provide a summary of their use over the period between 2001 and 2003. We see that approximately £12 million was given in penalties over that period, and around £6 million of that was recorded as collected through penalties over that period.

It is also worth noting that these civil penalty notices are intended to be an alternative to a prosecution through the courts; they are not intended to be a revenue generator. The licensing fees, the ombudsman fee and the database fees are where we can generate the revenue at the front end. These civil penalty notices are being used as a final, ultimate punishment for some of the worst offenders. Yes, we can administer £7,000 for the initial offence and £40,000 for ongoing offenders, but they really are intended to be a deterrent, as opposed to a source of revenue.

The majority—maybe 90%—of a local authority’s work is carried out through informal advice giving, with people ringing up and asking for guidance in what is a very complex legislative environment. That is certainly something that landlords and letting agents would like to have more of. We serve formal legal notices, but it is only when we have gone through a whole series of informal approaches that we move to a formal approach through a legal notice and, ultimately, a prosecution or penalty notice. Therefore, really, we are looking at maybe 5%—to pluck a figure out of the air—which is a tiny proportion of what we have got across the country, and probably the only national figures we have on this are those that have been pulled together by the NRLA.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q I want to pick up on a specific point about the antisocial behaviour grounds for possession. Adam, the Local Government Association has expressed concerns about the definition of antisocial behaviour. I wondered whether that was linked to the previous definition, which we have amended.

Cllr Adam Hug: indicated assent.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

You are nodding vigorously, which is a good indicator, but have you got views more widely about the changes that we have made on antisocial behaviour—about being able to take action immediately, for example, or considering the implications on other people in a household, as well as that switch back to “likely”, rather than “capable of”, which we felt was too broad under the previous legislation?

Cllr Adam Hug: Absolutely. We agree that the previous legislation was too broad to be meaningful. I think the key thing for us is supporting where we are now, in terms of reverting to “likely”, but, also, there needs to be clear guidance given by the Department—obviously, building on existing case law—with clear definitions from your team about what constitutes antisocial behaviour, both so that landlords know and so that councils can know regarding enforcement. I am sure that there are teams at the LGA, and others, that are happy to work with you on the development of that, but giving clear guidance to the sector is going to be essential to ensuring that the powers are used effectively.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q We have spoken about the database before. I think it has the potential to be an incredibly powerful tool on a number of fronts to the benefit of tenants but also local authorities in bearing down on more disreputable landlords, including criminal landlords. Can you give us a sense of what you think the sector needs in terms of detail coming through in secondary legislation for that database to be able to operate most effectively for local authorities?

Dr Henry Dawson: The CIEH would be keen to be part of discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the operation of that database. I note that quite a lot of the content in the Bill is to be delivered through secondary legislation, and if we could be part of the shaping of that legislation, it would be very welcome. Things that would make it more effective include ensuring local authorities’ ease of access to the records on the database; providing local authorities with broad enforcement powers that would allow things such as the provision of information from any person; and the ability readily to access records of other local authorities’ enforcement activities. These sorts of records make it much easier for us to co-ordinate our activity across different areas of the country.

Having a single database operator, providing, as one of its functions, a source of advice in the industry would also provide us with a single point of information to refer people to when they come to us asking for support. That would alleviate a lot of the burden and the time our officers spend managing these requests for information. Therefore, we would not be relying on what are often chat forums and other informal information sources for our landlord operators to address problems on what is usually a responsive and as-and-when-they-occur basis.

Eighty-five per cent of landlords in the sector own one to three properties. That is roughly half the sector’s total housing stock, so those are the landlords we need to focus on trying to support. Providing advice and guidance will be an invaluable function of the database operator.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Q Given the time, I will ask you a more general question. Do you think—it sounds like you do—that the Bill broadly strikes the right balance and properly delivers for renters? Are there any omissions, things you would like us to address or parts of the Bill you think we need to look at more carefully?

Anny Cullum: One area our Members feel particularly strongly about that could be strengthened in the Bill to ensure that it delivers the change we all want to see is measures against illegal evictions. It will be wonderful when section 21 is banned, but we know that there are lots of landlords who issue section 21 eviction notices in response to tenants complaining, because they do not want to maintain their properties. For that unscrupulous group, we are worried that illegal evictions might take the place of section 21 evictions once section 21s are banned. We feel that the Bill could go further to make sure that this is not an easy option for them to take.

Hardly any cases of illegal eviction ever make it to court. Safer Renting data showed that there were 26 prosecutions in 2022—the year we have the most recent data for—but it knew about 9,000 cases of illegal eviction. Even when illegal evictions get to court, the fines are £1,000. That is less than my monthly rent. It is not a deterrent for the average landlord. We would like to suggest some changes to make sure that this is not used as a back door to get around the legislation.

We would like to see local councils given a statutory duty and the funding to investigate all cases of illegal eviction. Recently we had a member in Leeds whose landlord kept issuing false eviction notices—ones that he could not go to his local council to ask for support with, so he stayed there. The landlord used many different underhand ways to try to force him out, including sending men with knives to cut the wires in his house so that he did not have any electricity. He has been on the phone for hours to his council and the police, and they have not been very helpful. We want to see those bodies empowered with both the duties and the money to act for tenants.

