Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104 in my name in this group and, in doing so, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation. First, I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage for the excellent meeting we had, together with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and renter groups Safer Renting, ACORN and the Renters’ Reform Coalition. I also thank my noble friend for the subsequent letter she sent, responding to the points raised at the meeting and for the additional conversations that I understand have taken place between Safer Renting and her officials.
Amendment 104 seeks to change the standard of proof required for rent repayment orders, based on offences under the Protection from Eviction Act. Currently, tenants must prove their case to a criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, even though these are civil proceedings in a civil tribunal. This change would make rent repayment orders a realistic option for renters who are victims of illegal eviction and harassment—serious offences that cause immense harm. As we know, most illegal evictions and harassment occur behind closed doors, without witnesses, and I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage recognises that these offences are harder to prove than other rent repayment order offences. The available evidence rarely meets the criminal standard, but may clearly satisfy the civil standard of balance of probabilities.
Civil claims for illegal eviction and harassment already use the civil standard and can carry far higher penalties. The definition of the civil wrongs of illegal eviction and harassment in the Housing Act 1988 uses the same definition as in the Protection from Eviction Act. For all intents and purposes, there is no distinction between the conduct targeted by both laws. Aligning the standard in rent repayment cases would bring consistency, fairness and a real access to redress.
The problem is clear. Research shows that at least 16,000 illegal evictions occurred in 2021-22, yet there were only 31 successful rent repayment orders made for those offences. This shows that the current system deters valid claims and does not provide a realistic route to redress for renters. It is vital that tenants can enforce their rights against criminal landlords. Yes, it is a small minority of landlords, but they are criminal landlords whose impact on renters’ lives, health and well-being is immense. As we heard in Committee, because the rent repayment mechanism is ineffective, these criminals gamble on breaking the law, knowing how hard it is for tenants to prove their case. Amendment 104 would make justice more attainable for renters and allow them to take a leading role in holding landlords to account.
I note from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s letter on this issue—copied to me and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell—that the Government are minded not to change their view on the standard of proof at this point. Of course, this is disappointing. However, I very much appreciate my noble friend’s acknowledgement that rent repayment orders are not currently working as well as they should for illegal eviction and harassment offences. As well as my noble friend’s commitment to monitor the impact of changes to rent repayment orders, this is very welcome. Collecting the right data will be required to assess whether rent repayment orders are working as intended in cases of illegal eviction and harassment after this Bill becomes law.
Moreover, I very much welcome my noble friend’s commitment to continue to work with noble Lords and stakeholders to assess whether rent repayment orders are working for illegal eviction and harassment offences, with a view for potential changes down the line. I ask my noble friend: can we now start gathering the evidence needed to assess the scale and impact of the problem? In addition to the report as set out by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Best—I very much support Amendment 113—will my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage consider publishing PRS enforcement data, provided by local authorities, to include a record of the number of reports of suspected illegal eviction or harassment received by the authority, so we can get a better understanding of the scale of the problem? Will she consider mandating local authorities to provide the department with PRS enforcement data, instead of data reporting being voluntary, so again we can get a more complete dataset? Will she work with the Ministry of Justice to collect and publish regular data on rent repayment orders to facilitate monitoring of the system in respect of the volume and success of applications alleging illegal eviction and harassment?
Finally, as well as the issues renters face accessing redress through rent repayment orders, since 2012 there has been an 80% reduction in legal aid applications for bringing cases of illegal eviction and harassment in the civil courts. Therefore, if at all possible, could my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage assist me, Safer Renting and other noble Lords in getting a meeting with a Minister or an official at the MoJ to discuss the availability of legal aid for civil cases involving illegal eviction and harassment?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I have also enjoyed my encounters with the Minister, with her, to discuss these issues. I rise to speak to Amendment 110 in my name. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Best, who have added their names. Between them, they bring unsurpassed knowledge of both policing and housing matters, which are both very relevant to this amendment. I am also grateful to the organisations Safer Renting and ACORN for their assistance in highlighting the need for this amendment, and of course to the Bill Office for its clear and effective drafting.
This amendment is distinct from others in this group, as it does not deal with standards of proof. Rather, as I outlined at Second Reading and in Committee, it addresses the difficulties faced by those at the bottom end of the rental market and most at risk from abusive landlords. It is these people, the economically and socially vulnerable, who are the most likely to face illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are often also the least equipped to resist such behaviours.
