Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 View all Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 November 2023 - (21 Nov 2023)
The Chair
I welcome the Committee to its consideration of the Renters (Reform) Bill. It might be helpful if I lay out a few thoughts before we start line-by-line consideration. Most of you will be old hands, so forgive me if I am teaching grannies to suck eggs, but I might as well try for clarity.
First, will you make sure that you let any speaking notes you have go to Hansard, which makes it easier for the Hansard reporter accurately to report what you have said? Secondly, all the rules and conventions that apply in the Chamber apply here, in particular with regard to drinking coffee, leaving your coats lying around and things like that, on which I am rather old-fashioned. Forgive me if you do not agree, but the rules and conventions that we use in the Chamber, including on speaking, will be used here in Committee.
The purpose of the Committee you all know well. The Government have laid down the outline of the Bill as it was debated on Second Reading—it was read a Second time without Division—and the duty of the Committee is now to examine the words of the Bill to ensure that the resulting law is as good as it possibly can be, leaving aside the principle that may lie behind it. Any member of the Committee, including members on the Government side and in particular those in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, may table as many amendments as they like on as many clauses as they like, bearing in mind that amendments for consideration on a Thursday must be tabled by the Tuesday and that amendments for consideration on a Tuesday must be tabled by the rise of the House on the previous Thursday. If they are tabled later, they will not normally be considered unless there is a particular reason why they should be.
The end result is the amendment paper that you have before you. You will also see the selection list with the grouping of amendments; it is in my name, but is actually done by my learned friend the Clerk. It groups together topics of similar interest, right through the Bill: we might find that an amendment to clause 1 is grouped with an amendment to schedule 23, say, because that makes it easier to debate. We debate the principle behind the changes; the changes are then voted on when we get to that point in the Bill, rather than at the time we debate them. People often find that confusing, but it works more easily that way.
Unless there are any questions on that little “Boy’s Own” introduction, we now come to line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Assured tenancies to be periodic with rent period not exceeding a month
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 2—Repayment of rent paid in advance.
Government new clause 6—Liability of tenants under assured tenancies for council tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
May I join you, Mr Gray, in thanking members of the Committee for their engagement with the Bill so far?
My view is that the Bill delivers a better deal for renters and for landlords. As hon. Members are aware, however, we must tread lightly. This is a fine balancing act. Go too far one way, and good landlords will find it harder to operate and exit the market; go too far the other way, and the Bill will not give renters the protections we all seek against bad actors in the private rented sector. As we delve into the Bill, I ask all hon. Members to consider the impact of proposed amendments on that delicate balance.
Everyone has the right to a secure and decent home, whether they own it or are among the 11 million people living in the private rented sector; that is the guiding principle of the entire Bill. Clause 1 will remove fixed terms. It provides that tenancies will be periodic in future: under the clause, the tenancy will roll from period to period. Any term in a contract that includes a fixed term will not be enforceable.
The clause also has limits on how long a rental period can be. That is to prevent unscrupulous landlords from emulating fixed terms by introducing longer periods to contracts. Fixed terms lock tenants into contracts, meaning that they may not be able to end their tenancy before the end of the term and move to another property when they need to, for example to take a new job or when a landlord fails to maintain basic standards or repair a property. The changes will also give landlords more flexibility: they may end the tenancy when they need to, under specified grounds that are covered in later clauses, rather than waiting for the end of the fixed term.
Government new clause 2 will require landlords to refund rent in advance where the tenancy has ended earlier than the duration already paid for. That applies regardless of how the tenancy came to an end. It will ensure that rogue landlords do not try to lock tenants in with large up-front payments.
Government new clause 6 will deliver a technical change to council tax rules in the light of the abolition of fixed-term assured tenancies. It will ensure that tenants who hold assured tenancies are liable for council tax until the end of their tenancy agreement. In particular, tenants will remain liable for council tax when they have served notice to end their tenancy but leave the property before the notice period has ended. That will ensure that liability for council tax does not pass back to the landlord until the tenancy has formally ended. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to begin our line-by-line consideration with you in the Chair, Mr Gray. It is a genuine privilege to serve on a Committee with such evident expertise in the subject matter. It is my sincere hope that we can draw constructively on it all in the days ahead to improve this long-overdue but welcome piece of legislation.
As the Opposition argued on Second Reading, the case for fundamentally reforming the private rented sector—including by making all assured tenancies periodic in future, as clause 1 seeks to do—is watertight. As the Minister implied, regardless of whether someone is a homeowner, a leaseholder or a tenant, everyone has a basic right to a decent, safe, secure and affordable home. However, millions of people presently renting privately live day in, day out with the knowledge that they could be uprooted with little notice and minimal justification, if any. The lack of certainty and security inherent in renting privately today results not only in an ever-present anxiety about the prospect of losing one’s home and often one’s community, but—for those at the lower end of the private rented market, who have little or no purchasing power and who all the evidence suggests are increasingly concentrated geographically—in a willingness to put up with often appalling conditions for fear that a complaint will lead to an instant retaliatory eviction.
This House last legislated to fundamentally alter the relationship between landlords and tenants in 1988, when I was just six years old. The Minister may have been even younger.
Matthew Pennycook
Well, that just makes my point that the sector should have been overhauled a long time ago. The fact that it has changed beyond recognition over recent decades and now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom having greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life, renders urgent the need to transform how it is regulated and to level decisively the playing field between landlords and tenants.
This Bill is a good starting point to that end. We are glad that after a very long wait, it is finally progressing. However, we are determined to see it strengthened in a number of areas so that it truly delivers for tenants. In this Committee and the remaining stages, we will seek to work constructively with the Government to see this legislation enacted, but we also expect Ministers to give serious and thoughtful consideration to the arguments we intend to make about how its defects and deficiencies might be addressed.
Part 1 of the Bill seeks to amend the assured tenancy regime introduced by the Housing Act 1988. In the nearly 35 years since that Act came into force in January 1989, with some limited exceptions, all new private sector tenancies in England and Wales have been either assured or assured shorthold tenancies, with the latter becoming the default PRS tenancy following the implementation of the Housing Act 1996. As the Committee will know, assured tenancies can be either periodic or fixed, but the vast majority of ASTs are fixed.
Clause 1 will insert a new section 4A before section 5 of the 1988 Act, thereby providing, as the Minister made clear, that all future assured tenancies will be periodic and open-ended, and that they can no longer have fixed terms. That change will empower tenants by giving them more flexibility to end tenancies where and when they want or need to, including when landlords are not meeting their responsibilities and obligations or in instances in which the property that they have moved into is not as advertised. We support it.
We take no issue with Government new clause 2. Although we are not convinced that it is strictly necessary, given how the Apportionment Act 1870 applies to rent paid in advance, we believe that it is a worthwhile amendment none the less, to the extent that it makes express provision for that.
We believe that Government new clause 6 is a necessary change to how council tax works, given that the Bill abolishes fixed-term tenancies. However, in the sense that its effect will be to render a tenancy that
“is or was previously an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988”
a “material interest” for the purposes of this Bill, we would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarification. Could he tell us the effect of the proposed change in circumstances in which a tenant used to have an assured tenancy but, after this part of the Bill comes into force, now does not because of circumstances that are out of their control? Let us say, to take an extreme example, that a tenant died prior to the end of their assured tenancy, and the relevant provisions came into force. Would their estate be forced to pay the council tax liability as a consequence of the new clause?
We understand the Government’s intention with regard to the new clause, which is to manage the transition between the two tenancy regimes when it comes to council tax. However, we are a little concerned that, as drafted, the new clause may be unnecessarily broad and may create some problematic outcomes. The explanatory statement accompanying the new clause suggests that it may have another purpose altogether—namely, to make people liable if they leave a tenancy without giving notice—but that raises the obvious question of how the Valuation Office Agency and the relevant local authority are meant to know that, and how the local authority might ever hope to find the tenant who is liable. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government have discussed the matter at all with either the Valuation Office Agency or the Local Government Association?
Lastly in connection with this new clause, is there not a risk that unscrupulous landlords may game this provision by claiming that there is still a tenant in situ who should settle the council tax liability, rather than the landlord doing so? Our concern is that the provision could be abused along those lines and that local authority revenue would suffer as a result. I would appreciate some reassurance and clarification on those points in the Minister’s response.
With or without the incorporation of Government new clause 2 and new clause 6—after clause 6 and before clause 20 respectively—huge uncertainty now surrounds the implementation of clause 1, and the rest of chapter 1 of part 1, as a result of the Government’s recent decision to tie implementation of the new system directly to court improvements. Whatever the motivation behind that—renters will no doubt have reached their own conclusions—the decision has significant implications for when clause 1 and the other clauses in this chapter become operational. We need answers today, so that those whose lives stand to be affected are clear as to what they are.
Clause 67, “Commencement and application”, gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to appoint a day when chapter 1 of part 1, including clause 1, comes into force. In other words, the Bill has always given Ministers discretion as to precisely when the new system becomes operational—a matter that we will debate more extensively in a future sitting when we come to clause 67 itself and our amendment 169 to it.
The Government were previously clear that there would be a two-stage transition to the new tenancy system, with precise starting dates for new and existing tenancies to be determined by the Secretary of State, and that a package of wide-ranging court reforms was to accompany the legislation, but at no point prior to the response issued on 20 October this year to the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities did the Government indicate that the new system’s implementation was directly dependent on such reforms. As things stand, because of the Government’s last-minute change of approach, not only do tenants have no idea when the new tenancy system will come into force, but they do not even know what constitutes the requisite progress in respect of court reform that Ministers now deem is necessary before it does.
There are three distinct questions to which the Government have so far failed to provide adequate answers. First, is the county court system for resolving most disputes between landlords and tenants performing so badly that reform is a necessary precondition of bringing this clause and others in this chapter into force?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
We heard from many representations on the county court part of the process that the county court system was performing adequately. Does that not make one suspicious that there are other motivations for kicking this into the long grass?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come on to our view of precisely how the county court system is operating, but I think it would be fair to say that we do not necessarily buy the Government’s argument that it is performing so badly that we need to tie implementation of this clause and others in this chapter to it. It could certainly do with improvement, but if it needs improvement, we need to know what that improvement is. That is an argument that I will come on to make in due course.
The second of my three questions to the Government relates to the point that my hon. Friend has just raised: if the court system requires improvement to ensure that landlords can quickly regain possession of their property if a tenant refuses to move out, what is the precise nature of the improvements that are required? Thirdly, how can we measure progress on delivering those improvements so that tenants have certainty about when the new system might come into force?
I will start with my first question. With apologies, Mr Gray, I intend to spend some considerable time on this point, because it is central to when the clause and the rest of the chapter come into force.
If one examines the evidence, it is clear that the possession claims system is one of the faster and better-administered parts of the civil justice system. As housing expert Giles Peaker put it when giving evidence to the Committee on Thursday, it is “well honed”. As Simon Mullings, co-chair of the Housing Law Practitioners Association, stated in the same session:
“What we have at the moment is an extremely good network of county courts, with a very evolved set of civil procedure rules that deal with possession claims very well.” ––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 111, Q141.]
The data seems to bear that out. It makes it clear that the various stages of possession and litigation are back to where they were pre-pandemic, and that non-accelerated possessions are not taking significantly longer than the relevant guidelines stipulate. As Giles Peaker argued,
“the current time from issue to a possession order under the accelerated possession proceedings—an ‘on the papers’ process, without a hearing—is roughly the same as under the section 8 process with an initial hearing. There is no great time lag for the section 8 process as opposed to accelerated possession proceedings.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 111, Q141.]
One of the more robust defences of the adequacies of the present system that I have heard came from the sixth of the seven housing and planning Ministers that I have shadowed in my two years in this role. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) argued:
“It is important to note at this point that the vast majority of possession claims do not end up in the courts—only something like 1% of claims go through the courts... The courts have already made huge improvements. It is worth saying that over 95% of hearings are listed within four to eight weeks of receipt, and of course the ombudsman will encourage the early dispute resolution process, taking a lot of claims out of the courts and freeing up court time for more complex processes.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 695.]
We also heard expert testimony last week that called into question the suggested impact of the Bill on the courts. For example, it was disputed whether the reforms in the Bill would increase the number of contested cases. Giles Peaker persuasively argued that there was likely to be an increase in the number of initial hearings, but that we are unlikely to see an increase in the number of contested hearings.
To the extent that concern was raised about capacity within the system, several witnesses argued that it still did not justify postponing the enactment of chapter 1 of part 1. Indeed, the head of justice at the Law Society, Richard Miller, argued in relation to plans for digitisation that it would be sensible to see the new tenancy system put in place first so that we can properly understand what a new digital system needs to achieve in respect of the Bill.
Every part of the civil justice system would benefit from improvement, but we would argue that, to date, the Government have failed to demonstrate that the county court system for resolving landlord and tenant disputes is failing to the degree that it is imperative to further delay the long-overdue reforms to tenancies in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister set out very clearly why the Government believe the possession of claims system is so woefully inadequate that the enactment of clause 1 and the other clauses in chapter 1 must be postponed.
I turn to the second of my questions. If we accept that the county court system as it relates to housing cases could be improved—probably no one here would dispute that, even if we might debate the extent of the improvement required—how are the Government defining improvement? To put it another way, what is the precise nature of the improvements that Ministers believe are required before we finally abolish section 21 of the 1988 Act and reform the tenancy system, as clause 1 and other clauses in chapter 1 will do?
Let us examine and interrogate what the Government have said about this. Their 20 October response to the Select Committee stated:
“We will align the abolition of section 21 and new possession grounds with court improvements, including end-to-end digitisation of the process.”
Will the Minister tell us precisely what is meant by end-to-end digitisation of the process? Precisely what process did that statement refer to? Was it a reference to just the court possession action process, or to civil and family court and tribunal processes more generally? Further detail was seemingly provided in the briefing notes that accompanied the King’s Speech on 7 November:
“We will align the abolition of section 21 with reform of the courts. We are starting work on this now, with an initial commitment of £1.2 million to begin designing a new digital system for possessions. As work progresses, we will engage landlords and tenants to ensure the new system supports an efficient and straightforward possession system for all parties.”
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Did we not hear in evidence that the key for this to work was the property portal? Delaying the implementation of these measures until after court reform would therefore seem to be the wrong way around. Surely the property portal and ombudsman need to be up and running, and then we can see what pressure is on the courts, and we can also integrate the property portal into the digitalisation of the process.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a point well made, and I think the same point was made by Richard Miller of the Law Society. If this Bill works as intended, there are a number of provisions in it that should relieve the burden on the courts. We all want to see that happen. However, to the extent that the courts do need to act in possession cases, we need to know precisely what the Government mean by the “improvements” that they have been referring to over recent months.
That King’s Speech briefing note would suggest that the required improvements relate only to the court possession action process. However, it is not clear whether the proposed new digital system for possessions is the only improvement that Ministers believe needs to be delivered before the new tenancy system can be introduced, and if so—this is crucial—by what date that new system will be operational.
Can the Minister tell us more about the new digital system for possessions that the King’s Speech briefing note referred to? Specifically, can he tell us whether its introduction is the sole determinant of when the new tenancy system can come into force? Can he also outline when the Government expect work on that new digital system to be completed by the Government and rolled out for use by landlords, given that it appears—on the basis of the King’s Speech briefing note—to have only just commenced?
The White Paper “A fairer private rented sector”, which the Government published in June 2022, set out the Government’s intention, working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service, to
“introduce a package of wide-ranging court reforms”.
Those went beyond purely the court possession action process that I have just been speaking to. It was suggested in the White Paper that the package would include steps to address county court bailiff capacity, a lack of adequate advice about court and tribunal processes, a lack of prioritisation of cases and the strengthening and embedding of mediation services for landlords and renters—issues that many of our witnesses in last week’s evidence sessions referred to.
Many of those issues were also identified in the Government’s response to the Select Committee as “target areas for improvement”. What is not clear is whether the implementation of the new tenancy system, and this clause, is dependent on Ministers judging that sufficient progress has been made in relation to each of those target areas for improvement, or whether it is dependent, as I have suggested, solely on improvements in the court possession process.
Can the Minister tell us clearly which one it is? Will the new tenancy system be introduced only when improvements have been made in all the target areas specified, or is the implementation date linked solely to improvements in the court possession process? If it is the former, what are the criteria by which the Government will determine when sufficient improvements have been made in each of the listed target areas for improvement? Those of us on the Opposition side of the Committee, and many of the millions of tenants following our proceedings, need answers to those questions. As we debate the Bill today, we do not know precisely what reform of the courts is required for the new tenancy system to be enacted.
I turn to my third question. Because we have no real sense of precisely what the Government mean by court improvements, and therefore no metrics by which they might be measured, we have no idea whether and when they might be achieved. The concern in that regard should be obvious. Having been assured repeatedly by Ministers that the passage of this Bill will see a new tenancy system introduced and the threat of section 21 evictions finally removed, tenants have no assurances, let alone a guarantee, that the Government have not, in effect, given themselves the means to defer—perhaps indefinitely—the implementation of these long-promised changes.
As I referenced in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, we accept that the court system needs to be improved so that, when landlords or tenants escalate a dispute, they can have confidence that it will be determined in an efficient and timely manner. However, since they committed themselves to abolishing section 21 evictions, the Government have had more than four and a half years to make significant improvements to the system to support tenants and good-faith landlords, and they have not succeeded in doing so.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
On that four-and-a-half-years point, can my hon. Friend clarify how many people have been evicted through no-fault eviction since 2019, when abolition was originally promised?
Matthew Pennycook
That is a very good point. Every month that the Government delayed tabling the Bill, many thousands of tenants were put at risk of homelessness by a section 21 eviction. I cannot remember the precise figure, but I think the last Government data release showed that just under 80,000 tenants had been put at risk of homelessness as the result of a section 21 notice since the Government first committed to abolishing section 21. And we are talking not just about those 80,000, but about however many tens of thousands more will be put at risk of eviction while the Government delay the enactment of the provisions on the basis of court reforms.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is putting huge strains on local authorities, which are being forced to pick up so many homeless families at a time when social housing unit availability is at its lowest and it is difficult to find any form of temporary accommodation that is half-decent?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that well-made point. A related and incredibly important issue is the supply of genuinely affordable housing, and the Government have failed woefully to build enough social rented homes in this country to meet housing need. She is absolutely right that local authorities are picking up the burden for this failure and the failure in the courts. My local authority—like hers, I am sure—is now sending people in need of temporary accommodation as far as Dartford or north Kent, and even further in some cases. Those people are struggling to retain a foothold in the community they live in and value, and in the schools that their children go to. Frankly, that is unacceptable. We need an end to section 21 as soon as possible.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My hon. Friend talked about the insecurity for tenants if the measure is not implemented in time, but does he also think that if it is not clear when it will be implemented, there could be adverse effects on the wider rented sector market? We know that people game the system; if it is not clear when the measure will be implemented, the danger is that people can run rings around both tenants and the public sector.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: a protracted delay in implementing this clause and the others in chapter 1 could lead landlords to look at how they can best abuse the system before the new one is introduced. Equally importantly, it could provide a real problem for good-faith landlords who are trying to do the right thing. If a landlord who is affected by high interest rates and section 24 tax changes is wondering whether they can stay in the market and continue to provide private lets, how does it help to have hanging over their head an undetermined date, based on an unspecified set of metrics, for when a new system will come into force?
As I was saying, the Government have had more than four and a half years to improve the court system. They have not succeeded. If they had, then, as the former Housing Minister—the hon. Member for Redditch—claimed, they would have had no justification for delaying the enactment of this clause and the others on the grounds that the system is failing to such an extent that landlords have no confidence in it. The truth is that the Government’s record on court reforms is as woeful as their record on social rented housing. In a damning report published this summer, the Public Accounts Committee made it clear that, seven years into the courts and tribunals reform programme, HMCTS
“is once again behind on delivering critical reforms to its services. Overall, despite an increase in budget, the programme is set to deliver less than originally planned, at a time when the reforms are even more vital to help reduce extensive court backlogs.”