Police forces need more training. I have supported tenants who landlords have tried to intimidate out of their house. The police do not seem to know that this is a criminal offence or that they have the ability to act on it, so it would be good if there was training on that. We would also like it to be made easier for people and councils to take these criminal cases forward. It can be quite hard to meet the evidence threshold needed to get a rent repayment order, so we would like to see changes there, which I have laid out in our written evidence. We would also like the civil penalty notices that councils can use to be raised to up to £60,000. I know that sounds high, but being forced out of your home with your family is a horrendous thing to happen to anyone. We want to ensure that this is treated with the seriousness that it deserves.

Illegals eviction is one area that my members asked me to speak about. I have also spoken about landlord licensing. A further issue is rent in advance. We are overjoyed that this Bill will end bidding wars, which is something we have campaigned for in different places across the country. We have tried to get agents themselves to pledge not to do it and then mystery shopped them to make sure that they are not. But if you allow agents and landlords at the start of a tenancy to ask, “How many months up front can you give me? Someone else said they could give me a year”, that is another form of bidding war, just at a different point of the process.

We conducted some research at the start of this month and found that benefit claimants were three times more likely to be asked for a year’s rent up front than people not claiming benefits. We are pleased that the Government are keen to crack down on discrimination in the private rented sector against people on low incomes, but this is one way that it is happening and we feel that the Bill could do more on that issue. I have two more areas that my members want me to speak to, if that is okay.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Before I respond to amendments 48 and 54, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister, I put on the record my thanks to the witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.

It is agreeable to serve opposite the shadow Minister. He and I are of different political persuasions and, although I hope to persuade him otherwise, I fear we may not be of the same mind regarding some aspects of this legislation. He is, however, a sincere and thoughtful individual, and I know that, even when we disagree strongly in the sittings ahead, the debate will be measured and reasonable. The same applies to other Opposition spokespeople.

As the shadow Minister clearly set out, amendment 48 seeks to amend the new section 4A that clause 1 inserts into the Housing Act 1988, to provide an exemption from the single system of periodic tenancies for those who meet the student test in new ground 4A, set out in schedule 1—that is, all full-time students, irrespective of their living arrangements. The effect would be to require such students—even those who may be the sole occupant of a rented property—to continue to have fixed terms, denying them the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced by the Bill.

The shadow Minister made the case for the amendment on the basis that we require a carve-out for the student sector. I would argue that we have introduced in the Bill a limited carve-out in the form of ground 4A ground for possession. That will ensure that non-typical students can enjoy the benefits of the new tenancy system, as well as typical students, within the limited confines of that ground for possession. It should ensure that landlords can maintain the cyclical nature of that market. As I said in the evidence sessions, I suspect that that ground for possession may be used only in limited circumstances. There is no evidence to suggest that tenants overstay their tenancies en masse. We think that limited carve-out provides what is needed to maintain the unique business model in the student sector.

Amendment 54 would have the same effect for all tenants, ostensibly on a voluntary basis, providing as it does for fixed terms in circumstances where a landlord and a tenant mutually agree to them, on the basis of possession grounds 1, 1A and 6, and rent increases under section 13 are suspended for the duration.

I am afraid I cannot accept either amendment. The Government have been clear that there is no place for fixed terms of any kind in the new tenancy regime that the Bill introduces. Fixed terms mean that tenants are locked into tenancy agreements and do not have the freedom to move should their personal circumstances require that—for example, if they want to take up a job in another part of the country or if a relationship breaks down. Fixed terms also mean that tenants must pay rent regardless of whether the property is fit to live in, reducing the incentive for unscrupulous landlords to complete repairs. As a point of principle, the Government will not deny any type of tenant, including full-time students, the rights and protections afforded to them under the new tenancy system the Bill introduces.

I also find the argument that fixed-term tenancies are more beneficial to both parties than rolling periodic tenancies utterly unconvincing. In circumstances where a responsible landlord and a good tenant have a mutual wish to sustain a tenancy over a defined period without a rent increase—the conditions that underpin the rationale for amendment 54—fixed-term tenancies would provide no clear advantages beyond those that both parties will already enjoy under periodic tenancies, as introduced by the Bill.

If the shadow Minister’s argument is instead that the benefit of fixed terms is that they ensure that a tenancy is sustained, even in the event of either party having good reason to end it—for example, if the landlord wanted to sell the property, or if a tenant wanted to buy and move into a first home—that simply exposes the unnecessary restrictions that fixed terms would impose in those circumstances, locking in either party against their interests.

Finally, I want to make it clear that amendment 54 would leave the new tenancy system open to abuse. In my view, it overlooks the power imbalance between landlords and tenants. In hot rental markets across the country the mismatch between supply and demand is acute, and one could easily imagine circumstances in which a disreputable landlord says to a tenant that the only way they are going to get the tenancy, which they may be desperately in need of, is if they take on a fixed-term tenancy. Tenants could feel forced to take on a fixed-term tenancy, perhaps without even knowing the condition of the property. I accept that the two sides of the Committee may have a legitimate and sincerely held difference of opinion on fixed-term tenancies, but I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

On the purpose and effect of clauses 1 and 2, the single system of periodic tenancies is at the heart of the legislation, and these clauses are key to its operation. Clause 1 provides that in future all assured tenancies will be periodic and can no longer have fixed terms. Any terms of an assured tenancy providing for the duration of the periodic tenancy to be different to the rent period—in other words, fixed terms—will be prohibited and legally unenforceable, and the tenancy will instead be a periodic tenancy. The clause also ensures that the tenancy’s periods will be the same duration as the period for which the rent is paid. Terms of a tenancy that state that the duration of the tenancy is different from the rent period will have no legal effect.