A core problem that emerged in discussions with tenant organisations at the sharp end is insufficient clarity of understanding about what the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 requires of the police. There is a widespread and incorrect belief among police officers that illegal evictions are civil matters. This has resulted in a tiny number of prosecutions for illegal evictions. Indeed, statistics show that the police have not acted in 91% of cases.
I do not want to stretch the House’s patience with detailed case studies, but three quick examples will give colour to the types of incidents we are concerned about. A tenant returned to their flat to find that the landlord had changed the locks. When the police were contacted, they threatened to arrest the tenant for obstruction of the landlord and assisted in the removal of the tenant’s belongings. In other cases, landlords used tactics such as intimidation and turning off the water supply, as well as threatening and actually using force. When tenants called the police, they were told that it was a civil matter and to call back when an actual crime was being committed. In other cases, tenants went to the police station, but were turned away repeatedly on the basis that such evictions are a civil matter.
In Committee, I put down an amendment to clear up this misunderstanding of the law and improve co-ordination between the police and local authorities. It did not gain government support, which I find very disappointing, not least given the Bill’s avowed focus on those most in need of help. The Government’s response did address the co-ordination point, citing extra work for the authorities and police, and the instance of Liverpool, where the Minister has personal experience of such co-ordination working well.
Tenant bodies involved in the issues reflected in my amendment met with the Minister, and afterwards I received a copy of a letter from the Minister to them. I am, of course, very grateful for the Minister’s considerable engagement, but that letter does not address the role of the police in preventing or stopping illegal evictions before or as they happen. Where it does refer to the substance of today’s amendment, it says that the abolition of Section 21 will
“strengthen the tenants’ ability to argue that they were unlawfully forced out of their homes”.
With the greatest respect, that is very wide of the issue. It is a point for legal argument that may come up if the evicted tenant ever manages, or indeed dares, or can afford, to bring a legal claim against the landlord who put them out on the street. I remind noble Lords that we are dealing here with landlords who care little for the niceties of the law—people whom the Minister’s letter refers to as a
“small minority of unscrupulous landlords”.
But we have repeatedly been told that the purpose of the Bill is exactly to tackle these unscrupulous landlords.
This amendment has dropped reference to local authorities and focuses fully on the core legal issue. It requires a report to establish the level of understanding among tenants, landlords and the police of the criminal nature of illegal evictions and clarification of the correct legal situation, and the incorporation of that legal position and how it should be dealt with in the training of the police.
This is a modest amendment, but it is critical for those facing or experiencing illegal evictions or who feel powerless in the face of the violent actions of their landlords and find that the police seem to be against them when they should be protecting them. Not least, it is critical for police officers themselves, who are trying to follow and apply the law and do the right thing.
In Committee, I asked the Government to bring forward their own amendment to address this issue. They have chosen not to do so, instead writing to say that they are
“working towards updating the department’s guidance”.
That is simply not sufficient when we have one of the few opportunities in the Bill to address a real and terrible day-to-day experience of vulnerable renters. On this modest amendment, I believe we should stand firm. Its requirements are clear, deliverable and highly impactful on those most in need of our help through the Bill. I will, of course, listen to what the Minister says in response, but I anticipate seeking the view of the House on this amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Restriction on landlord’s ability to require tenant to provide guarantor(1) A relevant person must not, in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3), require a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor in relation to the observance or performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.(2) For the purposes of this section, requiring a person to provide a guarantor includes accepting an offer by that person to provide a guarantor.(3) The circumstances are—(a) that the person has paid a tenancy deposit or has been assisted under a deposit scheme,(b) that the person is required to pay rent in advance of one month’s rent or more,(c) that on a reasonable assessment of their means the person’s income (including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income) is sufficient to enable them to pay the full rent due under the tenancy,(d) that arrangements will be made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly in respect of rent to a relevant person,(e) that the relevant person has entered into a contract of insurance under which they are insured against non-payment of rent, or(f) such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.(4) In any other case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum for which the guarantor may become liable under the relevant guarantee may not exceed a sum equal to six months’ rent.(5) In any case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant joint tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum claimed under the guarantee may not exceed such proportion of the loss as is attributable to the act or default of the individual tenant on whose behalf the guarantee was given; and if such proportion cannot be proved, may not exceed the sum obtained by dividing the total loss by the number of tenants.(6) In this section—“guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee in relation to a relevant tenancy; a “guarantee” is a contractual promise to be responsible for the performance of an obligation owed by the tenant to a relevant person under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform the obligation;“deposit scheme” includes a scheme whereby a sum payable by way of deposit or a bond or guarantee is provided by a local authority, registered charity or voluntary organisation for the purpose of providing security to a landlord for the performance of a tenant’s obligations under a tenancy;“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004;“relevant person” has the meaning given by section 16M(1) of the 1988 Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation. Amendment 61 seeks to address a growing and deeply concerning issue in the private rented sector: the overuse, and often misuse, of guarantor requests. This amendment was expertly moved by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett in Committee, and I thank her for her support today along with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—all of whom have given continued support to addressing the issue of the overuse of guarantors.