The Chair
Order. I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that I was content with a reasonably wide-ranging, Second Reading-type debate on clause 1 stand part, but we are now going well beyond the scope of the clause. Perhaps he might like to return to it.
Matthew Pennycook
I am bringing my remarks to a close. The degree of progress in improving the courts is pertinent to the debate, given that the Government have linked the implementation of the clause directly to it. When it comes to digitisation, which the Government have flagged as one of the target areas for improvement and on which the implementation of this clause relies, the Government have made agonisingly slow progress. As Mr Miller from the Law Society argued in his evidence to the Committee last week, the project to digitise private family law was announced in 2020 and was scheduled to be completed in December 2022. Yet the issue is ongoing and the roll-out has not yet been completed.
Given the Government’s record on court reform, how can tenants, looking for clause 1 and other clauses in chapter 1 to be enacted as soon as possible, have any confidence that sufficient progress will now be made in even the limited number of areas identified by the Government? As I have remarked, the inefficiency of the court system is a huge problem and action must be taken to address its lack of capacity so that possession claims can be expedited. The end of no-fault evictions cannot be made dependent on an unspecified degree of future progress subjectively determined by Ministers.
On Second Reading, we asked for clear commitments from the then Housing Minister on metrics and timescales that would give renters a degree of certainty about when the new tenancy system would be introduced. None was forthcoming. There is a huge amount of confusion, and genuine concern, about this issue. In the absence of any assurances to the contrary, the conclusion that has been reached by many tenants, and those who represent them and defend their interests, is that the Government have reached for a spurious excuse in order to delay the implementation of some of the most fundamental reforms in this legislation, under pressure from the landlord lobby and discontented Members on their own Back Benches.
I have spent some time on this clause stand part debate, but that is because of its importance to millions of tenants in England and Wales. We will return to this issue again when we debate clause 67, but given that the Government have made it operational on clause 1 and the rest of chapter 1 is dependent on those unspecified reports, we would appreciate it if the Minister took the opportunity in this debate to clarify precisely what the Government’s intentions are and set a clear timeline for when the new periodic tenancies provided for by this clause, as well as the rest of the new tenancy system, will come into force.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In the interests of avoiding repetition, I will keep my remarks fairly brief. As I outlined on Second Reading, Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. We welcome the objective of achieving a balance between landlords and tenants, increasing the supply in the private rented sector and enhancing the ability of tenants to enjoy a secure and safe home. To that end, we welcome the introduction of periodic tenancies.
I would like to touch on some of the evidence that we heard last week around the absence of any longer-term tenancy option. We heard from both tenant and landlord groups that in certain situations they would like a long-term tenancy option to be introduced. As things stand, periodic tenancies guarantee a tenant only six months’ security before a no-fault ground for eviction can be introduced. For a landlord, that period of certainty is effectively only two months, because of the notice period that the tenant has available to them. Some landlords might therefore feel that they are not secure in that market, given that they cannot guarantee their income. Equally, tenants might feel that they are unable to commit to a local school, for example, or a job, because they do not know whether they will be in that property for longer than six months.
I have not tabled an amendment, because clause 1 does away with fixed-term tenancies and is a fundamental part of the Bill, and also because we are not opposing the introduction of periodic tenancies, but will the Minister give some indication of whether a long-term alternative, where neither the landlord nor the tenant could break those terms, could be considered? That would mean that some people will have the security that they need.
I was particularly concerned about the evidence from Grainger plc that some financing is dependent on the availability of a longer-term period for the landlord. We would all hate to see withdrawal from the housing market because of a lack of financing for landlords, given that the issue of supply underpins this whole housing crisis—not just in the private rented sector, but in social housing, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has already pointed out.
That is my key concern about clause 1. I do not want to repeat the concerns about the delays in implementing clause 1, except to echo them. Landlords are running a business and need certainty about when these reforms will take place, so that they can plan for them. Uncertainty is the worst thing for a business. Even if they do not particularly like the idea that is coming in, planning for it enables them to get over the hurdles, but if there is uncertainty, that is the worst thing for any business to plan for. The Minister needs to be clear about the timescale of reform, when exactly the clause will be implemented and what the finished reform will look like. I echo the concerns around that.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I rise briefly to reinforce the key points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and I share in our borough what I think is the largest private rental market in the country, so these issues are of particular concern to us. I am sure that she, like me, deals with consequences of section 21 evictions constantly.
We are all pleased to be here finally to recognise the principle that the section 21 evictions will end. However, I must also echo the concerns about the practice being dependent on a Government decision that in itself rests on agreement on court reform. That, as we heard in evidence last week, is unspecified and imprecise, which allows for the possibility that it will be some time before tenants see the benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was asked in an intervention how many households had lost their homes since the Government introduced the principle of the Bill. The answer to that is 23,000 households since the commitment to the principle in the Bill. Even more worryingly, if the provisions of the Bill do not come into effect until the end of 2024, we are likely to see an additional 35,000 households losing their homes.
The consequences of losing a home are catastrophic for families. Many of us rented when we were younger, when we were students or young professionals, and moving frequently is a hazard of young life, but the private rented sector has been transformed in recent decades; it is now a home to families with children in a way that it simply was not a couple of decades ago. Therefore, the consequences for those families are at a level of disruption that is quite different, in particular in the impact on young people’s education.
One of the aspects that I deal with a lot, and that causes me great concern, is the number of uprooted families who have education and care plans. Children might be in the middle of special needs education—in particular, vulnerable children with autism or various disabilities—but they are uprooted and moved to different boroughs. That is also at considerable public expense, let alone the damaging consequences for the children.
We also have a growing number of older renters. Again, that was very rare a few decades ago. Those people have put down roots over decades.
Siobhain McDonagh
Has my hon. Friend had the same experience that I have had? I see an ever-growing number of constituents over 60 who face section 21 eviction. In the 26 years that I have been the MP for Mitcham and Morden and in the previous 18 years that I was a councillor, or when I worked for Wandsworth local authority or the Battersea Churches Housing Trust, I have never seen that. It is a very new development.
Ms Buck
I very much agree. That is a new development, and it is extremely worrying and damaging to people’s quality of life.
The whole area of enforced mobility and frequent moves is an under-researched area of social policy, but it has massive implications. There is unfortunately far too little quality research, but from anecdotal evidence we know the negative impacts that frequent moves have on children’s education—I mentioned special needs, but there is an impact on children’s educational opportunities generally. I and, I am sure, other Members who represent areas with large renting populations have heard of children being uprooted in the weeks before they take public examinations, and being forced to commute to their schools, sometimes travelling an hour or more each way. We know that this is bad for educational prospects, we know it is bad for health, and we know that it correlates with low birth rates, infant mortality and serious mental health consequences.
Siobhain McDonagh
The guidance code on dealing with homeless families suggests that priority for local temporary accommodation should be given to children in their exam years. That is a great aspiration, but it is not being realised on the ground because local authorities cannot find accommodation, particularly for larger families.
The Chair
Order. Before the hon. Member for Westminster North replies, I must point out that although these are important matters, they are consequences of what we are discussing but not of the precise clause. We ought to return to the group of amendments before us.
Ms Buck
Thank you, Mr Gray. I was merely making the point that agreeing the principle in the Bill but not setting a date, or making the date consequential on an unmeasurable set of objectives, will have serious real-life consequences for individuals and public services.
Regarding court reform, the evidence we heard last week from the Law Society, the Housing Law Practitioners Association and other expert lawyers is that it is simply not a prerequisite for abolishing section 21. I hope the Minister will respond specifically to the evidence we heard that the median time between claim and possession has fallen back to pre-pandemic levels, meaning the courts are performing better than in recent years, so the assertion that they are incapable of dealing with the consequences of the abolition of section 21 is not a valid argument. As Shelter told us, the pressure is overstated, in part because most evictions are concluded with tenants vacating before court proceedings; demands on the courts are therefore not as presented. In addition, many possession cases under section 21 would not be legitimate claims under section 8.
We also heard evidence that court digitisation is, if anything, adding to the delays affecting the civil court system. The speed of transformation, the scale of change and the multiplicity of changes happening simultaneously may place an additional burden on the courts system, rather than facilitating speed over the next couple of years. The National Audit Office and PAC reports made much the same points. I argue that the Bill is being delayed because of a flawed and rushed digitisation processes, and unwillingness to recognise that the civil courts as they stand are perfectly capable of dealing with the consequences of the abolition of section 21.
I hope the Minister will respond specifically to those points. The Opposition are desperately anxious to get on with the abolition of section 21. We want families to have security and stability and the pressure on local authorities of homelessness to be reduced. We do not believe that the arguments advanced by the Government for failing to speed ahead with implementation are valid.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support clause 1, while raising concerns similar to those expressed by my good colleagues about the delay to its implementation. I will first explain why it is important that we abolish fixed-term tenancies and do not provide loopholes whereby such tenancies can be brought back in, despite the well-meaning efforts of colleagues on this Committee.
When the original Act that introduced assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies was being discussed, assured tenancies were initially expected to be the dominant form of tenancy. Members can see from the debate at the time that assured shorthold tenancies were meant to be there because some tenants might want the security of a specified period. What happened over the slightly less than 10 years until the 1996 Act was that they dominated and took over the market as the only recourse for people. The reality is that tenants do not have a choice: they must choose what is available—what the landlord offers. If there is an option for any form of fixed period, the landlord might well offer it for that property. That then limits the tenants who can apply for that property to people who are willing to have fixed-term periods only, and eventually those are the only tenancies offered in the market. Effectively, we get to the same situation that we have at the moment.
I applaud the Government for not relenting and giving into having fixed-term periods, even for longer periods. Although the argument might sound appealing, it is a slippery slope. It is also true that none of our future conditions can be predicted. I might sign a tenancy and the landlord’s situation or mine might change; the inability to get out of that situation, or the requirement to go to the courts to get out of it, would bung up the courts and slow the process down. It is, then, the right call to make.
I worry that the link relates to the courts. I heard that the problem was getting bailiffs in at the final stage of the final part for, let us be clear, a very small number. Most people leave when a section 21 notice is issued—in cases under the Bill, that will be when the new grounds are issued—and they leave quickly. They often leave before their time limit is up, because they have found a place, or when it is up. The very few who do not leave and are required to go to court will usually leave as soon as the court has given notice. There is of course a tiny minority who need to be dealt with efficiently—they need forceful eviction via bailiffs and are required to leave.
I think we all agree that reform of the bailiff system needs to happen. It needs to happen on many fronts to make sure that it is sensitive, targets the right people and is efficient for all sides. That does not seem the same as needing to wait for the advanced digitisation of the court system. We all agree that the court system needs digitisation, but they are two different things. The digitising of the bailiff system does not seem to be the problem we have heard about bailiffs: the problem we have heard about bailiffs is the supply chain. It is about the pay and conditions of bailiffs, the equipment they need and procuring the right number of bailiffs in certain areas, with London being particularly problematic. If the Minister is talking about bailiff reform in respect of the delay, it would be useful if he could be clear about what exactly the Government will do to increase the number of bailiffs in the sector. If this is not about bailiff reform, the Minister needs to give clear indicators of what the court reform he talks about actually is.
We heard in evidence that while we can always have improvements in the courts, we must not do it the wrong way around. We need a property portal through which eviction notices can be served to free up some of the court processes. We need an ombudsperson who can help to resolve disputes before they get to the courts, so that we can get to a situation in which things do not lead to eviction because the issue has already been resolved. We also need clearer competencies for councils to be able to fulfil their homelessness duty—there are amendments on that later in the Bill. That is what will free up the courts, so the full implementation of the Bill, not delays to sections of it, is needed to allow the courts to function more effectively.
The danger of delaying the implementation of clauses 1 and 3—on periodic tenancies and section 21—is that there will be a rush for evictions in that period or, as we have heard from Opposition Members, that landlords will be unsure about their situation, the market will slow down and people will withdraw to see what happens. I would like the private rented sector to be smaller overall in the long term, but I do not think anyone thinks that, before we get Britain building again, withdrawing or slowing down the letting market would do anyone any favours.
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about short fixed terms, and I absolutely agree with him. To be clear, my proposal was for a long fixed term of at least three years.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I totally take that point. I am talking specifically about the short-term problem.
On the all-party parliamentary group for renters and rental reform, we heard from Gemma Marshall, who every year has to look for a new house and has had to change her children’s school three times. She lives not in London, which is even worse, but in north Devon. This problem affects all parts of our country. We also heard from Amy Donovan, who does live in London, and equally has had to move numerous times, which has meant that she cannot commute to her job effectively and has had to move job.
This issue causes problems for the very foundations of society. On the Opposition Benches—and, I genuinely believe, on both sides of the House—we believe that strong societies are built with strong, stable families and communities from the ground up. To some extent, communities are built with bricks and mortar—with people being safe and secure where they are. That is why the clause is so important, but also why it is so important that it is implemented right now, because any delay will mean more mould on the walls for the Amys of the world and more new schools for the Gemmas and their children. Whether the wait is a year, two years or whenever the Minister has the whim to act—he has not laid out the conditions in which he will enact the clause—it is not acceptable for anyone.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown on his powerful contribution to the debate, which has inspired me to make a contribution.
I want to pick up on a point that the hon. Member made about the aims of the clause and the flexibility for tenants to leave their tenancies when they need to. That is welcome, and I welcome the clause. I also welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing and congratulate him, because I have not yet had a chance to do so officially, on his elevation to his position and the work that he has done so far in this space. However, the aims of the clause need to go alongside a regulatory foundation. The Bill rightly builds that flexibility.
This has been an interesting debate; it has almost had two sides. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown spoke about the need for security, and not uprooting families from their community. I agree with that, and I think we all share the aim of building sustainable communities that enable people to put down roots. They need a home with security of tenure, but equally, a regulatory framework is needed if we are to meet the aim of enabling tenants to escape tenancies that are not working because, say, there is mould, or uninhabitable conditions.
I think quite often of the additional licensing schemes that were available to councils, particularly for houses in multiple occupation. The fights that I have had with my local authority to implement those schemes have driven me to the point of madness at times. Authorities—particularly mine, in Sandwell—have the expertise, in many ways. My authority has admitted to me that it could do that. We need a localised, driven regulatory system.
I think we would all agree that landlords are, broadly, good actors. They want to offer decent, habitable homes, and to have people in them for the long term. That benefits the landlord, because they then get emotional and moral investment in the property, and from a long-term, sustainability perspective it of course makes sense to have that. We do not want to broadbrush the sector in general. However, clearly there are bad actors. We all know about them from our postbags; I certainly see them in the area that I represent. We need a framework that deals with the issues. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have had many positive discussions on this subject, and I know that he is committed to it. The framework should be locally driven, in many respects—I know his commitment to localism—and should enable us to catch these people and drive down the problem.
I fully support what clause 1 does. When a tenant needs to get out because the tenancy is frankly not working and puts them in a dangerous situation, getting out is absolutely the right thing to do.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Member mentions selective licensing, which is important. Do we need to review the way that authorities apply for selective licensing? Should there be an assumption that they should have selective licensing for all properties, rather than their having to provide evidence for a license? Many shy away from doing that.
Shaun Bailey
To be honest, I probably want a comprehensive selective system. There are already structures and expertise that would enable us to have that. The hon. Gentleman and I have probably had similar experiences with constituency casework. Something like that could be preventive. I am not saying that the issues we have talked about would not still present themselves—let us face it: they probably always will—but if we can mitigate them, that is what we need to do.
I welcome the clause for a variety of reasons that Members from across the Committee have touched on. It is welcome that it enables tenants to leave more expeditiously, but I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to continue the conversation. The Bill is part of a broader conversation about how we ensure that we do not even get to the point at which the measures are needed, because we have habitable homes, people have somewhere to live safely, and they do not have to fall back on the provisions all the time just to keep themselves safe. The clause is absolutely the right way forward. My hon. Friend the Minister can see that there is support for it from across the Committee. I thank him for hearing me out.
Siobhain McDonagh
I ask the Minister to consider the law of unintended consequences. If the Government delay implementation of the clauses that end section 21 evictions, they could find that landlords who are worried about their ability to evict tenants or have choices will rush for a clause 21 eviction, because they know that at some point section 21 evictions will be ended. The longer it takes the courts to be reformed, in whatever undisclosed way we are considering, the greater that concern will be.
As I said, I see a lot of older long-term assured shorthold tenants being evicted, their landlord rushing them toward the door because they do not want a tenant who has limited means of paying increased rent in the future, and because they are concerned about the news that it will be difficult to evict anyone. The rush for the door is distressing for the people involved, but has the knock-on effect of causing huge problems for local authorities attempting to assist people who are in priority need in terms of homelessness. We are all seeing many more people than usual being evicted via section 21. That has enormous consequences in so many ways.
Mike Amesbury
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. The central plank of the Bill is the abolition of section 21, as everybody in this room knows. We all experience this concern in our postbag and constituencies, yet it seems that the can has been kicked down the road. The changed narrative, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, is that the focus is now on court reform, particularly digitalisation.
Thousands of people face evictions. The local authority in my city region, Liverpool City Council, has declared a homelessness emergency. Homelessness is now on an industrial scale. To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden about potential reforms coming down the line in the Bill, including the abolition of section 21, landlords are focusing on that at the moment.
The learned lawyers Giles Peaker and Liz Davies were clear that the court system overall is working. That is certainly not the problem. Reference was made to bailiffs, particularly in the London area. Fundamental to this—I know we all agree—is to end the misery and insecurity for families and children. People increasingly use the private rented sector. The Bill will reward most landlords—good landlords. It is almost a good landlord’s charter in many ways. It needs some amendments and tidying up, but fundamental to the Bill is the abolition of section 21. That should not rely on reform of the courts, which is a red herring that has been influenced by stakeholders, many of them sitting on the Benches in the Chamber. I urge the Minister, who is relatively new in his post—I welcome him to it—to make his mark and do the right thing in the next 12 months or so, while he has the opportunity in government.
The Chair
Before I ask the Minister to reply to the debate, may I make it plain that I have been relatively flexible in this first debate? I will not be so flexible and open-minded subsequently.
Jacob Young
I am grateful to you, Mr Gray, and to the Committee for their consideration. As you and members of the Committee have identified, we plan to debate further a lot of the things that have been discussed already.
I say to concerned hon. Members that the Government are committed to the abolition of section 21. In fact, I am sure the Committee is committed to the abolition of section 21. I invite any hon. Member who is not to speak now or forever hold their peace. That is exactly what we are debating today. No one could expect that the implementation of a brand-new tenancy system would not require reform. Surely all hon. Members agree that we need to get this reform right.
Matthew Pennycook
Can the Minister tell us clearly why the two-stage transition process set out in clause 67 does not afford the Government enough time to make the necessary improvements?
Jacob Young
We will come on to that point when we discuss clause 67. I want to address some of the points that have been raised, particularly the question about bailiffs. HMCTS has already begun making improvements at the bailiff stage, including automated payments for debtors, to reduce the need for doorstep visits in those cases. We are also improving guidance to increase awareness of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire spoke about the concern raised in evidence about longer fixed-term tenancies. I completely understand the hon. Lady’s position. I understand the genuine concern that she and the people giving evidence have. Our fear, which was rightly identified by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, is that to include any fixed-term tenancies creates a loophole. We are certain about abolishing section 21, so we do not believe that having a fixed-term tenancy will provide any security to the tenant. It could, in fact, lock a tenant into a property that they would be unable to get out of, even if the property was of poor quality, because the term of their tenancy was fixed. I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire can accept that.
I will write to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown other Committee members specifically on the points raised by the Opposition on new clause 6. I am pleased that there is a consensus on clause 1. We all want to see this measure implemented. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Abolition of assured shorthold tenancies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 18—Abandoned premises under assured shorthold tenancies.
Jacob Young
Clause 2 removes the assured shorthold tenancy regime entirely, including section 21 evictions, meaning that in future all tenancies will be assured. Ending these section 21 no-fault evictions will provide tenants with more security and the knowledge that their home is theirs until they choose to leave, or the landlord has a valid reason for possession. It will allow tenants and their families to put down roots, providing them with the stability that we know is a prerequisite for achievement.