Clause 1 also limits the length of the rent period of an assured tenancy, stipulating that it must either be monthly or no more than 28 days long. Terms in a tenancy agreement that try to create a longer tenancy period will, again, be of no legal effect. Instead, the tenancy has effect as if it provided for monthly periods, with rent payable on the first day of each period. It is important to note that tenancies will be able to have periods of less than a month—which is an important feature for the social sector, where rent is more likely to be paid weekly or fortnightly—but it will not be possible to have a tenancy period of longer than one month, ensuring that disreputable or rogue landlords cannot seek to abuse the clause by demanding long rent periods to recreate fixed terms.

The new tenancy system introduced by clauses 1 and 2 —and others in chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill—will provide tenants with greater security and stability and empower them to challenge bad practice without fear of retaliatory eviction. As long as they provide the required notice, they will be able to end the tenancy at any point. Landlords will also benefit, through more straightforward regulation, clearer and expanded possession grounds, and the requirement for tenants to provide two months’ notice, which will ensure that landlords can recoup the cost of finding a new tenant and avoid lengthy void periods.

I appreciate that some landlords and groups are concerned that tenants will misuse rolling periodic tenancies as short-term or holiday lets. That concern was expressed on Second Reading and that also arose in the oral evidence. Although I understand the general apprehension and anxiety that surrounds such a significant change to the regulation of the private rented sector, those concerns are unfounded. The notion that tenants will routinely pay up to five weeks’ deposit, complete referencing checks and commit for at least two months, simply to secure a short-term or holiday let, has always struck me as improbable to say the least. As I argued on Second Reading, tenants simply do not move home unless it is absolutely necessary. Under the new tenancy system, when they do leave, they will be required to provide two months’ notice, giving landlords sufficient time to find new tenants.

Clause 2 removes the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 that established assured shorthold tenancies, so that such tenancies cannot be created in the future. The clause also removes section 21 of the 1988 Act. In addition, it removes section 6A of that Act, which provided the mechanism by which private registered providers of social housing could apply to a court to demote tenants from an assured to an assured shorthold tenancy if they committed antisocial behaviour. The change is being made because ASTs will no longer exist once the new single system of periodic tenancies has come into force.

As a result of the assured shorthold tenancy regime, and the ever-present threat of arbitrary eviction via a section 21 notice, millions of people in England live day in, day out with the knowledge that they and their families could be uprooted from their home with little notice and minimal justification. We know that a significant minority of them are forced to live in substandard properties for fear that a complaint would lead to a retaliatory eviction.

The insecurity embedded in the current system fails both tenants looking for a stable home for their families and responsible landlords who are undercut by the minority of unscrupulous landlords willing to exploit and mistreat them. A single system of periodic tenancies will provide greater security for tenants, while retaining the important flexibility that privately rented accommodation offers. It will mean that tenants can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities, save—with fewer unwanted moves—and avoid the risk of homelessness.

Removing section 21 will level the playing field between landlord and tenant, empowering tenants to challenge poor practice and unjustified rent increases. It will also incentivise landlords to engage and resolve legitimate issues of concern, given that they will be able to regain possession of a property only where there is good reason, using the clear and expanded possession grounds set out in schedule 1. With a single tenancy structure, both parties will also better understand their rights and responsibilities.

Far too many tenants are evicted from a private tenancy each year without due cause, which is why so-called no-fault section 21 notices are a leading cause of homelessness in England. As I argued on Second Reading, this broken system can no longer be tolerated, not least because the private rented sector now houses not just the young and mobile, but growing numbers of older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential for a flourishing life. To ensure that private renters get a fair deal, we need to transform how the sector is regulated and level the playing field between landlord and tenant.

This Government will succeed where the previous Government failed, by finally modernising regulation of the sector and abolishing arbitrary evictions. I commend both clauses to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I will be brief, as this clause is simple and straightforward. It ensures that leaseholders can continue to sub-let under the new regime where they currently have permission to do so.

Leaseholder arrangements may currently require any sub-let to be on an assured shorthold or an assured tenancy with a fixed or minimum term. The clause will enable existing sub-leases to continue under the new tenancy system once assured shorthold tenancies and fixed terms are abolished. This will ensure that leaseholders and their superior landlords are not unduly affected by the reforms and that previously agreed arrangements can continue. It will not grant rights to leaseholders to sub-let for holiday or rental accommodation unless they were able to do so before the Bill took effect. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Changes to grounds for possession

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling these amendments, which allow us to have this debate. In my view—I think this is shared across the House —landlords must have robust and clear grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to take their property back. I hope that he will appreciate the steps the Government have already taken to ensure that the grounds are fair to both parties. We have overhauled the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill to provide additional protections for tenants, including longer notice periods, a longer protected period and a higher rent arrears threshold. We have also scrapped the previous Government’s harmful proposals to introduce a new ground for repeat rent arrears, and we have reduced the discretionary antisocial behaviour threshold to behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance.