I am sure that noble Lords across the House will accept that landlords should retain ways to manage financial risk. However, the increasing use of guarantor requests is creating a new form of exclusion, particularly for vulnerable renters. This is what Amendment 61 is about: it is not about banning guarantors altogether but restoring proportionality and fairness in their use.
Guarantors have become a significant barrier to housing for many. Recent data from Generation Rent shows that almost 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 were asked to provide a guarantor. A further survey by Shelter and YouGov showed that over 100,000 private renters per year are blocked from renting a home in the private rented sector due to a guarantor request they cannot fulfil.
Meanwhile, only 2.9% of landlords attempted to claim unpaid rent from a guarantor in the last two years, despite an estimated 1.85 million tenants being asked to provide one. Guarantors are therefore becoming commonplace, yet they are rarely needed in practice and often never pursued when payment issues arise. Noble Lords may be asking why. A YouGov survey by Shelter asked the same question. When questioned, 25% of private rental landlords said that they asked for a guarantor because “My letting agent advised me to”. Another 16% said, “I thought it was standard practice”, while 12% said, “I’d heard from other landlords it was a good idea”. Simply put, guarantors are over-requested, largely unused and, worst of all, increasingly serve as a proxy for discrimination.
When a tenant can show that they can afford the rent through a standard affordability assessment, the additional requirement of a guarantor becomes both unnecessary and unfair. It many cases, it adds to an already substantial financial burden, alongside the five-week deposit and the first month’s rent in advance. The evidence shows that this practice disproportionately affects people on lower incomes, those without access to financial support networks and groups already at greater risk of housing discrimination: women, single parents, renters with disabilities and black and Bangladeshi households are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor. A renter with a disability is 20 % more likely to face such a request, and a black renter is 66% more likely. These figures cannot be anomalies; they are a pattern. In Committee, we heard from my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett about older renters securing their pensions, being asked intrusive questions and then being required to provide a guarantor. From the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, we heard of a self-employed single mother being asked for a guarantor even though she was earning £45,000 a year—well above the UK median income. Too many renters simply do not have someone in their network who can act as a guarantor. Unless this issue is addressed, we risk entrenching a two-tier system in the rental market: one for those with access to wealth and another for those without.
The justification for these requirements often rests on an overstated fear of rent arrears, yet government figures show that only 2% of private renters were in arrears in 2023-24, and the English Housing Survey puts it at 5%. Of course, that is not negligible, but it does not warrant such widespread and disproportionate use of guarantors. There is an eviction ground for rent arrears, which is the primary backstop for when tenants fail to pay their rent.
Moreover, Amendment 61 aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own guidance that guarantors should be requested only when a tenant cannot fully demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This amendment strikes a balance, allowing landlords to use guarantors when genuinely necessary, while protecting tenants from unjust exclusion. It is supported by a wide range of voices: Shelter, Independent Age, UNISON, Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Mayor of London and others. It is also worth noting that this amendment not only calls for legislative clarity but invites the Government to go a little further by introducing national guidance on fair and proportionate tenant referencing. Such a move would help standardise best practice and prevent local variation from undermining equality in the rental market.
In summary, this amendment is proportionate and reasonable and would not remove a landlord’s right to safeguard their interest, but it would ensure the right is exercised in a way that is just, consistent and in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage is minded to accept this amendment, but if that is not the case, I ask my noble friend four final critical questions. With guarantor requests increasingly becoming standard process, rather than when they are needed, will the Government issue guidance to landlords on when to request a guarantor? Will the Government look at what support they can provide for people who are at risk of homelessness because they cannot find a guarantor? Will the issue of guarantors be examined in detail as part of the post-Bill implementation work? Will my noble friend commit to working on these issues with Shelter, the Renters’ Reform Coalition, noble Lords in this House and many others on these issues, to find other ways to support the growing number of renters being locked out of the PRS because of the overuse of guarantors?