Government new clause 18 deals with property abandonment. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 introduced provisions that would allow a landlord of an assured shorthold tenancy to recover possession without a court order if the tenant had abandoned the property, owes more than two months’ rent and the landlord has served three warning notices. Those provisions were never brought into force and we consider they are inconsistent with the intentions of the Bill to provide greater security. Removal of the provisions will help prevent landlords from ending a tenancy without a court order where a property appears to have been empty for a long period. It is possible that, on occasion, a property may appear to have been abandoned, but the tenant is in hospital or caring for relatives. Instead, landlords will need to use one of the specified grounds.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me start by making it clear that the Opposition welcome Government new clause 18. Although I have not been in Parliament long compared with other Members, I have been here long enough to remember sitting on the Bill Committee for the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Part 3 of that Act, which this new clause repeals, was always a foolish provision, and has rightly never been brought into force. We believe it is right that we rid ourselves of what might be termed statutory dead wood.
Clause 2 will remove section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and, as the Minister made clear, will abolish assured shorthold tenancies and remove mechanisms by which assured social housing tenants can currently be offered ASTs—for example, as starter tenancies—or be downgraded to an AST as a result of antisocial behaviour. The provisions in this clause, as well as those in clause 1, will be brought into force on a date specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State under clause 67. It is appropriate to raise a very specific issue on this clause. We have just discussed court improvements at length. I know that is not the Minister’s brief, and that this is his first Bill, but I have to say to him that his answers on court reform were not adequate. At some point, the Government will have to explain specifically what improvements they wish to see enacted and on what timeline they will be brought into force. Leaving that aside, can the Minister provide further details on precisely how the Government intend to phase in the provisions in this clause? What consideration, if any, has been given to preventing unintended consequences arising from the proposed staged implementation?
The guidance on tenancy reform that the Government published alongside the Bill on 17 May said:
“We will provide at least six months’ notice of our first implementation date after which all new tenancies will be periodic and governed by the new rules”—
that is when they will introduce Part 1, Chapter 1. It continued:
“The date of this will be dependent on when Royal Assent is received”.
I take that to mean that, at some point in the future, a Government Minister will hopefully determine that the court system is, in the their eyes, finally ready to implement the new system—although there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that will happen. He or she would then presumably announce that the first implementation date—that is, the date when all new periodic tenancies come into force—will be six months hence.
I would like the Minister to confirm whether my understanding of how the Government expect the process to develop is correct. If so, can he respond to the concern—the flip side of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden’s point on a rush to section 21 evictions—that this may create a clear incentive for landlords to offer new tenants a lengthy fixed-term assured tenancy before the new system comes into effect?
If the safeguard in the Government’s mind is that all existing tenancies will transition to the new system on the second implementation date, can the Minister provide any reassurance that the period between the first and second implementation dates will not be overly long? I raise the point because the guidance makes explicit reference to a minimum period between the first and second dates, but does not specify a maximum period after which the second date would have to come into effect. As the Bill stands, it could enable a scenario where all new tenancies become periodic, but there is an extensive period of time where all existing fixed tenancies remain as such. It could be an indefinite period, there is nothing in this Bill to put any time limit on it at all. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can provide any reassurances in relation to that concern. If he cannot, we may look to table another amendment to account for this loophole, whether it is intended or unintended.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for his support. He asked about the first and second dates. He is entirely right on the first date—it is six months. The second date is 12 months. I hope that gives him reassurance.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to clarify: as I understand it, 12 months is the minimum. Is the Minister saying that there is a maximum? If not, will the Government consider introducing a maximum? I see the officials shaking their heads. There is no maximum in the Bill. We could have a system where, six months after Royal Assent, all new tenancies become periodic and all existing tenancies could remain fixed indefinitely. What is there in the Bill to prevent an incentive for landlords to rush before the first implementation date to hand out fixed tenancies across the board for very extended periods of time to circumvent the measures in the law?
Jacob Young
Ultimately, we want to bring in these measures as quickly as we can. The system will be in place soon. What I will do to give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he desires is to write to him further. We can agree on that principle and if changes are needed to the Bill, I am happy to consider them.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I want us to give the Minister an opportunity to elaborate on court reform, because it is also relevant to this clause, in terms of when it will be implemented and the indicators as to when it will be implemented. Will he be able to write to us, or publish after the Bill receives Royal Assent, what those clear indicator thresholds are regarding when court reform will be completed, so that it will be clear for everyone? It does not need to be set out in the Bill, but a commitment that the Government will do that, so that everyone will know when that threshold has been met, would be useful.
Jacob Young
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this point. As I mentioned earlier, I think we will discuss this issue when we debate clause 67, so we can have that debate then.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Changes to grounds for possession
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 1 if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it.’”
This amendment would extend the greater hardship provisions to new Ground 1 (occupation by landlord or family).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 146, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 1A if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it.’”
This amendment would extend the greater hardship provisions to new Ground 1A (new grounds for sale of a dwelling-house).
Amendment 150, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 6A if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it.’”
This amendment would extend the greater hardship provisions to Ground 6A (ground for possession to allow compliance with enforcement action).
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 3 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act, by means of the changes set out in schedule 1 to the Bill, which we will debate separately later today. Taken together, amendments 145, 146 and 150 would extend “greater hardship” provisions to three of the mandatory grounds set out in amended schedule 2 to the 1988 Act, namely grounds 1, 1A and 6A.
Ideally, we would have debated these amendments as the last amendments to clause 3, because they are very much our fall-back position if we cannot convince the Government to accept the other changes that we propose to the clause. In due course, we will debate our concerns about several of the revised or new possession grounds provided for by the Bill that can still be fairly categorised as de facto “no fault”. These include grounds 1, 1A and 6A.
In cases where a landlord has proved a discretionary possession ground, a judge must decide whether it is reasonable to make the possession order. In reaching their decision, a judge can consider not just the reason for the possession claim, but anything relevant to the case, including the tenant’s conduct and the likely consequences of eviction for the individual or individuals in question. They can also consider whether the tenant has tried to put things right since the claim was issued. If the judge is not satisfied that it is reasonable to award possession in these discretionary cases, they can dismiss the claim all together. In contrast, if a landlord proceeds on a mandatory ground—I remind the Committee again that proposed new grounds 1, 1A and 6A are mandatory—the judge must make an order, if the landlord has proved their case.
The amendments would give the court very limited discretion, in relation to mandatory grounds 1, 1A and 6A, to consider whether the tenant would suffer greater hardship as a result of the possession order being granted.
Shaun Bailey
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has tabled further amendments on the evidential burden, but does he not appreciate my concern that there is perhaps a little bit of a floodgate situation around appeals on this issue? Notwithstanding his comments about the judicial system and the court system, I am conscious that we may have a scenario where judges’ decisions are challenged and we end up with a backlog. As a result, what the amendment tries to do would either be delayed, or would end up in a system of appeal after appeal, because clearly the result would be down to a judge’s subjective decision, based on the evidence in front of them at the time.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Perhaps I have not explained myself clearly. These amendments do not provide for an appeals process. As I have tried to make clear, when it comes to a discretionary possession ground, judges can weigh up the evidence. That is not the case for a mandatory ground. The amendment provides for not an appeal process, but discretion for the court and the judge to consider whether their decision would cause greater hardship to the tenant. I will come on to explain how that would work.
Shaun Bailey
To clarify my point, I am aware that the amendment is not about an appeals process. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know, an application for appeal can be made against any judge’s decision, and that application can be granted by the superior courts, so the process is not immune from appeal; decisions can be taken to appeal. That is a right, which would be granted, and it could be achieved through another part of the system. I just wanted to clarify my position on that point.
Matthew Pennycook
It is an interesting debate, but not particularly pertinent to the amendments. It is not my understanding that a mandatory possession ground order can be appealed. If it can, then I think that the instances in which it can are vanishingly small. However, that is not what these amendments seek to do. They purely seek to protect very vulnerable tenants who might suffer great hardship as a result of the court’s decision.
The starting point for the court would remain that the landlord in question has proved his or her intention to either occupy the property under ground 1 or sell it under ground 1A, or the need to respond to enforcement action under ground 6A. In other words, the presumption would be that a possession order will be made, and in most cases it would be. However, the amendments would provide tenants with the opportunity to demonstrate to the court—not at appeal, but at a hearing of the court—that their eviction on any of the three grounds in question would lead to hardship greater than that of the landlord or, in the case of amended ground 1, potentially the landlord’s family. If the judge determined that the hardships each party is likely to experience were the same, under these amendments, the tenants would not succeed, and the possession order would still be made. However, if the tenant could prove to a court that they or a member of their household would suffer greater hardship than the landlord or the landlord’s family if a possession order were made, the court could refuse to make the possession order.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support these three amendments. Amendment 150 is, of course, inextricably linked to amendment 149, which we will come on to shortly. I want to talk about the protections, particularly against ground 6A, which is a ground for possession to allow compliance with an enforcement action, fundamentally so that conditions for the tenants can be improved. Enforcement action is almost impossible unless tenants co-operate with it. There is a real danger that ground 6A will be used as a quasi-punishment for tenants who have co-operated—tenants who have said, “This house has a massive hole in the ceiling”—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am speaking to amendment 150, which relates to ground 6A, about greater hardship. The next group is about the court having mitigating measures other than eviction. They could have been clustered differently—
The Chair
Quite right. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman; he knows much more about it than I do.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Thank you, Mr Gray.
We have a problem here. It is important that the court is able to weigh up where the greater hardship is. Is it a greater hardship to evict a tenant who has complained to the council so that the property can be fixed? Or is the ground being used to get rid of a tenant who is constantly complaining about enforcement action? Without an element of discretion—other amendments would afford wider discretion—and without this particular measure on greater hardship, there is a danger that ground 6A could be misused. That is why it would be good to hear reassurance from the Minister, particularly on amendment 150, that advice and guidance will be provided to the courts to ensure that the ground is not manipulated or abused, and that the Government are considering other changes to prevent that.
Jacob Young
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his amendments 145, 146 and 150. As has been discussed, the amendments look to make grounds 1, 1A and 6A discretionary.
Matthew Pennycook
To clarify, the amendments do not seek to make those grounds discretionary in any case. We accept that they are mandatory. We believe that the amendments would allow those mandatory grounds to be used in almost every case, unless great hardship would result from them. They do not make those three possession grounds discretionary.
Jacob Young
However, judges would be required to assess whether possession would cause greater hardship than not. We think that would count as making the grounds discretionary.
The changes would add significant uncertainty to the system. It is right that landlords should have confidence in the process, and can manage their properties, including when they want to move into or sell a property. The uncertainty that the amendments would cause means that landlords may simply choose not to rent their properties in the first place if they know that they may want to move into or sell a property in future. That would reduce the vital supply of homes in the private rented sector. In the case of ground 6A, on enforcement compliance, if possession is not granted, the landlord would continue to be in breach of their obligations, and could face fines and other penalties. Given the adverse consequences that the amendments would cause, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw them.
Matthew Pennycook
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I welcome the clarification he gave. The amendments would introduce a limited amount of discretion. We would argue that they do not make the grounds discretionary—it is a point of debate—but introduce a limited amount of discretion into the system. However, we trust judges in county courts to make these decisions in most cases. The amendments would put the burden on the tenant to prove great hardship, and make the presumption that the mandatory ground award will be issued in most cases.
I will bring the Minister back to some of the hypothetical scenarios I gave. We absolutely agree with the Government that landlords need robust possession grounds to take their properties back. In one of my hypothetical examples, the Bill would allow a terminally ill cancer patient to be evicted and put at risk of homelessness, just because the landlord wished to sell. They may have no need to sell; they might own eight properties and wish to sell one or two of them. In limited circumstances and cases, we should give the judges a bit of discretion. Otherwise, some very vulnerable and in-need tenants will evicted through these means.
I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the amendments. I hope that they go away and think about them, but I will not push them to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 6A if the court considers that it is not just and equitable to do so, having regard to alternative courses of action available to the landlord or the local housing authority, which may include—
(a) a management order under Part 4 of the Housing Act 2004;
(b) in relation to paragraphs (b) and (f) of Ground 6A, other measures which are more appropriate for reducing the extent of overcrowding or the number of households in the dwelling-house, as the case may be;
(c) in relation to paragraph (c) of Ground 6A, the provision of suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant, whether under section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 or otherwise; and
(d) in relation to paragraphs (d) and (e), other means of enforcement available to the local housing authority in respect of the landlord’s default;
and having regard to all the circumstances, including whether the situation has occurred as a result of an act or default of the landlord.’”
This amendment would permit a court to refuse to make a possession order under Ground 6A where a more appropriate course of action exists.
One of the changes made to schedule 2 to the 1988 Act by the clause, as we briefly discussed, is the introduction of a new ground for possession to allow compliance with an enforcement action. The new mandatory ground 6A will require the court to award possession if a landlord seeking possession needs to end a tenancy because enforcement action has been taken against the landlord, and it would be unlawful for them to maintain the tenancy.
The relevant enforcement actions (a) to (f) are set out on page 73 of the Bill. They include situations where a landlord has been issued with
“a banning order under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016…an improvement notice under section 11 or 12 of the Housing Act 2004”
and
“a prohibition order under section 20 or 21 of the Housing Act 2004”.
We take no issue with the fact that the Bill introduces the new mandatory power. Clearly there are circumstances in which landlords will require possession of a property in order to comply with enforcement action.
We wrestled with what should be the minimum notice period that applies to the new ground, given that it feels somewhat perverse to provide for a mechanism by which possession can be gained quickly when the reason for the possession being granted is that the landlord has fallen foul of an obligation under housing health and safety legislation, particularly if it resulted in a banning or prohibition order. As we will come to discuss, we ultimately determined to argue in amendment 136 for a four-month minimum notice period in relation to ground 6A, because in all the situations set out on page 73 of the Bill, the tenant will be evicted because of neglect or default on the part of the landlord. In other words, it is a de facto no-fault ground for eviction that will punish tenants and put them at risk of homelessness because of bad practice on the part of a landlord, particularly as there is no requirement for the landlord to provide suitable alternative accommodation.
Amendment 149 seeks to provide tenants with a measure of protection in such circumstances—this touches directly on the point the Minister made on the previous group of amendments—by giving the court the power to consider whether the relevant enforcement can be met by means other than the eviction of the sitting tenant or tenants, including through a management order under the Housing Act 2004 or the provision of alternative accommodation. If the court judges that the enforcement objectives can be met by other means, the amendment would give the court the power to refuse to make a possession order on the grounds that it is not just and equitable to do so in the circumstances, given that there are other means of ensuring that the enforcement action is complied with.
We believe that the amendment would provide tenants with stronger protection in circumstances where they are victims of poor practice on the part of a landlord. Importantly, it would also ensure that tenants have an incentive to seek enforcement action through their local authority if their home is in a very poor condition or is non-compliant with HMO licensing schemes. That would address the fact that, as things stand, the introduction of the new mandatory no-fault ground with only two months’ notice is likely to actively discourage tenants from doing so. I hope the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Following on from the debate on the last group of amendments, I want to add my concern about ground 6A. Where there are issues with fire or flood, landlords are often expected to find alternative accommodation before a house is vacated, but there is no such provision when enforcement action has to be taken. There is a real worry that a landlord who has multiple properties that are perfectly fit for habitation might seek to punish tenants who have pushed for enforcement, rather than moving them into those properties. That seems wrong, so it is important to require the courts to go through a checklist of other options that the landlord has to consider before they get to ground 6A.
The amendment also provides a checklist for landlords. They can go down it and say, “Okay, I need to comply with enforcement action. Have I considered these things?” It also allows the local authority to consider other courses that they could pursue, such as management orders. We do not want tenants punished. Although revenge evictions are illegal, we know that they happen time and again, because there are loopholes in the law. Closing those loopholes is important, and a statement from the Minister on the matter might suffice.
Jacob Young
I thank hon. Members for their comments. Amendment 149 would require judges to consider whether there are suitable alternative courses of action available before granting possession under ground 6A, which permits a landlord to evict if evicting a tenant is the only way that they can comply with enforcement action taken by a local authority. That includes cases in which, disgracefully, a landlord has received a banning order, meaning they are unable to continue operating as a landlord. It also includes situations in which a prohibition order is incompatible with the tenant’s continuing to occupy the property. The ground is mandatory, so there is certainty that possession will be granted to the landlord and they can comply with enforcement action taken against them. That means that tenants will not be left living in unsafe situations and gives local authorities confidence that their enforcement action demands can be adhered to.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Will the Minister clarify that when courts grant possession under ground 6A, they will have to take into consideration whether that is the only option, and whether other options might be on the table? Confirmation of that would help courts’ deliberations in future.
Jacob Young
I should be clear that the landlords who are subject to enforcement action are the rogues; they are the people we are trying to root out of the system through the Bill. They are unlikely to be able to provide the suitable alternative accommodation that the hon. Member mentioned. If things get to this stage, they are that bad. We therefore do not feel that we can accept amendment 149, and I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw it.
Matthew Pennycook
I have been on enough Bill Committees to know that the Minister has been sent out with explicit instructions to resist amendments—we all understand that—but the Government will have to grapple with the Bill’s weaknesses regarding how the new possession grounds will affect tenants who are not at fault. They could clearly be affected by a landlord’s using ground 6A—a ground that I find perverse, because it allows for possession where the landlord is at fault.
The Minister gave the game away when he said that 6A can be used only when it is the only way that the landlord can comply with an enforcement order. Well, we could leave it to the court to make that determination under the amendment. If possession is the only way that the landlord can comply with an enforcement order, the court will grant the possession order, but there will be cases in which it is not the only way, and the Minister said that he encourages local authorities to explore those other means. I would say that, in those circumstances, encouragement is not enough. We need some provision to ensure that all alternatives are completely exhausted before this very severe mandatory ground—we are talking about eviction and potential homelessness—is brought into force.
Jacob Young
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, but as I have outlined, these are landlords who are subject to enforcement action. Does he accept that such landlords should not be operating in the private rented sector anyway, and that this ground allows us to root out those bad landlords?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the Minister has to be very careful on that point. It depends on what the enforcement action is, and on the degree to which the landlord is at fault. The enforcement action could relate to a breach under the housing health and safety rating system that merely needs to be rectified before the landlord can continue to rent as an appropriate and good-faith landlord; or it could relate to a very severe enforcement ground, as the Minister described. I come back to the point I made when moving the amendment: there are other enforcement powers that could deal with those types of landlords. I gave the example of a management order under the 2004 Act. There are ways that local authorities could enforce that do not require a mandatory possession ground order to be awarded. All we are saying is: give the courts the discretion to decide that.
If the Government are not minded to give the courts that discretion, there are other ways that the clause might be changed. The local authority might be required to have first exhausted other grounds before the landlord can issue a 6A notice. Let us find a way of protecting tenants who are not at fault from being evicted by landlords. In this situation, landlords, not tenants, are to blame, and they could abuse this new mandatory ground in ways that will have detrimental consequences for tenants.
I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Order. Technically, the hon. Gentleman is moving only amendment 138; the other amendments are merely being debated.
Matthew Pennycook
I like having a stickler in the Chair. I prefer it to having a non-stickler.
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
“(5C) (a) Where the court makes an order for possession on Grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act (whether with or without other grounds), the order shall include a provision requiring the landlord to file evidence at court and to serve the same on the tenant, any other defendant, and the local housing authority for the district where the dwelling is located no later than sixteen weeks from the date of the order.
(b) The evidence referred to in paragraph (a) must—
(i) give details of the state of occupation of the dwelling-house since the date of the order,
(ii) give details of the progress of any sale of the dwelling-house, and
(iii) be verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.”
This amendment would require a landlord to evidence the progress toward occupation or sale of a property obtained under grounds of possession 1 or 1A no later than 16 weeks after the date of the order and to verify this by a statement of truth.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 139, in clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 7 of the 1988 Act insert—
‘7A Evidential requirements for Grounds 1 and 1A
(1) The court shall not make an order for possession on Grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act unless the landlord has complied with the relevant provisions of subsections (2) to (4).