However, amendments 73, 74 and 77, which would make all grounds discretionary, are a step too far. Indeed, I never argued for all grounds to be discretionary when we considered the previous Government’s Bill. Making all grounds discretionary would mean that landlords have no certainty that they would be awarded possession even if the grounds were otherwise met. That includes in situations of serious antisocial behaviour—where the tenant has been convinced of a serious criminal offence or has broken an injunction put in place to stop their behaviour. Landlords wanting to sell or move into their property could be prevented from doing so, and specialist sectors, such as temporary and supported accommodation, would not be able to guarantee regaining possession in order to house new individuals who require their support.

I assure the hon. Member that there are still many discretionary grounds in the Bill and that judges will have discretion in less clear cases or where possession may not always be reasonable, despite the ground having been met. It is absolutely right that judges have discretion where possession takes place in those circumstances, and that includes smaller breaches of a tenancy agreement or low levels of rent arrears. I believe the steps that we have taken to protect tenants provide sufficient protections against unfair evictions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The mandatory grounds for possession are very limited and specific—for example, grounds 1 and 1A, where the landlord has a clear intention to move back into the property or move a family member in or to sell the property, and they have to evidence that with the court. I ask hon. Members to consider—this was put to me many times in the evidence sessions—the challenges that our courts face and the burden that this legislation places on them. Making every ground discretionary, irrespective of how reasonable it is for a landlord in those grounds 1 and 1A circumstances, for example, to take back their property quickly, risks overburdening the courts. As I say, many of the grounds remain discretionary. However, we think that there is a good reason why a certain number of mandatory grounds are in a different bracket from the discretionary one.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

While I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments—indeed, as a shadow Minister, I probed the previous Government on this point when discussing the previous Bill—on reflection, I do not think they are the right approach for the following reason, which relates to the previous debate. We have overhauled the Bill in a number of ways to strengthen protections for tenants, and we must be careful about tipping the balance too far the other way and penalising good landlords, who, in certain circumstances, have a right to certainty that they will get their property back and that this will move through the courts in an orderly fashion.

Amendment 68 is an attempt to deter abuse of grounds 1 and 1A, which is an honourable intention. It seeks to require landlords to present further evidence that they have fulfilled the grounds after the possession order has been granted. It does not detail what should happen if a landlord does not present the evidence. Furthermore, it will have no impact on cases that do not make it to court. Where a landlord has obtained a possession order through the courts, they will already have presented evidence to a court to satisfy a judge of their intent to meet the grounds. The amendment would also place an additional burden on courts, which would need to set up new processes to deal with the evidence, taking time away from progressing possession claims.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington asked me to consider whether grounds that are currently mandatory should be discretionary, and I thought very carefully about which grounds should be discretionary and which mandatory when developing and overhauling this piece of legislation over recent months. On the basis of that reflection, I have concluded that increasing the prohibition on remarketing and reletting a property after using these grounds, including in cases that do not reach court, is a better mechanism for preventing abuse than adding requirements for evidence. This will allow a tenant to take action if they see, for example, their property advertised online following eviction.

Amendment 69 seeks to put into legislation prescribed evidential requirements for grounds 1 and 1A. We just had a discussion about how we should trust judges and their judgment on these matters. I believe that judges are best placed to consider and determine the evidence before them on these mandatory grounds. Setting an enhanced evidence threshold may mean that judges are less likely to consider wider evidence, and it could inadvertently lower the threshold where an eviction is ordered. It is right that judges have the discretion to respond to the evidence provided on a case-by-case basis. That is what the Bill provides for, and I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I wish to provide further reassurance to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I fear that we are dancing on the head of a pin here. Under the provisions in the Bill, judges will have to consider evidence to justify the use of mandatory grounds 1 and 1A. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I provided examples of the types of evidence that judges may require. It is up to individual judges to ask for that evidence and to make a decision on the basis of what is put in front of them. We trust judges to do that. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I do not accept the idea that judges are not looking at evidence and not ensuring that the use of these grounds is properly justified. That is misplaced, so I am glad he has indicated that he will withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, amendments 56 and 57 seek to reduce the notice period for the selling ground 1A from four months to two months. The Government believe that the notice period for tenants being evicted through no fault of their own should be four months, to give them adequate time to find new accommodation. An eviction notice can turn a family’s life upside down, and four months means they will not be forced to move during a school term. I draw the Committee’s attention to the remarks I made previously about the changing nature of the private rented system and the fact that more older people and families now live in it compared with the situation in the late ’80s, when the system was introduced.

Selling a property is often a long-term decision that involves significant planning on the part of landlords. We do not believe that landlords are likely to need to evict tenants with only two months’ notice, given the time it takes to secure a sale. They also have the option of selling with tenants in situ.

Amendments 70 and 71 were tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. They would make an extreme change that would reduce the notice period for the new student ground 4A to a mere two weeks from the current four months.

The Government believe that students are just as deserving of adequate notice as other tenants. The purpose of the student ground is to try to balance security of tenure with the need to preserve the annual cycle of typical student tenancies. These amendments do not assist the ground in that purpose at all. Student landlords plan their business models long term around the academic year, and after our reforms will factor the four-month notice into their planning.