Without this amendment or government action to address the issue of guarantors, the Bill’s measures to tackle discrimination risk being undermined by the very practices it seeks to reform. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly against Amendment 61. It is well-meaning, but I am afraid it is a blunt instrument full of unintended consequences. I do not deny that to require a guarantor for most tenancies is disproportionate and unnecessary, and the Bill makes welcome provisions to regularise what has become standard practice for the most part. However, I want to alert your Lordships’ House to some perverse consequences for three particular types of potential tenant who are among the quietest voices: the foreign student; the groups of students; and those with impaired reputation or difficult personal circumstances. Guarantees make the unrentable into rentable, in some cases. It makes opportunities exist when refusal would otherwise be the only other choice.
Let us dwell for a moment on the case of the foreign student. The foreign students come from far away; they have no reputation, there is no covenant strength and they may not even have arrived in the United Kingdom. They certainly do not have a UK bank account at this point and they probably do not have a UK mobile phone either. In many cases, the only way in which they can secure a property to live in before they arrive is to have the support of a guarantor; a guarantor allows them to have a roof over their head.
Then we have the groups of students. I refer to the case of my daughter, when she went off to Newcastle. There were seven students who were friends, although none of them really knew each other that well; they certainly were not related to each other, and there were no family bonds to tie them, whereas the Bill contemplates that the tenant is a single tenant. It is quite reasonable for a landlord renting to students, if they cannot have payment in advance—I will not talk about that because we discussed that on day one of Committee—to require some sort of guarantor so that the downside risks can be compensated. Not all students want to live in expensive halls of residence; they are disadvantaged at an early part of their lives.
Let us think also about those with an impaired reputation—people who may have left prison or are suffering from domestic abuse or family breakdown. I have been a guarantor for hundreds of families in these sorts of situations, but the Government seek to make my well-meaning interventions unlawful. Let me explain. Sitting in your Lordships’ House, I see the Minister and my noble friend Lord Jamieson who, like me, have been leaders of councils. We know that councils, in certain circumstances, have to step in to avoid homelessness. We know there are not enough registered social landlords and that the private sector landlords are our friends—they are part of the solution, not the problem. However, we cannot expect the private sector landlord to be the only one who takes a chance to get that person, who may have become homeless, a roof over their head.
In common with many other councils, my council—and I am proud that we pushed this hard—went for guarantees. We stood as guarantor for somebody in difficult circumstances so that the private sector landlord, who was prepared to take a chance with us, could provide a home. This is an essential part of managing a housing market. It is all about supporting the most vulnerable. It works; it is a success. If you have been a council leader—I am sorry that I failed to identify the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who has also been a council leader in these circumstances—this is about helping families get back on their feet.
In considering Amendment 61, I ask noble Lords: in what universe can this misdirected, misguided and counterproductive amendment help those with the quietest voices get a roof over their heads? Providing a guarantor is the way in which the unrentable can rent, and there is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfasts if they could, via a guarantor, be housed. I cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has spoken on this group. I reassure my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, that the intention behind this amendment is clear: it is not about banning guarantors. On this side of the House—and, I am sure, on all sides of the House—we appreciate that landlords need to manage their financial risk. They have a number of ways to do this. The amendment would not ban guarantors; it simply seeks a way to end discrimination and ensure that guarantors are not overused and commonplace, and that they are used when they are genuinely needed. It is about restoring proportionality and fairness to the use of guarantors.
I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage for her reply, and her engagement and understanding on this issue, and for continually meeting me and other stakeholders. Of course, we are disappointed that the Government will not accept the amendment, and I am particularly disappointed about the guidance not being issued. However, I appreciate the issues around the guidance, about discrimination and the discriminatory nature of the overuse of guarantors, and her commitment that guarantors will be included in the evaluation of the impact of the Bill. Of course, I am always very happy that she will meet me and other stakeholders.