(2) Where the landlord relies on Grounds 1 or 1A, the claim must be supported by evidence which is verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.
(3) Where the landlord relies on Ground 1 and the dwelling-house is required by a member of the landlord’s family as defined in paragraphs 2(b) to (d) of that Ground, the claim must also be supported by evidence which is verified by a statement of truth signed by that family member.
(4) Where the landlord relies on Ground 1A, the evidence referred to in subsection (2) must include a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent concerning the sale of the dwelling-house.’”
This amendment would require a landlord seeking possession of a property on the Grounds of occupation or selling to evidence and verify in advance via a statement of truth.
Amendment 143, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Amendment 192, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, after “6 months” insert
“or 6 months have elapsed since rent was last increased”.
This amendment would prohibit evictions under Ground 1 within 6 months of each rent increase giving periodic protection at each rent renewal.
Amendment 203, in schedule 1, page 65, line 29, at end insert new unnumbered paragraph—
“Where this ground is used no rent will be due in the final two months of the tenancy.”
This amendment would ensure when a no-fault eviction on Ground 1 is used tenants would not pay rent for the final two months of the tenancy.
Government amendments 2 to 3.
Amendment 144, in schedule 1, page 66, line 6, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Amendment 193, in schedule 1, page 66, line 6, after “6 months” insert
“or 6 months have elapsed since rent was last increased”.
This amendment would prohibit evictions under Ground 1A within 6 months of each rent increase giving periodic protection at each rent renewal.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 194, in schedule 1, page 66, line 23, at end insert—
“(e) the landlord has offered to sell the property to the current tenant at the same value at which the landlord intends to list the property for public sale and the tenant has informed the landlord within four weeks of receiving the offer from the landlord that the tenant does not intend to buy the property at this value.”
This amendment would require landlords wishing to issue a notice for possession on the basis of Ground 1A to offer the current tenants the right to buy the property at the intended listing value before it goes onto the market.
Amendment 204, in schedule 1, page 66, line 24, at end insert new unnumbered paragraph—
“Where this ground is used no rent will be due in the final two months of the tenancy.”
This amendment would ensure when a no-fault eviction on Ground 1A is used tenants would not pay rent for the final two months of the tenancy.
Matthew Pennycook
As we have already discussed, clause 3 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, by means of the changes set out in schedule 1 to the Bill. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 sets out revisions to the existing mandatory ground 1. Under the existing ground 1, a court is required to award possession of a property if the landlord requires it to live in as their “only or principal home” or if they have previously lived in it on either basis. Under ground 1 as amended by the Bill, a court is required to award possession if the landlord requires the property for use as their only or principal home, but also if they require it for such use for members of their immediate family, for their spouse or civil partner or for a person with whom they live
“as if they were married or in a civil partnership”,
or for that person’s immediate family, such as the child or parent of a partner in those terms. Under the existing ground 1, landlords are required to provide tenants with prior notice that the ground may be used. This requirement is absent from ground 1 as amended by the Bill.
In turn, paragraph 3 of schedule 1 inserts a new mandatory ground 1A into schedule 2 to the 1988 Housing Act. Under this new ground, a court would be required to award possession, with limited exceptions, if the landlord intends to sell the property. We believe very strongly that there is a clear risk that both of these de facto no-fault grounds for eviction could be abused in several ways by unscrupulous landlords. I want to be very clear that we believe that only a minority of landlords are unscrupulous and may act in these terms.
In her evidence last week, Samantha Stewart, chief executive of the Nationwide Foundation, provided us with the example of just how these grounds are being abused in the Scottish context. She gave an example of a renter named Luke, who lived in a property with rats and maggots falling out of the ceiling. The landlord refused to act on the complaint but was eventually forced to do so by the Scottish tribunal. Shortly afterward, however, Luke was served an eviction notice using the new landlord circumstance possession grounds. As soon as the prohibited re-let period was up, they moved a new tenant in.
The risk of these grounds being abused is clearly not a point of difference between us and the Government. Ministers clearly accept that amended ground 1 and new ground 1A could be used as a form of section 21 by the backdoor, because the Bill contains provision to attempt to prohibit their misuse by preventing landlords from re-letting or re-marketing a property, or authorising an agent to do so on their behalf, within three months of obtaining possession on either ground. We will debate the adequacy of those no-let provisions when we get to clause 10 and press our amendment 140 to extend the proposed period, but it is enough to know at this stage that the Government felt it necessary to include such safeguards in the Bill. We can take it as given that their decision to do so is evidence of a clear understanding that there is potential risk of abuse along the lines I described.
In addition to strengthening the no-let provisions in the Bill, we believe tenants require protection from the misuse of grounds 1 and 1A in two other important respects. First, we believe there needs to be a greater burden of proof placed on landlords who issue their tenants notices seeking possession on either of these grounds. As the Bill is drafted, at any point after the protected period is ended a landlord can simply issue their tenant with a mandatory ground 1 or 1A notice, and a county court would be required to award them possession. When it comes to expanded ground 1, there is no requirement for the landlord to evidence whether they actually require the use of the property for themselves; or, if they do not, which family member or members or person connected to them does.
Similarly, when it comes to new ground 1A, there is no requirement for the landlord to evidence that they are trying in good faith to sell a property after possession has been awarded. The risk to tenants should be obvious: six months after the start of a tenancy, when the protected period ends, a model tenant who is not at fault in any way—but who, for example, complains about damp and mould in a property—could be evicted with just two months’ notice using these grounds, without any need for the landlord to verify through evidence that they are using these landlord circumstances legitimately.
As the chief executive of the Legal Action Group and chair of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, Sue James, argued in her evidence last week, there is no indication at present that landlords will have to provide much, if anything, in the way of evidence. Although the Government have made noises to that effect, as things stand we do not know what that evidence might consist of.
The case for requiring landlords to provide evidence is obvious. As Samantha Stewart argued in her evidence,
“landlords using grounds 1 and 1A—moving in and selling—should be required to provide adequate and appropriate evidence”.––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 127, Q170.]
Amendments 138 and 139 are designed to address that deficiency by requiring relevant evidence to be submitted both prior to an eviction and after one has taken place. Amendment 139 would require a landlord seeking possession on the grounds of occupation or selling to evidence and verify that they are doing so in advance of a possession order via a statement of truth or, in the case of sale, by means of a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent. That mirrors provisions in the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, which require the landlord to provide specific evidence proving his or her intention to sell.
Amendment 138 would require a landlord to evidence progress towards occupation or sale of a property obtained under grounds 1 and 1A no later than 16 weeks after the date of the order, and to submit that to the court and—most importantly, because they will be the enforcement bodies under the Bill—local authorities.
The clear benefit of amending the Bill to include those evidential requirements in respect of grounds 1 and 1A would be their deterrent effect—the consequences to any landlord of being found guilty of lying to a court, in terms of litigation and potential liability for damages. At present, after an eviction takes place on either of those grounds, either because of the tenant leaving voluntarily or the court issuing a possession award, the Government are proposing only two means of redress: local authority enforcement action or a compensation award, issued by the new ombudsman. The Bill provides only a framework for the new landlord redress scheme, so the ombudsman is still largely an unknown quantity, and there are well-known issues, attested to in the evidence that several witnesses gave last week, about the efficacy of local authority enforcement.
We believe that rent repayment orders have a role to play, but those evidential requirements and the deterrent effect they would have on unscrupulous landlords seeking to abuse grounds 1 and 1A would strengthen the Bill and ensure that tenants are better protected. We urge the Government to give them due consideration.
Secondly, we believe that the proposed protected period of six months during which a tenant cannot be evicted under either of these grounds is insufficient. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state that the protections mirror those that tenants currently receive. That is true, but the current protections, as Liz Davies KC made clear in her evidence to the Committee, reflect the assured shorthold tenancy regime, which the Bill is abolishing. The decision to mirror the current protected period also fails to take into account the fact that ground 1A is a new mandatory ground, and that ground 1 has been amended such that the previous requirement to serve a notice that it may be relied upon prior to the start of the tenancy has been removed. As the Bill is drafted, a landlord can let a property to a tenant, provide them with no prior notice whatsoever that they may in future wish to rely on either ground 1 or 1A, and then serve them with a notice at four months.
We believe that any landlord likely to use ground 1 or 1A in good faith will have some prior awareness that they or a family member may need the property for use at some point in the coming years, or that they may wish to sell it in the near future. As such, and because the Government have chosen to remove the prior notice requirement that currently applies to ground 1, we believe that there is a strong case for extending the protected period with respect to grounds 1 and 1A from six months to two years, allowing landlords to first serve notice under either of them 22 months after a tenancy begins. Taken together, amendments 143 and 144 would extend the proposed protected periods accordingly.
These four amendments, while retaining mandatory grounds 1 and 1A as the Bill proposes, would go a long way to preventing and deterring abuse of the kind that we fear will occur fairly regularly if these possession grounds remain unchanged. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them as well as further information about the four Government clauses.
Ms Buck
I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendments, which seek to address two key themes. One is that tenants start disproportionately from a position of lack of power, and a large minority of tenants are in a position where they are limited by their access to advice and representation and a lack of alternative accommodation. They are frequently unable, without stronger legislative protection, to exercise their rights against the landlords who abuse their role.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I support amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144, which would require evidence to be given when using grounds 1 and 1A. While that is important, I again think—I always live in hope—that some clarity from the Minister about the courts being required to obtain at least the first part of that evidence could achieve this without that necessarily being written in the Bill. I believe that the second part would need some legislative clarity, which is why the amendment is useful.
However, let us be clear: it is a crime to knowingly make a false statement to the court. We need to make it clear to landlords that that crime will be followed up. It can only be followed up if we then determine that the property was not then taken into possession and that there was no malicious element to it—there can be other reasons, of course. Without that element of enforcement, and therefore knowing what has happened in a number of months’ time, that will never happen. This could quite easily be implemented through the property portal sending automatic messages to the court, which would not overburden our court process. I again ask for some clarity from the Minister that this is how the property portal and court reform is intended to work. That would probably alleviate some of these issues.
I have tabled a number of other amendments in this group, which I would also like to speak to. The first one would provide for the six-month protection to be renewed on the basis of rent renewals. At the moment, a lot of assured shorthold tenancies—not all of them, Mr Gray, I grant you, but probably the majority of them—have rent renewal clauses, such that that when the rent is increased, there is a new tenancy. The landlord will say, “I’m increasing your rent. Please sign the new tenancy for the year ahead.” Every year, the landlord says, “Well, you’re moving on to the periodic. I would quite like you to sign the new tenancy with the new rent.” That is what happens for most of my constituents who are in the most precarious part of the market, which we are trying to address. That gives them six months’ protection every year, on an ongoing basis, every time their rent is increased.
I know that the National Residential Landlords Association has described this idea as bonkers, but I think that is because it does not quite understand what I am trying to get at here, which is to retain what we already have currently. Although it seems that the Bill is increasing the protection of tenants—and the security of landlords, by knowing that the tenant will be there for a period—the danger is that it will reduce it because, de facto, most tenants currently have six months protection in every 12. The proposed change would provide six months’ protection over an indefinite period, which is clearly far less. Six divided by infinity is an impossible mathematical equation, but it is clearly less than six months divided by 12.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Quite right: zero protection—well, it is mathematically zero, but I think we all know that six months’ protection is a bit more than that—so there needs to be something.
When a landlord comes along on that annual date, the landlord might say, “I don’t want to make any changes. I don’t want to increase the rent.” Then, to some extent, the question is: why should any further protection be afforded? But if the landlord comes along and says, “I want to increase your rent,” and the tenant agrees that they are going to increase the rent—it does not go to a tribunal; it is all agreed—it seems quite reasonable to ensure protection on both sides, for example to provide for a new six-month protection period, just as happens at the moment.
That is why I have tabled these amendments, because I do not think it is in anyone’s interest for tenants suddenly to be leaving. Although the six-month protection does not prevent tenants from leaving, it does produce a mindset that the tenancy is now at least fixed for six months, based on what the landlord is offering and the higher amount that the tenant is now offering to pay. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I would love to see the Government accept the principle of it. If not—of course, I am not foolish, but there is always wishful thinking—it would be useful to hear an indication from the Government of which measures they think might be put in place to ensure that rolling protection.
The other amendment that I wish to speak to concerns the ability for a tenant to be offered the property before it is for sale. If it is a genuine sale, on the open market—the amendments would require a solicitor’s letter or an estate agent’s letter; I think that is reasonable and fair enough—no landlord would have any problem with making this offer for a short period. In my experience of selling houses, it takes more than four weeks between interest and getting it on the market anyway. I am talking about the landlord offering it to the tenant at the rate at which they are going to initially list it on the market. The landlord might reduce what it is on the market for later, because of market factors. I am not saying that that needs to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the initial listing should be offered to the tenant—a right of first refusal—in those four weeks. Again, I do not think this is unreasonable. Of course, in the majority of cases, the tenant will not be in a position to buy; but if, in a small number of cases, we can prevent turmoil and give the landlord a quick sale, it is in everyone’s interest to do so.
Again, I am not delusional and do not think that the Minister will accept this proposal, but I hope that the Minister might indicate how he will be encouraging, through court papers, potentially, and court reform, all those questions to be asked, just as we saw during covid, when court papers required the landlord to ask whether the tenant had been affected by covid. That was not a Bill change—a law change—but it was in the court papers. I am talking about how the question could be asked in court papers. There does not necessarily need to be a change in the discretionary grounds, but the very fact of asking the question could change the mindsets of landlords and, I think, is important.
Finally, under amendments 204 and 203, which I have also tabled, no rent would be required for two months—
Renters (Reform) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 21st November 2023
(1 year ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 View all Renters (Reform) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 November 2023 - (21 Nov 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 139, in clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 7 of the 1988 Act insert—
‘7A Evidential requirements for Grounds 1 and 1A
(1) The court shall not make an order for possession on Grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act unless the landlord has complied with the relevant provisions of subsections (2) to (4).
(2) Where the landlord relies on Grounds 1 or 1A, the claim must be supported by evidence which is verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.
(3) Where the landlord relies on Ground 1 and the dwelling-house is required by a member of the landlord’s family as defined in paragraphs 2(b) to (d) of that Ground, the claim must also be supported by evidence which is verified by a statement of truth signed by that family member.
(4) Where the landlord relies on Ground 1A, the evidence referred to in subsection (2) must include a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent concerning the sale of the dwelling-house.’”
This amendment would require a landlord seeking possession of a property on the Grounds of occupation or selling to evidence and verify in advance via a statement of truth.
Amendment 143, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Amendment 192, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, after “6 months” insert
“or 6 months have elapsed since rent was last increased”.
This amendment would prohibit evictions under Ground 1 within 6 months of each rent increase giving periodic protection at each rent renewal.
Amendment 203, in schedule 1, page 65, line 29, at end insert new unnumbered paragraph—
“Where this ground is used no rent will be due in the final two months of the tenancy.”
This amendment would ensure when a no-fault eviction on Ground 1 is used tenants would not pay rent for the final two months of the tenancy.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 144, in schedule 1, page 66, line 6, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Amendment 193, in schedule 1, page 66, line 6, after “6 months” insert
“or 6 months have elapsed since rent was last increased”.
This amendment would prohibit evictions under Ground 1A within 6 months of each rent increase giving periodic protection at each rent renewal.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 194, in schedule 1, page 66, line 23, at end insert—
“(e) the landlord has offered to sell the property to the current tenant at the same value at which the landlord intends to list the property for public sale and the tenant has informed the landlord within four weeks of receiving the offer from the landlord that the tenant does not intend to buy the property at this value.”
This amendment would require landlords wishing to issue a notice for possession on the basis of Ground 1A to offer the current tenants the right to buy the property at the intended listing value before it goes onto the market.
Amendment 204, in schedule 1, page 66, line 24, at end insert new unnumbered paragraph—
“Where this ground is used no rent will be due in the final two months of the tenancy.”
This amendment would ensure when a no-fault eviction on Ground 1A is used tenants would not pay rent for the final two months of the tenancy.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown was on his feet, but I think he had nearly completed his remarks, and he is not here, so I call the Minister to reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far, and for the amendments. As we discussed, we all agree that the removal of section 21 will give tenants more security in their home. Tenants will know that landlords can evict them only when they have a legitimate reason to do so. It is also vital that the new grounds give landlords the confidence to continue renting out their properties, rather than leaving them empty, if they might wish to sell or move in.
If a landlord goes to court to seek possession, a judge will determine whether the ground has been met, based on the evidence provided. We do not think it is necessary to prescribe in legislation what the evidence is, because a judge will always be best placed to determine, based on what is in front of them, whether the landlord intends to occupy or sell the property.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The question is why it would not be useful for a judge to base that professional, informed decision on criteria that are in front of them.
Jacob Young
We feel that it is best to give the courts the power to make the decision themselves, rather than prescribing that in legislation. Of course, following Royal Assent, we will publish secondary legislation and guidance. I hope that that gives the hon. Member the assurance that he is looking for.
We will issue guidance to help landlords understand what type of evidence they may choose to provide. It would not be appropriate to be too prescriptive about that in legislation; that might inadvertently suggest that other evidence may not be sufficient. The decision is best determined by a judge on a case-by-case basis. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich withdraw his amendment.
With regards to amendments 143, 144, 192 and 193, we thought long and hard while developing these reforms about getting the right balance between tenant security and landlords’ ability to move into or sell their homes. We believe that having a six-month period at the start of the tenancy during which landlords cannot use the grounds provides the right balance. A longer period risks landlords not making their properties available for rent and reduces the supply of much-needed homes. Landlords also need the flexibility that periodic tenancies allow, and our proposals strike the right balance.
On amendment 194, although we encourage landlords to consider selling to or with sitting tenants, landlords must have the ultimate decision over who they wish to sell their property to. Giving a tenant first refusal could prevent the landlord selling if, for example, they already had a buyer in mind. It could also cause delays in the public sale process and therefore financial hardship to the landlord.
On amendments 203 and 204, the Government do not believe in penalising landlords by mandating that tenants be entitled to a rent-free period at the end of their tenancy. Landlords looking to move into or sell their property may themselves be in financial difficulty, and amendments 203 and 204 could exacerbate that. By disincentivising landlords’ investment in the sector, the amendments would introduce uncertainty and ultimately be detrimental to tenants. On that basis, I ask that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, not move the amendments.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to ask about a two-month no-rent period. The Government must recognise that there is a huge cost to tenants who have to move out through no fault of their own. Does the Minister not think that there should be some alleviation of that cost? For example, if a tenant finds another property during the two-month notice period, they should not be bound to pay two months’ rent. They have been forced to leave through no fault of their own, and should not have to pay double rent; that would be totally unfair. Does the Minister have views on that?
Jacob Young
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument and understand the sincerity with which he makes it. We are trying to strike a balance throughout this Bill between tenants’ rights and landlords’ rights. A landlord may choose to evict someone on the grounds that they wish to sell their property, for example, and then be unable to sell their property; if we were to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic, that landlord would be without rent for two months during the notice period, and three months during the refusal-to-let-again period before being able to put their property back on the market, given that they had been unable to sell their property. I do not think it is fair that if landlords were to pursue that course of action, they could be five months’ rent out of pocket.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
May I press the Minister on that point? If a tenant leaves within the two-month notice period, does the Minister really think that they should be bound to pay those two months’ rent, even though they have been kicked out and have found another property, and relinquished the property to the landlord sooner than the landlord asked them to? Surely they should not be liable for that amount of money.
Jacob Young
Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We are trying to strike the right balance in these reforms. That is all I can say on that.
Government amendments 2 to 5 deliver technical changes that will ensure that grounds for possession work as intended, allowing the selling ground to apply to both freeholders and leaseholders who wish to sell their interest in their property. The changes to possession ground 1A are slight, and ensure that the selling ground for private landlords applies to all circumstances where it would be reasonable to consider the landlord to be selling their property, and ensuring that their valid desire to manage their property as they see fit is not unintentionally thwarted. These small changes will ensure that the selling ground works as intended.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
We are disappointed with the Minister’s response, for the following reasons.