There is no circumstance where a competent student landlord would suddenly need to evict tenants in line with the academic year with only two weeks’ notice. Indeed, currently they have to give two months’ notice under section 21. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a retrograde step vis-à-vis the current iniquitous arrangements that we are trying to undo.

Students often lack the capital to organise a move at short notice. A two-week notice period means it is likely they are given notice to leave during the summer break when they might be working, or even during their exams. We believe that it is right that they have four months’ notice to organise their move.

I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I will consider that matter further. To be candid with the Committee, some judgments on provisions relating to student accommodation are finely balanced. We are trying to strike a balance between giving student tenants the right level of security while maintaining that annual cyclical nature of student accommodation.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are treating purpose-built student accommodation differently from that of students living in the general PRS. We recognise the limited market for such accommodation. Regarding students in the general PRS, I am reluctant to accept the hon. Gentleman’s advice. Student landlords will adapt to the system and factor the four-month notice period into their business models. I am happy, however, to reflect further on the arguments he made.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(5) After section 11 of the 1988 Act insert—

‘11A Possession on ground 6A: compensation of tenant

(1) This section applies where a court makes an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy on Ground 6A in Schedule 2 to this Act (whether or not the order is also made on any other ground).

(2) The court may order the landlord to pay to the tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as a result of the order for possession.

(3) In deciding whether to make an order under this section, and what compensation to order, the court must (in particular) take into account the circumstances which led to Ground 6A being available as a ground for making an order for possession (including any conduct by the tenant which caused or contributed to Ground 6A being available).’”

This gives the court power to order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant where possession is obtained on Ground 6A (failure of premises to comply with planning requirements etc).

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Without the threat of arbitrary section 21 evictions, tenants will be evicted only when landlords have reasonable grounds for doing so. Clause 4 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. The grounds themselves are amended by schedule 1 of the Bill, which we will debate shortly. Most crucially, clause 4 sets out the notice periods for the grounds for possession. It extends notice periods for the main grounds where the tenant is not at fault, including where a landlord wishes to move in or sell the property.

In the current system, tenants can be evicted with as little as two months’ notice, even when they have done absolutely nothing wrong. In future, landlords will usually need to provide four months’ notice when the tenant is not at fault, such as when a landlord wants to sell or move in. Longer notice periods are critical to ensure that tenants have time to find alternative housing.

The previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill did not propose longer notice periods, maintaining the two months’ notice tenants face under existing section 21 arrangements. That was one of the main concerns expressed by the Opposition at the time, as well as by groups such as Shelter and Generation Rent. I am pleased to say we have addressed their concerns here. Crucially, four-month notice periods will also mean that families with children will never be forced to move during school term time when they are not at fault. That is fundamentally a matter of fairness from the Government’s point of view. Children’s education should not be disrupted simply to allow for the quicker sale of property, or to have another individual move in. Correcting that is at the heart of the Government’s opportunity mission.

The notice periods for the rent arrears ground will be increased from two weeks to four weeks. That will give vulnerable tenants who are struggling to pay their rent longer to find funds or alternative accommodation. I am confident that that will not burden landlords unfairly, and will give a little more time to tenants to find new accommodation if necessary, or to repay their arrears.

When landlords and communities are faced with antisocial behaviour, landlords will be able to make a possession claim to the court immediately. That will ensure that poor behaviour can be dealt with swiftly. That is currently only the case for the discretionary ASB ground 14, but we are expanding it to the mandatory ASB ground 7A, for which very serious behaviour must have occurred. It is a peculiar quirk of the current legislation that the discretionary ground allows landlords to take action more swiftly than the mandatory ground where tenants have committed very serious crimes. The clause would end that anomaly.

We acknowledge that permitting landlords to seek possession immediately, although appropriate, will not give tenants long to seek legal advice on their situation, or find a new home. The court will therefore not be able to make an order for possession that takes effect within 14 days from when the landlord serves notice on the tenant. In addition to notice periods, clause 4 would make provision for specific circumstances of possession. For example, the clause would ensure that superior landlords can continue possession claims made by an intermediate landlord, even after the head tenancy has expired. That will ensue that superior landlords requiring vacant possession will not have to begin a new claim when the intermediate landlord has already done so.

Finally, clause 4 would make further and consequential changes to the Housing Act 1988, to reflect wider changes made by the Bill, including the abolition of fixed-term tenancies and the introduction of new grounds for possession. That includes ensuring that protections for Case A tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 continue in the new system.

Members of the Committee might wonder what the wording in subsection (4),

“Disapplication of conditions where notice dispensed with”,

is designed to achieve. The use of certain grounds, including ground 4A, 5G and 6, hinges on the serving of valid notice. However, section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 permits a court to dispense with a notice requirement when it is reasonable to do so. This change will ensure that the grounds continue to work when this dispensation has occurred. The changes we are making in clause 4 will give tenants more time to find a place to live while ensuring that landlords can recover possession in a timely way when they have a legitimate reason to seek possession. That will ensure that the system works as intended.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I do not have much to add to what I have already said. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Changes to grounds for possession

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As the hon. Member for Bristol Central has set out, amendments 42 and 43 seek to extend the protected period for the moving in and selling grounds to two years. Amendment 58, in contrast, seeks to remove the protected period for the selling ground entirely. We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance in this area.