We will, no doubt, hear ad nauseam about the Government’s intention and the obvious need, with which we all agree, to get the balance right between the interests of landlords and tenants. We do not think the Government have got that balance quite right in this and many other areas of the Bill.
It is, of course, reasonable that landlords who legitimately want to use grounds 1 and 1A either to take back a property for themselves or a family member, or to sell it, should be able to. We take no issue with the mandatory grounds. However, the Minister has failed to address Labour Members’ arguments about the clear risk of those mandatory grounds being abused in several ways. We know that they are being abused in Scotland, where they have already been introduced—that is the proof point here—and there are several other layers of protection in Scotland that this Bill does not provide.
The Government know that there is a risk of these grounds being abused; they would not otherwise have the three-month no-let period. We have clearly identified the loopholes that exist as a result of there being no evidential requirement, unlike in Scotland. Evidence suggests that the Scottish provisions are still open to abuse, but Scotland at least has the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, which requires the landlord to provide specific evidence. That is not the case here. The Minister makes the point that it is for judges to make a determination, but grounds 1 and 1A are mandatory grounds. The judge literally just has to determine whether the landlord has proved that ground 1 or 1A applies. The judge does not assess the merits of the case, as they would if these were discretionary grounds. Judges do not have the freedom to say that they do not think the landlord is legitimately taking back the property. As we have argued, at the end of four months of the protected period, any landlord can, under these grounds, serve notice or evict on the pretence that they will use the property for themselves or sell it, but they can then not sell it; nothing prevents that.
Jacob Young
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about providing evidence to a court, a judge would have to determine whether the intention to sell the property is valid.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily give way to the Minister again if he can say how the judge would prove an intent to sell or occupy the property without evidential requirements. The judge does not have to ask the landlord for any evidence that they will use those grounds.
Jacob Young
It is our position that the types of evidence that can be used do not need to be in the Bill, but as I have already set out, they will be in guidance.
Matthew Pennycook
That is some progress. If we have a commitment from the Minister that we will get detailed guidance that landlords need to submit—
Matthew Pennycook
That is welcome, but I think the concern is still there, because what does the guidance say? We do not know. What proof does it ask for? We have a clear set of evidential requirements in amendment 138.
We feel strongly about the point of protected periods. In amending ground 1, the Government have removed the requirement for prior notice of the use of the ground. If a landlord wants to take back a property for their own use, they must tell the tenant when the tenancy agreement is made that they may wish to engage the provision for prior notice. There is no prior notice under the amended ground 1. Any tenant could find themselves evicted with six months’ notice, and they would have no clue when they agreed the tenancy with the landlord that they could face that scenario. We very much support the legitimate use of these grounds, but it is essential to strengthen the Bill and the guidance that may come forward to prevent and deter abuse.
For that reason, we will press amendments 138, 139 and 143 to a vote. We also support amendment 194, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. It is completely reasonable for landlords to have to offer the sitting tenant first refusal on purchase of a property. To be frank, I do not really understand what the Minister says about the alternative scenario of a landlord having a buyer in mind who is not the tenant. That does not sound like a particularly fair ground. The tenant is in the property; they should have first refusal at the market price that the landlord asks for. If they cannot meet that price, the landlord can sell to any other buyers.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My hon. Friend will note that such provisions exist in other areas, where the first right of refusal is given. Surely if this legislation is passed, the landlord will always first have the tenant in mind when looking for a buyer. The scenarios suggested by the Minister would not occur, because the landlord would go to the tenant before other buyers.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a reasonable point. Landlords will adapt to the system. They will have it in mind that they must automatically make an offer to the sitting tenant. If they determine that the market price is more than the tenant can afford, they can go to the second buyer that they have in mind. We are not quibbling about them selling at market rate, obviously, but it is important to help renters on to the home ownership ladder if possible.
Jacob Young
I understand the hon. Member’s point, but consider a landlord who wanted to sell a property to a family member. That is perfectly legitimate. They might want to sell to their child. If there was a duty on the landlord to offer the tenant first refusal, surely they could not do what they wanted with their property. [Interruption.]
Matthew Pennycook
My colleagues behind me are making the case for me. In that scenario, I respectfully say that the landlord could legitimately exercise ground 1 and, within six months, take the property back for that family member. They could then sell it freely. However, evicting a tenant to do so is, we think, questionable, because it is reasonable to give the tenant first refusal. If I have understood the Minister’s point correctly, if I am a landlord and I want to sell to my son, I can take back the property under mandatory ground 1. My son could live in it, and I could then sell it to him at any point. I do not see why a sitting tenant would need to be evicted for that to happen.
Jacob Young
Under the hon. Gentleman’s argument, the landlord would have to charge rent to the family member. Say the landlord wanted to sell to a close friend; they would not be covered by ground 1. There is a difference on a point of principle between the two sides here. We think that landlords should be able to sell their property to whomever they want. The Opposition seem to take a different view.
Matthew Pennycook
We do take a different view, because, as I have said, it is reasonable that landlords should offer first refusal to tenants. I do not know how many landlords out there are desperately planning to sell to a close friend and would not be able to. That scenario might arise, but in the majority of cases, landlords will sell a property on the open market, and they could give tenants first refusal, at the price that they seek. As I said, we support amendment 194, and will press our amendments in this group to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert— “1, 1A, 1B, 2, 2ZA, 2ZB, 6, 6A four months beginning with the date of service of the notice 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 7, 9 two months beginning with the date of service of the notice”
This amendment would ensure that the minimum notice period for a number of ‘no fault’ grounds for possession would be four months rather than two.
Clause 3 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 in relation to not only the courts making orders for possession, but notice periods, to which amendment 136 relates. Each existing, revised or new possession ground, with the exception of grounds 7A and 14, has a corresponding minimum notice period after which either a tenant must vacate the property or the landlord is permitted to start court proceedings to regain possession. Each of these minimum notice periods is set out in clause 3(3). I will read them all out for the record, Mr Gray, because it is important that we know precisely which grounds we are talking about.
As the Bill stands, there is a minimum notice period of two months before the landlord can begin court proceedings under grounds 1, 1A—which we have just discussed—1B, 2, 2ZA, 2ZB, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 6, 6A, 7 and 9. There is a four-week notice period for grounds 5E, 5F, 5G, 8, 8A, 10, 11 and 18, and a two-week notice period for grounds 4, 7B, 12, 13, 14ZA, 14A, 15 and 17.
Amendment 136 amends the provisions in question by creating a new minimum notice period of four months that would apply to a number of existing, revised or new possession grounds that can still fairly be categorised as de facto no-fault grounds because they could be used to evict even model tenants who scrupulously adhere to the terms and conditions of their tenancy agreements. The grounds for possession that we believe should have their minimum notice periods increased from two to four months are the new mandatory grounds for possession 1 and 1A for occupation of a property by the landlord or their family and for its sale; ground 1B for sale of a property by a registered provider of social housing; ground 2 for sale by mortgage; grounds 2ZA and 2ZB for when a superior lease ends or when a superior landlord becomes the direct landlord; ground 6 for redevelopment; and ground 6A for when compliance with enforcement action is required. Grounds 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 7 and 9 would retain a minimum notice period of two months, as provided for by subsection (3).
While there are legitimate, genuinely held differences of opinion between the Opposition and the Government about how Ministers propose to implement the ending of section 21 evictions, there is broad consensus in the House on the removal of section 21 by means of the Bill. It is obvious why such a consensus exists. As we have discussed, landlords can evict tenants with as little as two months’ notice at any point after their fixed-term tenancy has come to an end, without giving a reason for doing so, or even having such a reason.
As we discussed this morning in discussion on clause 1 stand part, significant numbers of tenants are evicted each year through a section 21 notice. Worryingly, the numbers appear to be rising; the Government’s own figures make it clear that between July and September of this year alone, accelerated procedures numbers for England increased across all actions, with claims up 38%, orders up 32%, warrants up 31% and repossessions up by 29%. No-fault, no-reason evictions are hugely disruptive for tenants; they harm the health, wellbeing and life chances of many, particularly the growing number of young people growing up in the private rented sector. They are also the leading cause of homelessness in England.
Abolishing section 21 is, then, long overdue, and when it is finally enacted it will give private renters much-needed security in their homes and enable and embolden them to assert and enforce their rights more vigorously. However, the abolition of section 21 will not entirely remove the threat of short-notice frequent evictions, which put tenants at risk of homelessness, and the Bill proposes to retain a number of de facto no-fault grounds for possession with, as I explained earlier, minimum notice periods of just two months.
Some would argue, as the Minister may, that two months is more than enough time to find a new private rented property, but we think that such an assumption is highly questionable. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of the approximately 11 million private renters in England struggle to do so, particularly in hot rental markets where demand is extremely high, as pointed out in the evidence given by James Prestwich from the Chartered Institute of Housing. For example, research carried out by Shelter suggests that for 34% of renters it took longer than two months to find and agree a new tenancy the last time they moved. Worryingly, that increased to 40% of renters with children and 46% of black renters. That highlights the additional challenges faced by particular tenant cohorts.
Our amendments do not press for a blanket four-month minimum notice period in relation to all grounds for possession. That would be excessive and limit the ability of landlords to quickly regain possession of their properties in legitimate circumstances. For example, if a tenant is found guilty of breaching one of the terms of their tenancy agreement, it is right that, albeit on a discretionary and not mandatory ground, the landlord can recover the property in two weeks. We would not want to extend notice periods in a uniform way in that respect, which would undermine ground 12 or any number of others.
However, we do feel strongly that when it comes to the de facto no-fault grounds that the Bill provides for, the notice period should be increased to better protect tenants against the risk of homelessness, particularly families and those who, for a variety of reasons, will struggle to secure a new home within two months. As Ben Twomey, the chief executive of Generation Rent, put it in our evidence sessions:
“We think there should be better protections”
in this part of the Bill. He continued:
“It should go to four months instead, to give the renter time to make the savings, look around and find somewhere to live.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 38, Q38.]
The Government maintain that, as we have just discussed, the Bill strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. Indeed, the Minister made the point in the previous debate, and this morning, warning us that to seek to upset that delicate balance would be to invite ruin. We do not believe that the Bill as it is currently drafted strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. The proposed notice periods are a prime example of where we believe the playing field is still tilted towards the landlord interest, in a way that would cause real problems for tenants. To ensure that the playing field between landlords and tenants is truly levelled, the latter require greater protection when it comes to the notice period for the de facto no-fault possession grounds that are to remain in force as a result of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support the amendment —no surprise there. We have a crisis not only in our private rented sector, but with the burdens that local authorities are having placed on them, with people coming to them at short notice because they are losing their homes. Many Members will know that two months is just not long enough for many local authorities to assist the constituent or, in this case, tenant to find a home in time. They are put into emergency accommodation at great cost to the council and the public purse. As a result of section 21s and the short period people have to find homes, last year 24,000 households were threatened with homelessness and had to resort to their local council. That is a huge number, and our local councils are suffering. The emergency accommodation spending of Hastings Borough Council, just down the road from me, has gone from £500,000 to £5 million this year. How can a council find that amount of money in three years? Almost exclusively, the cause is the ending of private tenancies.
We all think that private tenancies will need to end sometimes. No one thinks they should not when there are legitimate reasons. The Conservative party manifesto said that the Government would end no-fault evictions. It did not say that they would end just section 21s: it said they would end no-fault evictions. Clearly, that has not happened. We all agree that there are some reasons why a no-fault eviction might be needed, but serving those no-fault evictions with the same terms and time limit as section 21 evictions seems to breach the spirit, if not the letter, of not only the governing party’s manifesto but the point that we are meant to be rebalancing and giving time for tenants to find properties.
We could choose any number and say it was suitable, but let us think about the cycle through which people find houses. It will often take a number of weeks just to look for a house. Then someone will have to raise the money to pay for a deposit in advance, which might require one or two pay cheques. The Minister has already dismissed my amendment on rent-free periods, so people will have to raise that amount from the money they are earning at the time, and that may take a number of months. For a lot of private renters, 60% of their salary goes toward rent, so the idea of having to raise a month’s rent in advance in two months is almost impossible.
There is then the need to ensure that contracts are signed and references are done. To go through all that process in two months, someone would effectively need to have found a property on day one of getting the order. Four months is a much more reasonable period for someone to be able to do all that, when there is no fault of their own. It is incumbent on the Minister to at least consider that idea, and if not, to ask what additional protections and support will be given to tenants and local authorities to aid that transition, which is currently not aided.
All that is without me even touching on children and the fact that they will need to move schools. Four months would also mean that a child can make a move between schools within term-time and half-term periods. That allows a parent to say to their child, if they are having to move, “At half-term you will be starting at a new school.” These are important things for raising families, and the cycles are not unrealistic.
Of course, there will always be need for quicker evictions. There will be fault evictions. There will be pre-notice evictions. My Front-Bench team is not proposing to change any of them; I think that that is a reasonable balance for everyone. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I, too, urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is common knowledge that London is at the sharp end of the pressures in this respect, and the need for a more flexible approach is pressing.
The Government are missing a recognition that the private rented sector, and moves within it, are not as they were, as we touched on earlier. The profile of renters is now completely different compared with the situation a decade or two ago, so the needs of households need to be accommodated in the management of the sector. There are more families in the sector and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, we need to ensure that families with children are given sufficient lead-in time to move their children between schools. For families with two or three children, that can involve finding a way of moving children in primary school and secondary school and between nurseries. These are major logistical tasks.
The Chair
Order. It is also an extremely bad idea to argue with the Chair. You did not make yourself known to me, I did not see you, and saying you did puts you in bad odour, so just don’t do it.
Mike Amesbury
Thank you, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendment, which is a pragmatic response to the current housing market conditions, which are particularly acute in London and the south-east, for those who are vulnerable and do not have buying power, such as young professionals. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister highlighted a rather startling figure from Shelter: 40% of renters with children wait way beyond the two months currently in the Bill.
Members have also referred to the cost ultimately to the Exchequer, but certainly to local authorities. We have 104,000 people—a record number—living in temporary accommodation, and the cost to local authorities is £1.7 billion. That is another startling figure, and maybe the Chancellor will respond to it tomorrow with changes to the local housing allowance. I think the amendment is pragmatic. It is about focusing on the families and vulnerable tenants most in need in a marketplace that has limited availability. I think local housing allowance covers about 5% nationally—
Mike Amesbury
Of course it is far worse in London and, indeed, other cities. I urge the Minister and the Government to do the to do the right thing with this amendment.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling amendment 136, which seeks to lengthen the notice period that landlords must give for some grounds of possession. The notice period in the Bill balances the needs of both tenants and landlords. We have not reached our decisions without a lot of thought and careful consideration over many years and in collaboration with the sector.
It is important to give tenants sufficient time to find a new home. However, notice periods must also balance that aim with ensuring that landlords can manage their assets. For example, they may need to sell or move into the property, which might also be their long-term family home. Landlords must also be able to comply with enforcement measures or contractual requirements, such as superior leases, in a timely manner. Setting a longer notice period would undermine landlords’ confidence in dealing with such reasonable scenarios. We encourage landlords to work flexibly with their tenants and notify them of their intentions as far in advance as possible, but we also recognise that that is not always possible.
As Members have indicated, we think our approach strikes the right balance, so I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not withdraw the amendment; I am going to press it to a vote because, again, I do not think the Government have got the balance right. I do not think that two months’ notice is sufficient for a whole cohort of tenants, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale is absolutely right. There is a basic issue of fairness here in terms of the profile of the private rented sector, as it now is. We can all look at the minimum notice period in the explanatory notes and think that it seems very reasonable: “Two months. Who could not make two months?” But we all look at that as highly paid professionals who could move in that period of time. Older people, disabled renters, or renters with a family simply cannot do that.
I put the Shelter figure to the Minister again. He may question the figure, but it seems like it comes from a very detailed study. What are the Government saying to the 34% of renters who could not move within that two-month period when they last moved? The Government are effectively saying to those renters, “You’re at risk of homelessness,” and we do not think that is fair. On the de facto no-fault grounds—which, just to be very clear, are mandatory; we are not talking about every ground—the Government should think again.
Jacob Young
The hon. Member refers to fairness, but the situation is not fair for the landlord either. A landlord who wants to move into their property for whatever reason—we do not know the reasons, but it could be a reasonable ground—or sell it would have to wait an additional two months. We are talking about two months’ notice to provide grounds for possession, so in reality it could be much longer than that because it could be two months plus whatever court proceedings come afterwards.
The hon. Member is saying that we should extend the period to four months. On the basis that a typical court hearing would take 22 weeks, as we have heard elsewhere, we are talking about a period of nine months between when a landlord might want to move into their property and when they can actually do so. I do not think that that is fair either. As I say, we believe that we are striking the right balance.
Matthew Pennycook
I say two things to the Minister. First, the minimum notice periods are from the date of service of the notice. I take the point about court reform, but this is at the point of service of the notice, not the point of the possession award; they are the minimum periods that apply. Secondly, what is his answer to the 34%? There is evidence out there from organisations with expertise in this area. What the Minister is saying is that the Government are content to see a third of tenants given a minimum notice period in which they cannot possibly reasonably find a new property.
There is a fairness point and also a cost point, which the Government should, from their own perspective, be more concerned about. The cost of those renters not being able to find properties will be borne by local authorities. As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up—I think I have his title correct—the Minister will know what is happening with Liverpool City Council. Its spend on temporary accommodation increased by 7,660% by the end of the fiscal year compared to 2019. Several London councils, including my own, are in financial difficulty because of temporary accommodation costs. This is not sustainable. If the Government are going to allow this broad swathe of new mandatory de facto grounds to be in place with a two-month notice period, that situation will persist.
The last thing I would say goes to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown earlier. Lots of tenants served with these notices are going to find somewhere and move out before the date. We are talking about the hard cases where people cannot move out. I think the Government have a tin ear on this—they have a mindset issue when it comes to grappling with what the PRS looks like now. By refusing the amendment, the Government are effectively saying, “That’s their problem.” We think the Government should think again, so we intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, after “2ZB,” insert “4A,”.
This amendment adds the new Ground 4A inserted by Amendment 9 to the table that the Bill inserts into section 8 of the 1988 Act, with the effect that a notice under that section relying on that ground must specify a date no sooner than 2 months after the date of service of the notice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Amendment (a) to Government amendment 9, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) the property was exclusively advertised through a specified educational institution, their agents or providers as outlined in Schedule 1 of the 1988 Act.”
This amendment would only allow Ground 4A to be used as a ground for possession when the property was exclusively advertised through an educational institution, rather than in relation to a HMO property which is not exclusively provided to students.
Jacob Young
Government amendments 1 and 9 introduce a new ground for possession to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings can continue in the new tenancy system. We have spoken to many, including landlords and universities, who are concerned about the potential impact of our reforms on the student market. I thank all those who have engaged with us on this important issue. The amendments address the concerns in a balanced and proportionate way.
As many of us will have experienced, the student housing market works on an annual, cyclical basis. Students typically move in and out of properties over the summer, in line with the academic year. Without the backstop of section 21, we understand that landlords would no longer be able to guarantee that properties would be empty for new groups of students. That would have knock-on implications for students, who could not sign up for properties in advance and know that they had somewhere to live for the start of the academic year. The introduction of this ground will mean that the annual churn of “typical” student lettings is maintained. Landlords letting to full-time students can ensure a property is vacant at the end of the academic year and ready for a new group of student tenants over the summer months.
I would like to reassure Members that we have designed the ground carefully. Our approach will protect this crucial part of the market while balancing the needs of both landlords and students. The ground can be used by landlords in England when a house in multiple occupation is occupied by full-time students at the start of a tenancy and the property is needed for a new group of students for the next academic year. That means that the ground is unlikely to capture students who have children or other caring responsibilities, or who are studying part-time alongside their main job.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is therefore not necessary. It would narrow the scope of the ground significantly. Most properties are advertised on Zoopla or Rightmove rather than through a university, so the amendment would not provide the carve-out that the student market needs. Landlords will be required to give tenants at least two months’ notice in line with the other “landlord circumstance” or “no fault” grounds. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment to clause 9.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am sceptical about the need for a special student carve-out. The National Union of Students is sceptical as well, but it did acknowledge that if worded correctly it could provide some relief to support a special dedicated market.
I think the Government’s amendment is too broad: it attacks the market that students might be bidding in rather than specifying student markets. There are three markets for the students to bid in. One is purpose-built student accommodation, which already has an exemption and a ground in the Bill—no problem. The second is the student-only houses in multiple occupation market, which is usually advertised via universities or organisations such as Unipol, and focuses only on students. Then there are the HMOs available for young professionals and young people.
Most of the HMOs on the seafront in my constituency are not occupied by students; they are occupied by young professionals looking to eventually get a house to themselves, but they are sharing. There might be people who share accommodation for cost-saving purposes. The measure gives an exemption to that market if the landlord lets to students only. It sucks away a market that is already overstretched—the HMO market—and pushes it into the student market. Already there is pressure because the student market pays more than the general HMO market. The measure will exacerbate that and make things far worse. I am deeply worried about that unintended consequence.
We could stop that unintended consequence. If a property is only for the student market, of course we recognise that, but it should be advertised only via student letting agencies—at the university or via a registered provider. That is largely done, anyway. Universities often pair up with local letting agents and assign letting agents that are trusted providers. My amendment allows that, but it treats the exemption much more like the purpose-built student accommodation exemption. In the long run, universities should have a duty to provide housing—purpose-built or HMO—via the university for all students who want it. That would relieve a lot of the tensions that we get in communities where people are fighting over HMOs—young professionals versus students.
There are measures via article 4 directives under the planning regulations, but they are blunt tools. What we really need is a duty given to universities to ensure that any student who so wishes can be provided with accommodation. That would be a long-term solution. It would solve the madness in Manchester this year—students having to live in Liverpool because not enough accommodation is provided for them in Manchester. But that will not be solved by the Government’s amendment. In my view, it could be made worse.
Providing that all student accommodation needed to be advertised via the university would also allow the university to have a better appraisal of what accommodation was available for their students. It would allow the university to liaise with landlords. When there are problems in communities with student houses—I do not want to be unfair to students, but they are sometimes known to enjoy a party here or there—the universities would be involved in that process, rather than students just being out in the wild, as it were. Good universities already do that. Most universities already have that process.
My other fear is that the measure will make it harder for students who actively choose to live in mixed households, because landlords will not want mixed households. Students who at the moment want to enter the general HMO market and live in a mixed household will now be discouraged. The landlord will say, “No, even though I am advertising this on the general market, I would quite like to rent to an exclusive student household.” The measure also underestimates the flexibility of the student experience: students will drop out, want to stay or want to go into work.
Finally, the danger of the Government amendment, without my amendment, is that it will embed the very problem with the student market. Anyone whose children have gone to university or who has recently been to university themselves will know that, by January, students already have to decide what accommodation they will have next year. Preserving that function of the market is not a positive thing. Students have not developed deep friendships—they only arrived in October—and often have not actually worked out what course they want to do. If they are on a course that has vocational or work placement elements, they do not know where those placements will be. It is impossible for those students to properly plan. Young people who come through clearing are often scrabbling around; by that point, purpose-built accommodation is already taken, and private rented properties are already snatched up.
We could push back the point at which a landlord would know whether that property was vacant. If the students want to stay, there is no problem: the landlord is still going to get the rent, and for the landlord there is no argument there. But if the landlord knew only a few months beforehand—perhaps a two-month or four-month notice period—then students would be deciding in July or August about what accommodation they would be living in. That would give students who had gone through clearing or were going into work placements much better options in the private rented sector.
I worry that, without my amendment, we are locking in many of the problems of the student market. I would struggle to withdraw my amendment, because I think it improves the Minister’s amendment: it does what he is trying to do, but without the unintended consequences.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for his explanation, but it lacked detail; I am still not particularly clear on the Government’s rationale for drafting and tabling the amendment as it stands. I will come to the reasons why, but I want first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for raising an important issue in relation to student lettings. I fully agree that we need to do much more to improve the student lettings market and drive up professionalism in it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I should have declared at the beginning that I am a trustee at the University of Bradford Union of Students, which has a board member place on Unipol, the student lettings agency.
Matthew Pennycook
The Committee will have noted that. I have no doubt that lettings services run by universities and student unions have an important and effective part to play in driving up professionalism and improving the functioning of the market.
As we have heard, Government amendments 1 and 9 make provision for new possession ground 4A, which would allow a student HMO to be recovered by a landlord for further occupation by students. On the Opposition Front Bench, we take a slightly different view from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown: we welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the student market is distinct in particular ways from the rest of the private rented sector and that its protection requires a bespoke approach of some kind. We appreciate the arguments advanced by some landlords operating in the sector about the fact that much of the student market—not all of it; I will come to that—is cyclical and that landlords need a means of guaranteeing possession each year for a new set of tenants. However, we are equally cognisant of the concerns put forward by bodies and organisations representing students and their interests about the potential implications of treating student renters differently from other private tenants—the precedent that might set and the problems that might arise as a result of specific exemptions for certain types of purpose-built dwelling.
In determining whether the Government have struck the right balance as it relates to this measure, we need to grapple with the fact—my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown referred to this—that defining what constitutes a student dwelling is deeply challenging, given the diversity of individuals engaged in higher education and how varied their educational circumstances can be. There is also the fact that some private dwellings will be shared between students and people in employment, whether because the people working have chosen to remain in the area following completion of study or because it made sense for the student in question to move in with an individual of working age who was already at work when they signed their tenancy agreement.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed new ground 4A makes clear that it may be used for houses in multiple occupation and where each tenant is a student at the beginning of the tenancy. Is the implication of the paragraph that, to make use of the ground, a landlord would have to verify at the point the tenancy was signed that every individual who would occupy the property was in fact a student? If a landlord let a house, for example, to two students and one person working full-time, would they not be able to make use of new ground 4A? If it is the case that landlords cannot use new ground 4A to gain possession of a household of, say, part-time students sharing with full-time workers, can the Minister explain whether the Government have undertaken any assessment of the impact of the new possession ground on the availability of rental housing, particularly in towns and cities with large student populations where, as my hon. Friend said, the supply of student housing is already under enormous pressure? I know that, too, from my own constituency.
A further complication is added into the mix by sub-paragraph (a)(ii), which provides for use of the ground where
“the landlord reasonably believed that the tenant would become a full-time student during the tenancy”.
That strikes us as an incredibly low evidential threshold to have to meet. Can the Minister explain how on earth landlords will be expected to prove that such a belief is legitimate? Who will they need to satisfy, if anyone, that there are reasonable grounds to assume that a non-student tenant will become a student during the lifetime of the tenancy?
We are genuinely concerned that Government amendment 9 as drafted could be abused by unscrupulous landlords following the enactment of chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill. Relying on paragraph (a)(ii), one could easily imagine landlords evicting groups of, say, young working tenants sharing a property using the justification that they believed they intended to become full-time students before the tenancy agreement expired. We would venture that the courts themselves will struggle to ascertain whether a landlord has proved the new ground by relying on sub-paragraph (ii) and that most evictions under 4A, like other mandatory possession grounds, will probably not even arrive before a judge—the tenants will simply leave, the threat having been made. We would welcome further clarification from the Minister about why sub-paragraph (ii) has been included in the proposed new clause and would like some robust assurances that it cannot be abused to facilitate section 21 no-fault evictions by the back door.
Another complication arising from the wording of the new clause concerns paragraph (c) on lines 11 and 12 of the amendment paper. That states that new ground 4A can be used to gain possession only between 1 June and 30 September in any year. However, as hon. Members with student populations in their constituencies will know, a large number of UK universities now also accommodate a winter intake in January. They do so not only for postgraduate students; it is now also the main secondary intake for some undergraduate courses. Given that the proposed new possession ground is available for use only during June and September, we are concerned it could have the unintended consequence of impacting detrimentally on the availability of other properties for students to let at other times of the year, given that under the proposed new ground there is an inherent incentive for landlords to let only on the primary summer-to-summer cycle.
If it is the Government’s intention to ensure that there is a cyclical availability of student accommodation, we suspect that they may need to think again about how it is achieved for students whose academic year starts and finishes at times other than those specified in the amendment. Moreover, even for those students who finish their courses in the summer, there is a wide degree of variation between undergraduates, who will usually finish earlier; postgraduates, who may be working on research projects until a much later date; or undergraduates undertaking placements.
Jacob Young
Let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions straightaway. On whether a landlord will have to check that the tenants are students, they must do that at the beginning of the tenancy. They can be fined if they try to use these grounds without having notified the students that they are in student accommodation and that the grounds are therefore included.
The hon. Gentleman asked if everyone in a property must be a student. That is the case; if the property is mixed occupancy, the ground will not apply. On his point about reasonable belief, that is specifically in relation to first-year students who have not yet become a student. A landlord can reasonably believe that a student taking out a tenancy is to become one, but until they are a student they are not technically one just yet.
The ground is designed to cover the majority of the market. Were we to make the ground available all year round, it would give much less security and open it up to much greater abuse.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
That is why it is better to swap in my amendment on this point. Rather than working with the universities on the particular cycle they might have in their local area, we are trying to legislate for term times here in Westminster, but it does not work. Will the Minister go away, maybe when the Bill goes to the other place, and rethink how we can have a clause that requires landlords to work with a university to ensure that letting is in line with the relevant local term times and not our attempts to legislate for these things here? I get what the Minister is trying to say.
Jacob Young
I completely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Obviously, on the back of the conversations we have had today, we will consider these measures further. The ground has been carefully designed in consultation with stakeholders—landlords, universities and so on—to facilitate the annual cycle of short-term student tenancies. That is why we specifically created that gap in the change in the academic year.
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the Minister correctly, he has made a commitment to go away and think further about this. As it stands, is there anything in the Bill that would protect students whose courses are not on that summer-to-summer cycle from being evicted through the use of the new mandatory ground? We do not think there is, which is why we think the Government need to think again. Is anything forthcoming or in the Bill that is designed to protect against the problem I spoke about—postgrads or others who go beyond the summer cycle? It may be a minority of students, but it is still a significant minority.
Jacob Young
I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman with the assurances he seeks. We have designed the ground carefully with landlords, because we have listened to their concerns, particularly about the student market. None of us in Committee today would want to end up in a situation where, on Royal Assent, we were not able to facilitate student accommodation.
Mike Amesbury
I want to probe the Minister a little more on the point that the landlord “reasonably believed” someone could be a student. Some time ago I was a councillor in Fallowfield, which had large areas of student accommodation. Some of those were mixed tenancies, but people would have made an assumption—would have reasonably believed—that all the people who lived there were students. Is that covered? Is the clause tight enough?
Jacob Young
As I said, everyone in a property would have to be a student. It would be an obligation on the landlord to ensure that they are students or that he or she reasonably believes that they are students. We will follow the Bill with statutory instruments plus guidance; we can make it clear in the guidance what we expect. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown not to press his amendment.
Mike Amesbury
It is about evidencing that. It would be in the guidance, but what kind of evidence would the landlord need to provide?
Jacob Young
I am not in a position to outline that today. I have made it clear that, in terms of a landlord reasonably expecting someone to become a student, that would hinge on them starting term in the very near future. I think that that is clear, but we will set that out further in guidance. For those reasons and others, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown not to press his amendment.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister has given a good rationale for his amendment. Paragraph (d) requires the landlord, in the next letting cycle, to be letting out to exclusively students or those he believes to be students. How will we assess whether the property has been let out to students exclusively? That is the only point of the clause. Will the property portal be an opportunity to record information about whether the house is a student let, so that we can be clear when the tenancy is signed and when the next tenancy is released that it is a reserved student property?
Jacob Young
It is likely that a new contract would have to be signed with the new tenants, who would be students, for this to be used. It would be unusual for a judge to think that, “I thought all of these people were suddenly going to become students,” would be a reasonable argument to use this ground. I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s points have merit, and I ask him not to press his amendment to a vote.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am not inclined to press my amendment, because the Minister has given assurances that he will go away and rethink the clause. I am still not happy about the clause, and we will see what we do on the substantive issue, but there are problems with paragraph (d). The provisions do not work with the universities; they set things in Westminster, rather than saying that the property should be protected because it has been let via an approved university letting agent or the university itself. That seems like a solution the Minister could grab. It would solve his term dates problem, his “Is it going to be let to students?” problem and his “Is it being let to students?” problem. In fact, every single question we have would be solved by my amendment. The Minister has said, and I will take it in good faith, that he will go away, look at this and see how things could be amended, and I will push him on Third Reading on what ideas he has come up with.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the changes to grounds for possession made under this Act within two years of the date of Royal Assent.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession within two years of the Act coming into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 54—Review of changes to grounds for possession—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the grounds for possession in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988, as amended by this Act.
(2) The review must include—
(a) an assessment of the effectiveness of the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act in securing evictions from properties;
(b) an assessment of the impact on the security of tenure of tenants as a result of the use of the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act;
(c) a report on the use of enforcement action in relation to the new or amended grounds for possession set out in Schedule 1 of this Act;
(d) an assessment of the effectiveness of the grounds for possession listed in Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 in securing evictions from properties that remain unamended by Schedule 1 of this Act.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must make such recommendations as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are necessary in the light of the findings of the review.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession within two years of the Act coming into force.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 3, as we have discussed, amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Once section 21 has finally been removed from that Act through the provisions in clause 2 and the commencement dates in clause 67, the only means by which a landlord will be able to regain possession of a property by evicting a tenant will be by securing a court judgment under the revised section 8 grounds set out in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act, whether they be mandatory or discretionary. We have already debated concerns relating to several of those grounds, and we will debate more in due course when we get to schedule 1. However, we believe it is important to also take a view on the proposed replacement possession regime as a whole, given that it is the most comprehensive reform of the grounds in that regime in the 35 years since the 1988 Act came into force.
Labour recognises, and has repeatedly said since the White Paper was published, that following the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions, landlords will need recourse to robust and effective grounds for possession in circumstances where there are valid reasons for taking a property back, such as flagrant antisocial or criminal behaviour. However, we have also made it clear that the Bill must ensure that such grounds cannot be abused to unfairly evict tenants and that they will be tight enough to minimise fraudulent use of the kind we have seen in Scotland in the wake of the major private renting reforms introduced there in 2017.
The revised set of section 8 possession grounds must reflect the fact that evictions, which are inherently disruptive and often incredibly damaging to tenants’ lives, should be only ever a measure of last resort where no alternative course of action exists. The grounds must be proportionate, secure against abuse from landlords seeking to carry out unfair or retaliatory evictions, and designed effectively so that properties are recovered only when a tenant is genuinely at fault, and they must not cause tenants undue hardship.
Amendment 137 and new clause 54 would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession regime within two years of the Act coming into force. With that requirement, whether individual grounds for possession are further amended, as we hope, or the Government resist our efforts and the grounds remain as drafted, we will at least be able to judge the efficacy and impact of the new arrangements both for landlords seeking to recover their properties when a tenant is genuinely at fault and for tenants who are not at fault but who may suffer as a result of flaws in the regime. We think the amendment is entirely reasonable, and I am interested to hear how the Minister will, no doubt, resist it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support the amendment. The Minister has already indicated that there is work still to do and that he will go away and see how this will work in practice. Clearly, some of these issues will come out when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
These are sensible measures with which nobody—landlords or tenants—could really disagree. We can no longer have a set of grounds that have been stuck in time for 30 years, and Bills that only add things on from time to time, without stepping back and looking at the changes that have occurred, whether those relate to students—the Minister is pushing for the measures on students to be included in the Bill, rather than in regulations—or any of the other clauses. Consider antisocial behaviour in particular, and the concern that many campaign groups have expressed around potential domestic violence falling foul of the new “likely” or “able to” provisions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Minister may disagree. That is fine: he will get his way, and we will pass his wording, but there should then be an assurance that, in a few years’ time, there will be a review of the legislation. If the Minister is right, we will applaud him—well, we cannot applaud in the House of Commons, but we will metaphorically cheer him in the House and say that he did such a fantastic job with his civil servants and the Department that the legislation is watertight. Alternatively, we will say that there are some small loopholes that need changing or that the world has changed. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
Personally, I think these sorts of provisions should be in almost all Bills we pass, but they are particularly important in this Bill, because of the dynamic nature of the market and the wholescale reforms we are making. Nobody knows what effects this will have on the courts. Nobody knows quite what effects it will have on tenants. Opposition Members are all talking about unintended consequences, which is why our proposals are so important.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I should have referred this morning to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I apologise for that oversight and refer Members to it now.
I rise to support the amendment and the new clause. We have had a lot of discussion, in good faith, about the unintended consequences for the private rented sector and the impact on tenants, but much of this has been guesswork. It would be extremely sensible to have a requirement to look at this a couple of years down the line and to ask, “Have we driven landlords from the market unintentionally? Have we put tenants in an insecure position unintentionally?” It would be remiss of any Government to fail to assess the impact of their legislation.
Ms Buck
I really do hope that the Minister will concede on this point. One of the striking themes that emerged in the evidence sessions was just how little we know about what is happening in the private rented sector. It is to the shame of the Government, and probably even the previous Government, that this massive transformation in the life of the country and throughout the housing stock, which is affecting millions of people, has happened without us having accurate data to assess the impact. We are struggling to catch up in so many respects.
We will no doubt be talking more about the changing grounds for possession in the context of antisocial behaviour and rent arrears but as has been reinforced—we just need to keep saying this—the people in the private rented sector who we have the most concern about are those whose equivalents were not in the private rented sector 20 or 25 years ago. Their patterns of need, the patterns of demand they place on the sector and the risks they have to face are also quite different.
Families with children, families experiencing domestic violence and those with all kinds of vulnerabilities, including serious mental health problems, addictions or learning disabilities, would for the most part not have been in this situation before, but they are now having to be accommodated. It is not only that they are in the private rented sector in a way that they were not before, and are at risk, but that they are disproportionately impacted by harsh decisions that cause them to lose their homes. They face a higher risk and are worst affected.
I do not know whether all Members have experience of this, but any Member of Parliament with a larger private rented sector will be experiencing the consequences and will have traumatised families coming to them with problems who will perhaps be facing eviction and be in distress. That is often for completely trivial reasons or because of circumstances that arise simply out of misunderstandings or the failure of the bureaucratic and social security systems to catch up.
It is the most basic and sensible thing to do to ensure that there is a proper data review and that we make up for the fact that we have spent several decades now trying to understand a system about which we have too little information. The Minister has a chance to put that right.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and other hon. Members who have spoken on amendment 137 and new clause 54. We all agree that it is vital that the Government keep such an important set of policies under review. We must ensure that the grounds for possession are providing adequate security to tenants and functioning effectively for landlords, too.
We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme. Our impact assessment for the Bill, which has been published online, sets out our plans for evaluation. That builds on the Department’s existing long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process, impact, and value for money evaluation in line with the Department’s recently published evaluation strategy. Setting an arbitrary deadline in law for that work might detract from the quality of evaluation and prevent us conducting as robust an assessment as possible. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment 137.
Mike Amesbury
Why could this not be added to the current evaluation plans? Surely good law is about assessment of the planning, implementation and then review. Given the nature of the current marketplace and how it can shape things, particularly for those who are out of sight or are vulnerable in the current population, surely that two-year review would be good law.
Jacob Young
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is not usual for us to include such a review on the face of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Minister for his response, but it is a little disappointing, and I want briefly to say why.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North made is absolutely right. Unlike in other sectors, we really have no idea of the composition of the private rented sector. That is one reason why the portal is so important: it is such a potential game changer that we can start to get that information, but we do not have it at the moment, so we do not know what the impact of these reforms will be, nor do we know the impact of the changes to the grounds for possession.
I want to bring it home to the Committee that the changes to the grounds for possession are not small. We have new grounds that could potentially work in ways that the Government do not intend; we also have significantly amended grounds. We really need a more formalised review than the Department’s ongoing review process that the Minister has set out.