The hon. Member for Bristol Central is right that during debate on the Renters (Reform) Bill, I probed the then-Government on increasing protections for tenants beyond the six months they had proposed. I did so given the relative lack of security that that Bill afforded to tenants, which we have improved on. I reflected very carefully on this point in the development of the Bill. Viewed in the context of the many strengths and protections that we have introduced to benefit tenants, I feel that a one-year protection period against the main landlord circumstances ground—this is not a general period of protection that applies to any arbitrary eviction, but is specific to grounds 1 and 1A—strikes the right balance between tenant security and ensuring that landlords can respond to genuine changes in their circumstances.

The shadow Minister highlighted the thinking that has led to me coming down to one year, instead of remaining with two. A two-year protected period for the moving and selling grounds is, I fear, too long. It would prevent landlords from being able to respond to changes in circumstances, and therefore harm confidence in the sector and risk decreasing supply. In some circumstances, landlords may only be able to let their property for a year—for example, if they temporarily moved abroad—and a longer period may therefore remove valuable supply from the market.

Most importantly, I was convinced that a one-year protected period would deter abuse from disreputable landlords seeking to circumvent the protections in place. The one-year protected period mirrors the typical one-year fixed-term tenancy. We think it strikes the right balance, but I am more than happy to give further consideration to the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. I sympathise with and understand the significant costs borne by tenants from repeated moves. I understand, as I hope I have made clear in the debate so far, the need for stability and security, but we think that in this particular area, the one-year protected period is appropriate.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Lady for her further contribution. I have weighed very carefully in the balance, and looking at the Bill in the round, whether a two-year protected period would be appropriate. I concluded it would not be, taking into account those edge cases, for the following reasons.

While I sympathise with the point the hon. Lady made about the very significant costs that tenants face with moves, and while we obviously need to ensure that tenants under the new system have the requisite amount of stability and security, she too readily dismisses the potential impact on supply in the sector. It would be inconvenient for landlords; it would be inconvenient for tenants more widely if we saw a subsection of landlords that feel that they may need to use ground 1A and would not put their property on the rental market because of the possibility that they will need to use it.

As we heard in the evidence sessions, such is the acute nature of particularly hot rental markets across the country—hers will be one; mine is another—that if we lose a chunk of supply because we say to landlords, “It is too costly, too risky for you to put your property on the market if you may need to go abroad and work for a year,” that would be to the detriment of tenants in the round.

I think the one-year period strikes the right balance. It mirrors the sort of typical fixed-term, one-year tenancy. I urge the hon. Lady to go away and think about whether, in the round, with all of the protections we have introduced vis-à-vis the previous Government’s Bill, the one-year protected period does not do enough. We will not accept the amendment. I will, however, further reflect on the points she made because, as I have said, I am sympathetic to them and had weighed up two-year protected tenancies in the context of the previous Government’s Bill, but I think, looking at this Bill in the round, one year is the appropriate period.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 157, leave out line 13.

This allows Ground 1B to be used to obtain possession whenever the landlord intends to grant an assured tenancy to another person (whether or not it is to be granted pursuant to a rent-to-buy agreement).

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I will begin by discussing Government amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. Rent-to-buy tenancies help prospective homeowners to get on the housing ladder. New possession ground 1B will allow social landlords to take possession in specified circumstances, to ensure that rent-to-buy schemes can continue to function in the future assured regime. Landlords must be able to take possession in all the necessary circumstances. The amendments therefore widen ground 1B, so that landlords can simply grant another assured tenancy, without its having to be on a rent-to-buy scheme. That will ensure maximum flexibility for social landlords to meet the demands of local housing markets. However, the period of the existing rent-to-buy tenancy will need to have expired and the sitting tenant must have been offered the opportunity to purchase the property, in line with the contract. This means that it will never be a surprise for the rent-to-buy tenant if the tenancy is ended. The amendments also clarify the definition of “market rent” in possession grounds 1B and 5H, to ensure clarity and consistency.

I will now discuss Government amendments 6 to 8. New ground 6A will allow landlords to evict their tenants when eviction is necessary to comply with enforcement action. We have already debated this matter in relation to a previous Government amendment. For example, if a property were overcrowded or the landlord had received a banning order, new ground 6A would apply. The amendments ensure that the new ground also covers situations in which a tenant’s occupation needs to be brought to an end in order to comply with planning enforcement action. For example, where an industrial unit has been converted to residential use without planning permission, a local planning authority may issue an enforcement notice requiring the residential use to cease.

If planning enforcement were not included in ground 6A, there would be no guarantee that the landlord could evict the tenant in those circumstances. That would risk undermining the planning system’s ability to enforce effectively against unauthorised development. That could result in poor outcomes for residents, the community and surrounding businesses. This measure will ensure that landlords are not left in legal limbo, where the only way to comply with planning enforcement action is for a tenant to cease to occupy a dwelling, and ensures that the tenancy itself can be brought to an end appropriately. We are also bringing forward an amendment to ensure that tenants are fairly compensated when they are evicted under ground 6A, ensuring that the measures are balanced.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendments made: 3, in schedule 1, page 157, leave out line 30.