I urge the Minister to think about that point. If the two years set out in amendment 137 is the wrong deadline or, as he sees it, an arbitrary deadline, we would welcome the Government coming forward with some more formalised means of reviewing the impact not only on tenants, who might find themselves at the sharp end of abuse on some of the grounds, but on landlords, for whom the new grounds simply may not work in the way the Government want. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I encourage the Government to think about whether we can have something beyond the usual departmental processes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Changes to grounds for possession
Amendment proposed: 143, in schedule 1, page 65, line 10, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Amendments 143 and 144 would prohibit evictions under grounds 1 and 1A within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 66, line 28, after “sell” insert
“a freehold or leasehold interest in”.
This amendment makes it clear that the ground of possession for when a landlord is selling the dwelling-house after a rent-to-buy agreement (Ground 1B) is available where the landlord’s interest is a leasehold one as well as where the landlord holds the freehold of the dwelling-house.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 147, in schedule 1, page 66, line 29, after “dwelling-house” insert
“or to offer it to another tenant”.
This amendment would allow private registered providers of social housing to use new ground for possession 1B to offer properties to another tenant.
Jacob Young
Government amendments 6 and 7 will apply to ground 1B, which ensures that private registered providers of social housing can gain possession if they want to sell, dispose of a lease on or grant a lease on a rent-to-buy property, having first given the sitting tenant the opportunity to buy it. Many private registered providers will sell their rent-to-buy homes to the existing tenants on shared ownership terms, but where they do not, they will be able to sell the home to another buyer on the same terms as those on which they had intended to sell to the sitting tenant. The amendments are technical changes to ensure that ground 1B works as intended; they will simply ensure that there is no ambiguity about what selling means. They will support the operation of rent to buy.
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling amendment 147, which would expand ground 1B. As I have set out, the Bill already takes steps to allow rent to buy to continue to operate in the new system. We are aware that stakeholders are concerned about the issue of providers selling to a different tenant from the sitting one; I will carefully consider that issue further.
I commend Government amendments 6 and 7 to the Committee, and I ask the hon. Gentleman kindly not to press his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to amendment 147, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale, for North Tyneside and for Brighton, Kemptown.
As we have discussed, schedule 1 specifies the reasons that landlords will be able to seek possession once the new tenancy system has come into force. As the Minister has explained, paragraph 4 of schedule 1 provides for a new mandatory ground 1B, which will require a court to award possession when private registered providers of social housing are selling a property under a rent-to-buy or London living rent arrangement. Social landlords will be able to use the new ground only where the defined period stated in the rent-to-buy agreement has expired, and to do so they will have to have complied with any terms in the relevant agreement that require them to offer the sitting tenant the opportunity to purchase the property.
The Bill is concerned primarily with the private rented sector, but it has implications for social housing providers in a number of different areas. New mandatory ground 1B relates to one of those, namely affordable products, offered by registered providers, that are designed to enable tenants to use the savings accrued by sub-market rents to save up for a deposit and ultimately purchase the property at a price no more than market value before it is offered for general sale. New ground 1B will ensure that rent-to-buy schemes, including London living rent, will remain viable in the new tenancy system by providing a mechanism for possession to be gained to sell the property at the end of the scheme in line with the terms of agreement.
Although the new ground is absolutely necessary, the proposed drafting would prevent it from being used when a rent-to-buy property is not being sold but when a new tenant is moving into it. A hypothetical example was given by the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, Kate Henderson, in Tuesday’s evidence session:
“you have somebody who is in a rent-to-buy property, has been there for five years and has decided that they do not want to buy it or they cannot buy it; we would like the ground available so that that property could be given to another tenant who would like to use the property as it was intended and designed to be used—as a rent to buy.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 52, Q63.]
Jacob Young
The points that the hon. Gentleman raises are fairly technical in nature, so I will endeavour to write to him as soon as possible; I will copy in members of the Committee. As I have already outlined, I will consider his amendment 147 carefully in the further steps of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that that is about as positive a response as will come, so I look forward to what may be forthcoming from the Government.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment made: 7, in schedule 1, page 66, line 29, after “dwelling-house” insert
“or to grant a lease of the dwelling-house for a term certain of more than 21 years which is not terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the landlord”.—(Jacob Young.)
This amendment makes the ground of possession for when a landlord is selling the dwelling-house after a rent-to-buy agreement (Ground 1B) also available to a landlord who is granting a lease of over 21 years.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 188, in schedule 1, page 67, line 23, after “terminate that tenancy”, insert
“(including any tenancy at will or other tenancy arising on expiry of a fixed-term lease)”.
This amendment would extend Ground 2ZA to apply in a situation where a tenancy at will may arise.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 189, in schedule 1, page 67, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) where the intermediate landlord serves notice under this Ground, the intermediate landlord shall be deemed to continue to hold sufficient interest in the dwelling-house to maintain a continuing right to possession until conclusion of any possession proceedings.”
This amendment would ensure that an intermediate landlord retains possession of the property and remains as the landlord of the occupying tenant until the conclusion of possession proceedings.
Matthew Pennycook
In her evidence to the Committee last week, in addition to the request that she made on behalf of housing associations in respect of new ground 1B, the NHF chief executive Kate Henderson also made the case for greater clarity in the Bill on new mandatory ground 2ZA. As is set out in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, new ground 2ZA will require a court to award possession when a social or other specified intermediate landlord
“has a superior lease and that superior lease is coming to an end”,
thus enabling them to comply with the terms of the superior lease to which they were subject. The clarification for which Ms Henderson argued related to if new ground 2ZA could be used on a tenancy at will—in other words, a tenancy that arises when a tenant occupies a property with landlord consent indefinitely on the basis that either party can end the arrangement by giving immediate notice at any time.
Amendment 188 would ensure that new ground 2ZA would apply in a situation in which a tenancy at will may arise. That is particularly important for social landlords who use superior and intermediate leases to provide specialist supported accommodation.
Amendment 189 would ensure that social or specified intermediate landlords obtain possession of a property when serving notice under the ground. That would see those landlords remain the landlord of the occupational tenant until the conclusion of possession proceedings, rather than running the risk of the superior landlord becoming the landlord for the occupational tenant. We believe that these are both common-sense amendments, and we hope that the Government will accept them either today or at some future point.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendments 188 and 189, which seek to amend new ground 2ZA. I know he said they were a concern to the National Housing Federation. We have had similar conversations with the federation. The amendments would change the ground so that it would continue to apply where the superior lease should have ended but is carrying on in some capacity, either as a tenancy at will or in another form. The ground is already drafted to cover those circumstances, so the amendments are unnecessary.
The amendments would also seek to make a much broader change that would allow the intermediate landlord to retain an interest in the property after the superior lease has come to an end. That would be where the intermediate landlord has commenced possession proceedings, presumably to enable them to conclude them. It is already the case that superior leases can make contractual provision for exactly that scenario, and the Bill does not interfere with that. Where there is not contractual provision in the superior lease, ground 2ZB in the Bill allows a superior landlord to continue the same possession proceedings. That will ensure that possession proceedings can continue.
I therefore ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Those were two very helpful explanations of why these amendments are necessary. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 68, line 25, at end insert—
“(d) after that unnumbered paragraph insert ‘and—
(c) if the tenancy arose by succession as mentioned in section 39(5), notice was given to the previous tenant under Case 14 of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977, and
(d) the tenancy is not an assured agricultural occupancy in respect of which the agricultural worker condition is fulfilled by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.’”
This amendment to the ground of possession for former student accommodation requires notice to have been given under the equivalent Case in the Rent Act 1977, where the assured tenancy succeeded a tenancy under the 1977 Act, and makes an exception for certain assured agricultural occupancies which arose by succession.
Jacob Young
Under the new system, landlords will be required to notify their tenant, through the new mandatory written statement of terms, where they wish to regain possession through the use of what are called “prior notice” grounds. Government amendments 8 and 10 make consequential changes to the Housing Act 1988 to reflect the new “prior notice” requirements. This will preserve the enhanced security of tenure afforded to assured tenancies that have succeeded tenancies under the Rent Act 1977 and assured agricultural occupancies.
Government amendment 60 will make further consequential changes to the Housing Act 1988 to reflect new “prior notice” requirements. These requirements under the new system mean landlords will need to notify their tenant through the new mandatory written statement of terms, where they wish to regain possession through the use of what are called “prior notice” grounds.
I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments made: 9, in schedule 1, page 68, line 25, at end insert—
“New ground for possession of student HMO for occupation by students
9A After Ground 4 insert—
‘Ground 4A
The dwelling-house is an HMO and—
(a) at the beginning of the tenancy, as regards each tenant either—
(i) the tenant was a full-time student, or
(ii) the landlord reasonably believed that the tenant would become a full-time student during the tenancy,
(b) the tenants are joint tenants,
(c) the date specified in the notice under section 8 is a date between 1 June and 30 September in any year, and
(d) the landlord seeking possession intends, on the next occasion on which the dwelling-house is let, to let it to people who are full-time students or who the landlord reasonably believes will become full-time students during the tenancy.
In this ground, “full-time student” means a person receiving education provided by means of a full-time course—
(a) of any description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 provided by an institution in England or Wales;
(b) of any description mentioned in section 38(2) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 provided by an institution in Scotland;
(c) of any description mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1772 (N.I. 15)) provided by an institution in Northern Ireland.’”
This amendment inserts a new ground of possession to allow a landlord to recover possession of a house of multiple occupation let to full-time students at the end of the academic year, in order to let it to students again.
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 68, line 27, at end insert—
“(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(c) if the tenancy arose by succession as mentioned in section 39(5), notice was given to the previous tenant under Case 15 of Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1977, and
(d) the tenancy is not an assured agricultural occupancy in respect of which the agricultural worker condition is fulfilled by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.’”—(Jacob Young.)
This amendment to the ground for possession for a residence for a minister of religion (Ground 5) requires prior notice to have been given if the tenancy arose by succession after a statutory tenancy, and excepts certain agricultural occupancies from the ground.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 71, line 35, leave out from “authority” to end of line 36 and insert
“means a district council, a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly.”
This amendment makes it clear that the reference to a local housing authority in new Ground 5G in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 does not cover Welsh county councils and county borough councils.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 50, 61, 66, 69, 79 and 107.
Jacob Young
These amendments will make technical changes to remove separate definitions of “local housing authority” and create a single definition to be used throughout the Bill, to ensure alignment and greater simplification as far as possible. For example, Government amendment 11 excludes Welsh local authorities and includes county councils in England where there is no district council, in new possession ground 5G. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be very brief. The Minister and I discussed this subject outside the Committee earlier. As he knows, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 has created a new kind of authority for England: combined county authorities. However, CCAs are not referred to in these amendments, which are otherwise completely uncontroversial and whose inclusion we welcome. I just wonder whether the Minister could give us a reason, on the record, for their omission. Is it because a county council cannot ordinarily be a local housing authority, or is there another reason?
Jacob Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify. A combined county authority can exercise the functions of a district council, which will be a local housing authority, if the regulations made under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provide for the conferral of those functions on a case-by-case basis. As a result, the Government do not believe that there is any need to include combined county authorities in the general definition of a local housing authority at present.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Jacob Young
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 71, line 40, for “A relevant landlord” substitute
“The landlord seeking possession is mentioned in the first column in a row of the table in this ground, the tenancy is mentioned in the second column of that row, and a person mentioned in the third column of that row”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 14, allows certain social landlords to rely on Ground 6 to get possession of a property let under an assured tenancy if they intend to carry out building works.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 148, in schedule 1, page 72, line 3, leave out “6 months” and insert “2 years”.
This amendment would ensure that no tenant could be evicted on grounds of redevelopment within two years of the beginning of a tenancy.
Government amendments 13 to 15.
Jacob Young
Government amendments 12 to 15 expand the circumstances in which private registered providers of social housing can use the redevelopment ground for possession, known as ground 6. Private registered providers let out property that they know they will substantially redevelop or demolish through an assured shorthold tenancy. That allows them the use of section 21, as they are prohibited from using the existing redevelopment possession ground in almost all circumstances. The amendments widen the definition of “relevant landlord” to include private registered providers, so that they can use the ground for redevelopment in future. However, they will be able to use it only for tenancies that were not granted pursuant to a local authority nomination; that will ensure that tenants whose tenancy was granted pursuant to a local authority nomination retain their long-term social tenancy. The landlords will also be required to provide notice to the tenant before the tenancy begins, or on the day it begins, that they intend to use the redevelopment ground because they are planning to redevelop the property. That will ensure that tenants are fully informed about landlords’ intentions.
The Government believe that it is essential that property earmarked for future redevelopment is still available to live in. The amendments will enable social landlords to make the best possible use of housing stock, and prevent properties that could provide a home needlessly standing empty.
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling his amendment 148, on ground 6. If there was a longer period before landlords could use the ground, there would be a risk of landlords not making their properties available for rent, which could reduce the supply of much-needed homes. Landlords also need the flexibility that is a key benefit of periodic tenancies. Our proposals strike the right balance. Although the vast majority of improvement works can take place with a tenant in situ, not allowing landlords to use the ground for two years may prevent them from ensuring that a property is maintained to the required standard. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to amendment 148 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. Paragraph 18 of schedule 1 amends ground 6 in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act. As the Minister has set out, the revised ground, which remains mandatory, would require a court to award possession if a relevant landlord wishes to undertake substantial redevelopment of a property, or a part of a building in which the property is located. The landlord must demonstrate that the changes cannot be accomplished with the tenant living there.
Paragraph 18(3) of schedule 1 inserts proposed new paragraph (aa) into ground 6 in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act. New paragraph (aa) specifies that the ground cannot be used unless the landlord was authorised to acquire the property by a compulsory purchase order, or the tenancy had existed for at least six months at the date specified in the notice. The circumstances in which the amended ground is likely to be used are quite limited. However, we believe, as in the case of other mandatory no-fault grounds, that tenants deserve more security than is proposed.
I go back to a point that we have made several times today. The impact on tenants of frequent, short-notice, unexpected moves cannot be over-stated. Such instability takes a mental and physical toll. It prevents tenants from putting down roots in communities; puts them under financial strain, given the high cost of moving, which was mentioned earlier; and prevents them from saving for a deposit to buy their own home. For the millions of families with children now living in the private rented sector, it has a direct and tangible negative impact, including on children’s education as a result of constant school moves.
It is not right that a tenant should continue to be exposed to the risk of a de facto no-fault eviction only six months after starting a tenancy. Any landlord who wishes to undertake substantial redevelopment—it must be substantial—that cannot be accomplished with the tenant in situ should plan for it over the long term. We therefore think it is reasonable to extend the protected period for ground 6 from six months to two years, and amendment 148 would do that.
I finish by tackling head-on the argument that the Minister continues to use: that our changes create a risk that landlords will not use their properties, which would impact supply. What is the evidence for that risk? The Government keep using the defence that landlords will exit the sector. Of course, if they exit the sector, the property is not then used for nothing; it is either sold or taken back into local authority ownership. What evidence do the Government have that measures that we propose, including this amendment, would cause landlords not to use their properties, and would therefore further exacerbate supply problems in the sector?
Jacob Young
On the hon. Gentleman’s questions around security, tenants will have much more security under the new system; under it, landlords will always need a reason to evict a tenant, and must be prepared to evidence that reason in court. That is unlike what happens under section 21. He referred to my comments about properties sitting empty before redevelopment. Obviously, a landlord who was looking to redevelop a property in the near future, but was not yet able to, would not be minded to put a tenant in there unless they had reasonable means of taking back control of that property.
Matthew Pennycook
That scenario raises an interesting question that takes us back to the debate we had on ground 1. As the Minister has just argued, landlords who wish to substantially redevelop their property probably have some prior awareness of the likelihood that they will do that. If he will not accept our amendment, will he at least consider having some form of prior notice mechanism, as there used to be for ground 1 before the Government amended it, so that tenants signing up to a tenancy at least have some indication, when signing their agreement, that a landlord may seek to use this ground in the future? Then, at least, the tenant would enter the agreement fully aware that they may be evicted, with six months’ notice, on that ground.
Jacob Young
The challenge in going down the route of prior notice is that there is a unique circumstance in which prior notice might be used. If we were to apply prior notice across all types of tenancies, it could be argued that it would be less obvious to tenants that they were in a unique circumstance in which prior notice was relevant. I therefore do not accept the arguments on prior notice. “Landlord seeking possession Tenancy Landlord intending to redevelop a relevant social landlord a tenancy of a dwelling-house that was granted pursuant to a nomination as mentioned in section 159(2)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 a superior landlord a relevant social landlord a tenancy of the dwelling-house that was not granted pursuant to a nomination as mentioned in section 159(2)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 (a) the landlord who is seeking possession (b) a superior landlord the unit-holder of a commonhold unit relation to which a commonhold association exercises functions a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is contained in or comprises the commonhold unit (a) the landlord who is seeking possession (b) the commonhold association any landlord other than a relevant social landlord or a unit-holder of a commonhold unit in relation to which a commonhold association exercises functions any tenancy the landlord who is seeking possession”
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in schedule 1, page 72, line 10, at end insert—
“(ab) if the landlord seeking possession is a relevant social landlord and is the person intending to carry out the work, the landlord gave the tenant, before the beginning of the tenancy or on the day on which it began, a written statement of the landlord’s wish to be able to recover possession on the basis of an intention to carry out work mentioned in this ground, and”.
This amendment provides that a “relevant social landlord” as defined in Amendment 15 may only regain possession on the basis of their intention to carry out redevelopment work if they have given a statement to the tenant of their wish to do so before the beginning of the tenancy or on the day on which it began.
Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 72, line 14, for lines 14 to 33 substitute—
Table
This amendment, together with Amendment 12, allows certain social landlords to rely on Ground 6 to get possession of a property let under an assured tenancy if they intend to carry out building works, and allows a commonhold unit-holder who has let their unit under an assured tenancy to regain possession if the commonhold association is planning works.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 72, line 37, at end insert—
“‘relevant social landlord’ means—
(a) a non-profit registered provider of social housing,
(b) a body registered as a social landlord in the register maintained under section 1 of the Housing Act 1996,
(c) a body registered as a social landlord in the register kept under section 20(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010,
(d) a housing trust, within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985, which is a charity, or
(e) where the dwelling-house is social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, a profit-making registered provider of social housing.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 12 and 14 and inserts a definition of “relevant social landlord” into Ground 6 (possession because of redevelopment works).
Amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 74, line 1, at beginning insert “the”.—(Jacob Young.)
This small drafting amendment makes it clearer that the definition of “the local housing authority” in section 261 of the Housing Act 2004 applies for the purposes of the new Ground 6A in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 152, in schedule 1, page 74, leave out line 7.
This amendment would retain the existing 12-month period within which the landlord can initiate proceedings on this ground for possession.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 151, in schedule 1, page 74, line 8, at end insert—
“(c) at the end of the last unnumbered paragraph insert—
‘This ground applies only where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing.’”
This amendment would limit the use of Ground 7 of Schedule 2 of the 1988 Act to social rented housing.
Matthew Pennycook
Paragraph 20 of schedule 1 amends ground 7 in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Ground 7 requires a court to award possession if a tenancy has been passed to someone by will or intestacy after the death of the previous tenant. The landlord has 12 months in which to initiate proceedings using this ground, or 12 months from the point when the landlord learns of the tenant’s death, if the court agrees. The Government propose amending the ground to give landlords 24, rather than 12, months to initiate proceedings.
There are two issues here. The first is whether ground 7, even in its current form, is reasonable, and we are not convinced that it is any more. Why should a private tenant who is complying fully with all the terms and conditions in the tenancy agreement be put at risk of eviction purely because of the death of someone they live with? As the UK Commission on Bereavement has detailed, in the aftermath of a bereavement, renters face not only a significant and immediate loss of income in many cases, but additional costs; they have to prepare funerals and memorials for loved ones, and so on.
In those uniquely distressing circumstances, the threat of eviction should not hang over a tenant for up to a year, as it presently does. Nor should landlords, in our view, be able to use this ground for reasons that the Bill seeks to prohibit—for example, to avoid letting their property to a bereaved family who might find themselves reliant on universal credit, tax credits or housing benefit as a result of the family member’s death. The UK Commission on Bereavement found evidence of that in the sector. The situation is different when it comes to social rented housing, given that stock is much reduced and there is tight rationing; that might require a council or housing association to regain possession of an under-occupied property, but we do not think the same circumstances apply to the private rented sector. Amendment 151 would limit the use of ground 7 to social rented housing, thereby abolishing its use in the private rented sector.
The second issue relates to the change to ground 7 that the Government propose. Assuming that the Minister resists our amendment 151, as I fully expect him to, we still hope that the Government will reconsider extending the period in which a landlord can initiate proceedings on this ground from 12 to 24 months. We recognise that it can often take some time to investigate, and to find evidence confirming whether a person left behind in a property after a tenant’s death is a successor or inherits the tenancy. As a point of principle, however, we do not believe that private tenants who lived with someone who died should face the risk of eviction with just two months’ notice for up to two years after their loss. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that seeking to double the period in which a bereaved tenant has to live with such a risk hanging over their head strikes us as a particularly callous decision. If the Government are adamant that ground 7 needs to remain in force, they should at least retain the existing 12-month timescale for applying for possession on that ground. Amendment 152 would achieve that, and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support amendment 152, and particularly its spirit. I could not agree more that if a tenant is in good standing, paying their rent and not breaching any other clauses of the contract, why should they be kicked out because the named person on the tenancy has died? There are also implications for HMOs if a joint tenant dies, or where the tenancy has been passed on via will or intestacy. Where it is passed on, that will almost always be to children or partners. Very often, a lease will be in the name of only one of the family members—maybe the breadwinning family member, who will have gone through all the financial checks.
A landlord will almost invariably know that they are renting out to a group of people, but for legal and financial reasons, one name will be on that tenancy. It does not seem right that those other people would, over such a long period, possibly face eviction. My preference is for the period to last two or three months after the landlord finds out about the death, but 12 months seems a reasonable compromise that us sceptics could live with, because that is the law at the moment. I have not heard any reasons—I look forward to hearing some from the Minister—why the period needs to be extended, or why the Government think hanging the sword of Damocles over a grieving family is positive. This is bearing in mind that any other grounds can be used if the tenants are not in good standing or not behaving well.
In the social sector, there will be a duty to house a family, maybe in alternative accommodation, if they have a housing need. That duty does not exist in the private sector, so the danger is that all we are doing is putting the burden on local authorities. That family will go very quickly to the local authority, and they will be accommodated in emergency or temporary accommodation. Putting that additional burden on the local authority does not seem reasonable. It is also difficult for the authority, because effectively there is now a two-year period of potential eviction and homelessness for that family. That does not seem a good situation for either the local authority or the family. Can the Minister give some rationale for the proposal? I am particularly interested in why he thinks the period should exist at all.
Jacob Young
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling amendments 151 and 152, which seek to restrict the use of ground 7. I also thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, for his comments. Ground 7 permits a landlord to evict when a tenancy has passed on by will or intestacy, following the death of an assured tenant. Landlords will not usually be able to evict bereaved spouses or partners from their only home on that ground. Eligible bereaved spouses or partners are, by law, entitled to succeed the tenancy, as long as the named tenant did not themselves succeed. When succession occurs, the ground cannot be used.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My understanding is that the Minister is referring to a legal partner or spouse, unless he can reassure me that he is not. Many people might not be legally married or be in a civil partnership. That puts them at risk, does it not?
Jacob Young
I understand the hon. Member’s concerns. I will write to him to clarify that point.
Amendment 152, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, would reduce the time in which landlords can initiate proceedings back down to 12 months. We have been told by a number of social housing providers that it can often take longer to establish whether succession has occurred. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, mentioned that as well. That can hinder providers’ ability to regain possession from someone who is not entitled to social housing, and therefore prevent the property from being occupied by someone who is.
It is right that private tenants cannot name anyone they want to succeed their tenancy, as that would leave the landlord with no control over who lives in their property. Therefore, it is vital that ground 7 remains available to both private and social landlords. The ground will not be used frequently, and provides the right balances in those instances when it is used. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I take on board what the Minister says about the rationale for the 24-month period for social rented landlords. The situation he mentioned would not arise if he accepted amendment 151 and confined the use of the ground to the social rented sector. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument for why ground 7 should continue to be used in this way. I do not think it would bind the landlord unnecessarily if we said that someone who lives with a person whose name is on the tenancy, but is not their legal partner—the Minister did not refute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown—should not be at risk of eviction simply because the person on the tenancy died. I worry about the implications of the threat of eviction hanging over their head for 24 months. However, as we may return to the issue at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 180, in schedule 1, page 74, line 20, leave out “After Ground 8” and insert “Before Ground 9”.
This amendment would move new Ground 8A from the list of mandatory grounds for possession (in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988) to the list of discretionary grounds for possession (in Part II of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 153, in schedule 1, page 74, line 20, leave out paragraph 22.
This amendment would remove the new ground for possession for repeated rent arrears.
Amendment 154, in schedule 1, page 74, line 22, leave out “three” and insert “one”.
This amendment would limit the period to demonstrate repeated serious rent arrears to one year.
Amendment 155 in schedule 1, page 74, line 25, leave out “a day” and insert “two weeks”.
This amendment would extend the period during which at least two months’ rent was unpaid from a day to two weeks.
Amendment 156 in schedule 1, page 74, line 28, leave out “a day” and insert “two weeks”.
This amendment would extend the period during which at least two months’ rent was unpaid from a day to two weeks.
Matthew Pennycook
The amendments, which stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, concern the proposed new mandatory ground 8A that is inserted into the 1988 Act by paragraph 22 of schedule 1. For the purposes of debating this new mandatory possession ground, it is important that the Committee understands precisely what is proposed. The new ground would require a court to award possession if, over a period of three years, a tenant fails to pay at least two months of rent for a day or more on three separate occasions or, in instances where rent is required by the tenancy agreement in instalments of less than a month, at least eight weeks’ rent goes unpaid for a day or more, again, on at least three separate occasions.
There is an existing ground 8 that covers serious rent arrears. That existing ground requires the court to award possession where a tenant is at least two months in arrears at the time that a notice is served and at the point of the court hearing, with an exemption provided for benefit entitlements that have not been paid. That exemption is expanded to explicitly cover universal credit payments by paragraph 21 of schedule 1.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I am interested in the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, although I am slightly confused by some elements of it. Given the fact that he suggested that the likelihood of its occurrence were vanishingly small, why does he think that any landlord would lobby the Government to include something that, based on the statistics he has quoted, they have never had experience of? I can only say that in my experience, anecdotally—I do not have anything that I can reference for it—a number of people have adopted this approach previously, and it is frustrating for both the courts and landlords. However, I follow the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making; it is very interesting.
Matthew Pennycook
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has decided to contribute, because he has a huge amount of experience in this area. I hope that I was as clear as possible when making the case that ground 8A can be gamed; that there are already mechanisms to deal with it under existing ground 8; and that the numbers are likely to be incredibly small. I suggest that the reason the Government included it is that tenants will collectively feel the force of the new mandatory grounds for possession, and many of them will leave their tenancy under threat of it being served, rather than it being practically served. It is a deterrent to challenging and asserting one’s rights, and, as I will explain, we do not think it is necessary. We are extremely concerned about how the ground might operate and the fact that it could lead to a great many vulnerable tenants being evicted. It is a punitive and draconian measure that will cause great hardship. It is not necessary—this is the important point, in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question—to tackle genuine instances of persistent arrears or the occasional instance when a problem tenant seeks to deliberately avoid ground 8A action.
These are not tenants who might simply refuse to pay their rent. By implication, those tenants will still be dealt with under the serious rent arrears ground 8. To be evicted under ground 8A, a tenant will need to have fallen into arrears and then worked them off twice in a period of three years. Many will have paid the two periods of arrears off in full, and between them could have been fully up to date with their rent. The new ground will cover many tenants who, for whatever reason, are waiting to receive a lump sum in order to clear their arrears—people who are self-employed or struggling with late payments and those in similar circumstances. To be clear, these are people who are trying to do the right thing and doing precisely what we would expect them to do—namely, trying to put the situation right. As Darren Baxter from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation put it in the evidence he provided to the Committee,
“it is punishing people for doing the right thing.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 15, Q13.]
We agree with the chief executive of Citizens Advice, Dame Clare Moriarty, who argued last week that the measure targets a group of people, many of whom “are probably in crisis”. We are talking about people who are almost certainly struggling to keep afloat, people in insecure employment, or people whose lives and finances may have suffered multiple adverse shocks.
There is also a real concern that the measure will encompass particularly vulnerable groups of tenants. For example, the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance-led National Housing and Domestic Abuse Policy and Practice Group—that is a mouthful, Mr Gray—has suggested that the new ground presents a significant risk to victims of domestic abuse, who are more likely to accumulate rent arrears due to economic abuse and the economic impact of feeling domestic abuse.
The common denominator will be that the tenants are likely to be doing everything they possibly can to retain their tenancy and their home. As Dame Clare Moriarty rightly put it last week:
“These are people who are either suffering multiple adverse life events or possibly trying to avoid losing the roof over their head by borrowing in insecure ways, but they need help and advice, not to be evicted.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 15, Q13.]
The idea that we are instead talking about a bunch of people familiar enough with ground 8A of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 to sit down and work out how they can game it is frankly insulting. So troubled are we by the proposed new mandatory ground 8A that, unlike with any of the other new possession grounds that the Bill seeks to introduce, we believe it should be removed from the legislation altogether. By leaving out paragraph 22, amendment 153 would achieve that, and we intend to press it to a vote.
If, as we fully expect, the Government resist the removal of new mandatory ground 8A from the Bill, we will press the Government to consider at least making it a discretionary rather than a mandatory ground. Then at least the court would have to consider whether the tenant had inadvertently fallen into arrears three times over the specified period and whether they could reasonably be expected to make up the arrears and pay their rent on time and in full going forward—an outcome that would obviously be advantageous for the landlord, who would not lose income during the void period. If the court believed that the tenant could not do so or was likely to fail to pay their rent again in the future, they could still make an outright possession order under a discretionary ground. As Liz Davies KC argued in her evidence last week, a discretionary 8A ground would not be
“a ‘get out of jail free’ card for the tenant, by any means.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 106, Q135.]
Amendment 180 would have the effect of moving ground 8A from part 1 of schedule 2 to the 1988 Act to part 2, thus rendering it discretionary. We urge the Minister to give that serious consideration. The county courts, as we have heard, are extremely good at looking at rent arrears histories and judging whether an outright possession order is warranted.
Lastly, if the Government will not countenance removing new ground 8A entirely or making it discretionary rather than mandatory, we urge the Minister to at least tighten it in ways that will make it far less punitive. Amendments 154 to 156 seek to achieve that by reducing the period in which repeated serious rent arrears must take place from the proposed three years to one, and by extending the period during which at least two months of rent arrears were unpaid from a single day to two weeks. Those three amendments, if accepted, would at least ensure that ground 8A is utilised only in instances where a tenant is almost continuously falling into arrears for extended periods of time. As I have said, we feel very strongly about this group of amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to each.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I rise to support the amendments. I think this clause is particularly pernicious. I do not know whether other Members do this, but I have a tendency in the evening, when my staff have all gone home, to sit at the telephone lines, see who rings in and pick up the calls. I probably should not do that, but I like to get a feeling for who is ringing. They are usually the people who are in crisis. I do not do it every evening, so if constituents try and ring, they will not always get me, but on a Friday afternoon or evening, I will pick up the phone. Invariably, one of those people will be in crisis.
It will be the tradesperson who has again not been paid for the job that he has been working on for the past month, or perhaps the payment has been delayed—we know that there are huge problems with people paying small businesses. Or it will be the person who has been trying to scrimp and save, and has not yet gone to universal credit or any of the support agencies, despite probably being eligible, out of pride or a belief that they could get out of it. They have borrowed money from friends and family, and over a period of time repeatedly dipped down, but they always managed to get themselves back up, usually on their own terms, but this time it has just been a bit too much.
The problem is that, by the time that those people have rung my office, it is too late, because they will have dipped up and down a number of times over the past year—or three years, potentially—and the reason for their holding off getting help is because, every time before, they have managed to build back up. However, now, for the third time, we will move to a non-discretionary, mandatory ground. They will phone up their local citizen’s advice bureau or their MP’s office, or go round to the council, but we will be able to say only one thing: “I’m sorry, there’s nothing we can do because it’s a mandatory ground.”
I think that that is particularly pernicious and nasty, because these are people who we know are good for it in the long term. They will often be people who can raise the money eventually but have cash-flow problems, perhaps through no fault of their own. As I said, a lot of tradespeople will suffer some of these problems. They are having to pay out money for supplies to continue their work; the money does not come in in some months, and two months’ arrears can quite easily build up.
That feeling—that they might have to spend the rent to be able to buy the materials to build the building that they can get the money for—is a choice that they have to make all the time. While that is of course not encouraged, it surely is better that we encourage them to make good in the end and build themselves up, so that that does not happen repeatedly, rather than push them out. Of course, an eviction makes them more likely to spiral into further difficulties, which is why making this a mandatory measure is so unpleasant. The reality is that a payment plan, in many situations—or a deferred order in most situations—would suffice, and the courts can implement that at the moment.
The idea that we need this as a mandatory ground is also dangerous, as we have heard, because, what would my advice or an advice centre’s advice be, on that third occasion? “Well, you’re going to get the eviction notice anyway. Prioritise the other debts that you need to pay off, or making sure that your family have food on the table, rather than considering the rent a priority.” That is not good for the landlord either. Having to reclaim money through the courts from those groups of people in a speedy manner is nigh on impossible, and eviction is not what most landlords want. They want a payment and to be able to ensure that that support is there.
It would be much better either to not have this clause or to have a discretionary ground that requires engagement with debt advice and advisers. There is also much that can be done through court processes, as we saw during covid. As I have mentioned, for section 21s and other forms of evictions, the landlord—when permitted—had to demonstrate that they had taken covid into account and had sought to advise the tenant of the support offered under the covid regime. Aspects like that need to be incorporated here. Again, it does not always need to be on the face of the Bill, but there need to be reassurances that it is incorporated in a binding way, to be able to process these elements. The Minister needs to relent on this.
Ms Buck
Once again, the Government are falling into the trap of creating a system that will create problems for itself, because they refuse to accept the sheer complexity of real people’s lives. Making these grounds mandatory will prevent the courts from doing what they are so good at, which is considering the circumstances that prevail in individual cases. Not only will that inevitably lead to many families and individuals who are struggling with difficult circumstances losing their homes, but it will have a direct impact on local authorities, because this is yet another driver of homelessness and other pressures on local councils. This does not do away with the problem; it moves the problem somewhere else.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it causes another problem for those families, because hard-pressed councils might find them intentionally homeless? Generally, if someone is evicted for rent arrears, they are found intentionally homeless. Although reference has to be made to particular circumstances, I imagine that a court order with that result would lead to no landlord taking them on and to the council not helping them. There are then families floating around the system, with social services ultimately taking children into care.
Ms Buck
I agree with my hon. Friend about all this. In fact, tragically, my office is dealing at the moment with a family where the children have been taken into care as a consequence. These things can indeed happen; we have touched on that occasionally in the passage of this Bill, but I just wish that the Government had not rather short-sightedly removed things like debt advice from the scope of legal aid provision. If we had been able to intervene in many of these cases, we could have prevented these problems from ending up as a crisis. The solution to that is outside this Bill.
I concede that there are undoubtedly some people who persistently fail to pay their rent. That is absolutely the case, and it drives landlords mad—rightly so. I think the rumours of it create a much larger problem than actually exists, but there are people who do it, and it is essential that there are powers for the court to deal with that. The people who are doing that will frequently disappear before the case ever gets to court anyway, and will try their luck not paying their rent with another landlord. We need powers to deal with that, but so many of the people who end up in this situation do so because of a set of very, very difficult circumstances that have thrown them into chaos.
Here are just some of the cases that my office and I have dealt with over the course of a few months. There is the small shopkeeper and private tenant who was burgled; he lost his stock and his income, and it took him a while to sort out the insurance claim, during which time he got into very serious arrears. There is the young father on a zero-hours contract who found himself, several times during the year, expecting to have an income but finding that he was not called into work for two or three weeks at a time. Each time, it caused a set of problems.
The Minister may say that that is what social security and housing benefit are supposed to be for. I do not know whether the Minister has ever tried to claim universal credit or housing benefit on a variable income, with all the documentation that has to be prepared. It is an absolute living hell.
One of the safeguards in the Bill is supposed to be that the ground will not affect people who have a benefit entitlement that has been delayed, which, as we know, reflects a structural problem with universal credit. However, many of the difficult cases involve the entitlement to benefit being disputed in the first place, and that is a whole different ball game.
I had a case not that long ago in which a mother and her three children were days away from an eviction, not because they were deemed not to be entitled to benefit, but simply because after a relationship breakdown the benefit claim had for some reason not been transferred, despite repeated efforts. Over three years, that led to huge arrears. Each time, it was settled, but then the same structural problem occurred yet again, which left the family vulnerable. We were able to sort it out, but the case would not have fallen under the safeguards that the Minister will no doubt claim apply in this case.
Siobhain McDonagh
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the groups of people for whom it is most difficult to get housing benefit or universal credit correct is self-employed minicab drivers, because of the difficulties in assessing the costs involved in being self-employed? They regularly get a decision on their benefit claim only to have it change and have money taken back, while they remain on exactly the same income.
Ms Buck
I absolutely agree. It is an issue for the self-employed; the very small businesses operating at the margin; the people who, because of the structure of our labour market, dip in and out of employment and have highly variable earnings; and the people who are on zero-hour contracts. It is exactly those people who end up in difficulties. It would be lovely if the system had the competency and level of provision to help those people, but all too often it does not. Many young people and vulnerable people—for instance, after a relationship breakdown or a bereavement—do not know where to go for advice. They try to help themselves and fail to do so.
Ground 8A is both disproportionate to the scale of the problem and unnecessary, because there are powers in the system to deal with rent arrears anyway. It will inevitably lead to further evictions, which will be concentrated among those people who have the biggest problems, who will end up making claims for homelessness support from local authorities.
The Minister does not need to go down this route. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, if the Government do not want to go all the way to removing the reformed ground 8A, which would be the simplest way, there are layers of protection that could be built into the system. The Minister should trust the courts: that is what they are for. They are good at this, they are experienced at this, and they know how to tell a charlatan from somebody with genuine and complex problems. The measure will place an unnecessary burden on the most vulnerable people, and I genuinely believe that the Minister will have cause to regret its implementation.
Jacob Young
I think we can all agree that it is better for a tenancy to continue where possible, and we encourage landlords and tenants to work together when rent arrears arise. However, sometimes a tenancy cannot be sustained, and in such instances it is right that landlords have certainty. Ground 8A is intended to support landlords when a tenant is repeatedly falling into serious arrears. It will also prevent tenants from repeatedly paying down a small amount of arrears to frustrate possession proceedings brought on ground 8.
Jacob Young
I shall endeavour to write to the hon. Lady with such evidence, if there is any.
The Government have set a high bar for the ground. Tenants must fall into serious arrears three times within a rolling period of three years, which is already a significant financial burden for landlords to bear, particularly at a time of rising costs in the sector. Amendments 153 to 156 and 180 seek to narrow the ground. They propose that each instance of arrears must last two weeks, rather than one day, and must fall within a one-year period. That is simply too high a financial cost to ask landlords to bear. It would severely limit the availability of the ground.
The ground must also remain mandatory. As the Committee has heard, there is already a discretionary ground, ground 11, for persistent delays in rent payments, but that does not offer certainty to landlords. Ground 8A is intended to give certainty to all parties: a defined threshold that can lead to eviction. We therefore think that the ground strikes the right balance. I ask that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich withdraw the amendment.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mr Mohindra.)