This leaves the definition of “market rent” out of Ground 1B, as it is superseded by Amendment 4.

Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 157, line 33, after “rent” insert

“(and here “rent” and “market rent” include any amount payable by way of service charge)”.

This ensures that any service charge is taken into account in both the rent and the market rent (when determining whether the rent is higher than 80% of the market rent).

Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 165, line 18, leave out from “than” to “, and” in line 22 and insert

“80% of market rent (and here “rent” and “market rent” include any amount payable by way of service charge)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This replaces the term “affordable rent” with a reference to rent that is no more than 80% of the market rent.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As the shadow Minister just made clear, amendment 60 would introduce a new mandatory ground for possession—6ZA—into schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. It would allow landlords to evict when they need to undertake works to meet the decent homes standard introduced by the Bill and those works cannot be completed without evicting the tenant. The objective that the hon. Gentleman seeks is reasonable and appropriate, but the Government do not believe that the ground is needed. I expect that the vast majority of works to meet decency requirements could be completed with the tenant in situ. Landlords may also undertake more substantial works between tenancies.

The proposed new ground is also unnecessary in the light of ground 6. The Bill’s revised ground 6 already permits a landlord to evict a tenant when they wish to undertake substantial redevelopment work that cannot be done with the tenant in situ. I am therefore reluctant to introduce a new ground that is not strictly needed, given what is in place in the Bill. However, I hope I have provided the Committee with sufficient reassurance that landlords will not be left unable to comply with the new decency requirements, as I say, in circumstances where the tenant must move out.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention, and I understand the point he makes. If it is acceptable to him, I will write to him with the technical detail about what substantial development entails. As I say, in most cases where substantial development is not taking place, works to ensure that homes come up to the new decent homes standard will be able to take place in situ. On the specific hard-edged case he mentions—that is, where the health and safety of a tenant is put at risk by the works required to take place or the conditions that the works are intended to remedy—I point him to provisions in the Bill like the extension of Awaab’s law, which will ensure that landlords have to respond to such hazards in a defined timescale and make accommodation for the tenant to move out in such circumstances. What I am reluctant to do here is to introduce a new ground that would have a substantial impact on tenants. They would have to leave the property and find new accommodation, and they might be owed a homelessness duty in those circumstances. That is a huge amount of disruption.

As I say, we think the existing provisions in the Bill do the job, but on the point he makes, which is a well-made one, as to precisely what the definition is and where the boundary lies between substantial and non-substantial redevelopment works, I will write to him with some more technical detail. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Taken together, amendments 62 and 63 seek to remove the requirement for a tenant to meet the arrears threshold for mandatory eviction at the date of hearing. Instead, they would allow a tenant to be evicted only if they met the threshold at the date of the notice and had any arrears at all remaining at the date of their hearing. I am sure we all agree we should encourage tenants in financial difficulty to pay off their arrears, but we believe the amendments would act as a significant disincentive to even try to do so, as it would mandate eviction of a tenant who has done the right thing and tried to pay off their arrears.

I understand that, with the amendments, the hon. Gentleman is most likely trying to address the perceived problem of tenants gaming the system by paying off a nominal amount of arrears, placing them just below the threshold at the date of hearing, and thus frustrating a landlord’s attempt to evict the tenants. That was the rationale that underpinned new ground 8A in the previous Government’s legislation. However, this is not a problem recognised as occurring frequently, if at all, by me or by those who advise tenants going through the eviction process—in fact, it is hard to find cases of people trying to extensively game that system.

The previous Government’s solution to this problem was ground 8A, which we consider to be punitive. Similarly to these amendments, ground 8A would have punished tenants who did the right thing in trying to pay off their arrears. While we understand how frustrating rent arrears can be for landlords, we have to accept that most tenants act in good faith when trying to pay off their arrears, and they should be encouraged to do so. I hope hon. Members agree that we should encourage the right behaviour in tenants who are trying to bring down their rent arrears.

The amendments would therefore be fundamentally unfair and, most importantly, create the wrong incentives. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw amendment 62.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

In addition to the points I made previously, I briefly draw the shadow Minister’s attention to the fact that ground 8 will remain mandatory, and discretionary grounds will also be available when arrears do not meet the mandatory threshold, such as in cases of repeated late payment. We think the courts have the necessary provisions to be able to take action on rent arrears. What we find particularly objectionable in the amendment is that it would mean that anyone with any amount of arrears at the hearing would be subject to mandatory eviction. We think that that goes too far, so I am glad that the shadow Minister has agreed to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As the shadow Minister has just made clear, amendment 59 seeks to introduce a new ground for possession into schedule 2 of the 1988 Act to allow landlords to evict tenants when they wish to use the property for the purposes of providing care. Although I appreciate the sentiment behind the shadow Minister’s proposals, I do not believe that this ground is needed. Ground 1, which is a mandatory ground, allows a landlord to move in close family members. That includes children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and siblings. It could be used if the landlord wished to obtain possession to provide care for close family members.

This relates to a point that we have just discussed. We think that a two-year protected period might lead to such cases being prohibitive for landlords who need to make use of the grounds. We think the existing ground 1 is likely to cover the vast majority of cases of the kind that the shadow Minister seeks to help, without increasing the complexity in the system. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Amendment 61 seeks to expand the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground to include behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance. Members may recall that this was proposed in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. When in Opposition, we strongly opposed the change, because it had the potential to significantly reduce security of tenure and, most importantly, put vulnerable tenants at risk of eviction. I remain concerned that it would leave tenants open to eviction, even when their behaviour was not causing any problems.

A huge range of behaviours are “capable” of causing a nuisance or annoyance. I was tempted to say that some of the behaviour of my children, on occasion, is more than capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. We can all agree that such a subjective term potentially includes a huge range of behaviours, and it would not be fair for someone to lose their home on the basis of some of them. For example, a baby crying frequently is capable of causing another tenant annoyance. In those cases, and there are many others that I could cite, it would be fundamentally wrong to put a family at risk of eviction because of that. Worse still—this is a point I recall very clearly from the discussions I had with domestic violence charities at the time of the previous legislation—we heard from many organisations that represent victims of domestic abuse that sometimes such abuse can be mistaken for antisocial behaviour, because of loud noises, banging or disruption in the property next door. The amendment increases the risk that tenants in such a situation could be evicted.

I understand that the shadow Minister wants to ensure that landlords have confidence that they can evict tenants who engage in genuine antisocial behaviour. That is an honourable aim, but there are already measures in the Bill to address that, including reducing notice periods so that landlords can make a claim to the court immediately when using the antisocial behaviour grounds, as we have discussed. We have also made changes to section 9A of the Housing Act 1988 to include amendments to ensure that the court considers the particular impact of antisocial behaviour on victims living with perpetrators in HMOs, which was a specific concern raised by the sector. We will also encourage the use of mediation and other tools by ensuring that judges take into account whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve their behaviour, making it easier to evict perpetrators who do not engage.

For the reasons that I have set out, we believe that lowering the threshold from “likely” to “capable of” causing nuisance or annoyance could have extremely damaging consequences, and I do not believe it is in the spirit of what the Bill is trying to achieve. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I beg the indulgence of the Committee to spend a little time setting out the Government’s position on this schedule, because it is a key part of the Bill. As we have discussed, the Bill reforms the grounds for possession to ensure that tenants have greater security in their homes and, importantly, that good landlords can regain a property when necessary. Without section 21 and the threat of arbitrary evictions, tenants will have that greater security in their homes. Landlords will have to use one of the defined grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, as amended, when they need to evict a tenant. They will be able to repossess their property only when it is reasonable to do so.

Schedule 1 inserts new grounds and amends existing ones, ensuring that landlords have robust grounds for possession when there is good reason to take their property back. As we have discussed, that includes repossessing to sell, to move in or if their tenant engages in antisocial behaviour or falls into rent arrears. Although many of the grounds are broadly similar to those in the previous Government’s Bill, we have made some important changes that we believe ensure a fairer balance in the sector. There are three main types of ground: those relating to a change in the landlord’s circumstances, those to allow specialist sectors to operate and those where the tenant has not met their obligations. I will not cover each in detail here, but I will give a brief overview of some of the key provisions.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reasonable question. He and many others in the House have significant concerns about the impact of excessive concentrations of short-term and holiday lets in particular parts of the country. A landlord who has moved a family member back in under the mandatory grounds that he cites would not be able to re-let the property for 12 months and would be penalised if they attempted to do so. It was a three-month void period in the previous Government’s Bill, and we thought that it would not have acted as a serious disincentive. I frequently encounter landlords who can comfortably wear a three-month void because of the levels of rent that they charge, and I am sure that is the case in many other parts of the country. We think that a 12-month no re-let period will provide the necessary protection to ensure landlords are not incentivised, and do not feel able, to abuse the mandatory grounds for possession.

Matthew Pennycook

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is always better to resolve issues without resorting to eviction, but we recognise that when tenants are committing antisocial behaviour and it is impacting on neighbours, housemates and communities, it is sometimes necessary. In these cases, landlords need to have confidence that they can gain possession of their property quickly. The clause expands the matters that judges are directed to consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground. We are making the change because we recognised landlords’ concerns about evicting antisocial tenants without section 21, and it is important that judges consider pertinent factors to ensure eviction can happen when it is right to do that.

Judges will take all relevant factors into account when determining whether to evict under these grounds, because they are discretionary, but under the current legislation, they are also guided to explicitly consider the impact of antisocial behaviour on victims. Clause 5 ensures that judges must also have regard to the question of whether the perpetrator has engaged with measures to resolve their behaviour. This will serve two purposes: making it more likely that landlords work with tenants to resolve poor behaviour, and making it easier to evict those tenants who do not engage. The change will contribute towards increasing the amount of dispute resolutions short of eviction in the private rented sector.

The clause also asks judges to give regard to the impact of antisocial behaviour on other tenants within houses of multiple occupation. Antisocial behaviour within house-shares can have a severe impact on those who live in close proximity. The clause will make it easier to evict perpetrators, which was a specific concern raised with us by a number of external stakeholders. Fellow tenants are the worst-affected victims of antisocial behaviour within HMOs, and landlords were concerned about their ability to evict perpetrators without section 21 notices. The clause ensures that courts can consider these factors.