I am firmly of the belief, as I am sure other noble Lords are, including my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that the overuse of guarantors seriously undermines the anti-discrimination intentions of the Bill. We welcome the guidance from my noble friend the Minister. Having said that, I will not be pressing it to a vote, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 220 neatly ensures that the Bill is clear about who the PRS database is for. I understand the Government’s need to consider privacy, but in doing so the Government need to remember why the PRS database is needed. It is about increased transparency, empowering renters so that they can make informed decisions about where they live and properly exercise their rights. Yes, support for landlords and, yes, a tool for local authorities to raise standards—these are the intentions of the database and always have been since we started to lobby for this Bill many years ago. Amendment 220 is a simple way for this to be made clear in the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept this amendment. I also ask her to confirm that the Government’s priorities for the private rented sector database remain renter empowerment, support for landlords so that they are aware of their obligations, and providing an effective toolkit for local authorities to drive up standards.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 220 and 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my Amendments 243 and 243A, all of which seek to strengthen and clarify the role of the new private rented sector database.
I also support Amendment 219, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. In so much of this Bill we lack a timeframe. Between us, we have tabled several amendments asking for clarification on timeframes. It is not just us seeking these timings but everyone who is impacted by the Bill.
This is an area of great potential. I confess to getting quite excited about it when I first realised that it was a real tool in the Bill. A well-designed database could be genuinely transformative, supporting better enforcement, empowering tenants and giving responsible landlords the tools that they need to navigate the system more effectively. The noble Lord and I have very similar thoughts on that. However, to achieve that, it must be more than just a repository of basic information, which is where I fear we are going. It must be useful, accessible and enforceable.
Amendment 220 seeks to make it clear that the database is a tool not just for local authorities but for public good. It should serve the interests of tenants, responsible landlords and good letting agents alike. In its current form, the Bill seems to emphasise enforcement utility but underplays the wider potential of the database as a source of transparency and information for all parties in the rental market. If we want this database to help drive up standards and support informed decision-making, we must set out that intention clearly.
Amendment 225 introduces two further practical improvements. First, it allows letting agents to upload information on behalf of landlords, a sensible provision given the role that many agents already play in managing compliance. Secondly, it proposes that the database should offer a portal to help landlords determine whether their properties require licensing under the local authority schemes and to apply for those licences where necessary. Too often, licensing rules can vary from one area to another and be hard to navigate, particularly for smaller landlords. A centralised, user-friendly tool would significantly improve compliance.
My Amendment 243 probes a critical issue: enforcement. The Bill states that landlords must be registered on the database along with each of their dwellings, but it is currently unclear what consequences there are for non-compliance. This amendment proposes that failure to register should be an offence, and we seek clarity from the Government on how these provisions will be enforced in practice. Without credible enforcement mechanisms, even the best-designed database risks being ignored by the very landlords it is intended to regulate.
Finally, Amendment 243A would give the Secretary of State the power to include links to useful resources on the database, such as the “My Housing Issue” gateway. Such signposts may seem minor, but they can make a real difference, especially for tenants who need guidance on their rights or for landlords seeking to meet their obligations. The database should not exist in a vacuum; it should connect users to help, advice and relevant legal frameworks.
These amendments may differ in focus, but they are united by a common aim: to ensure that the private rented sector database lives up to its promise and potential. It must be more than a tick-box exercise; it must be practical, enforceable and truly useful to the people it is meant to serve. I hope the Minister will give these proposals careful consideration, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 228 seeks to enhance transparency and oversight in the private rented sector by requiring the database to include information on tenancy disputes. This would cover a range of issues, including disputes about rent levels. It would also record the outcome of each case and how long it took to reach a resolution.
This is, at its heart, a proposal for greater clarity. It is not intended to be punitive, nor to cast all landlords in a negative light—quite the opposite. It is an opportunity to reward good landlords. Those who respond quickly to issues, resolve disputes fairly and demonstrate a commitment to their tenants should have that record reflected and recognised. Too often, the private sector operates in the shadows, with tenants unsure of their rights and little visibility of how disputes are handled behind closed doors. This amendment would bring to light that process by recording the nature of a dispute, the parties involved, the outcome and the time taken to resolve it. We would therefore create a more informed and accountable system.
For tenants, this information is empowering. It helps them to make better decisions about where and with whom they rent. For landlords, it provides an incentive to act responsibly and promptly, knowing that their actions contribute to a public record. For policymakers and regulators, it offers a valuable source of data to identify patterns, spot areas of concern and improve enforcement.
The inclusion of rent level disputes is especially important for improving transparency. At a time when affordability is a growing concern, making this information available would provide clear insight into how disagreements over rent are handled and resolved. It would help build a more accurate and evidence-based picture of where pressure points exist in the system. It would also help tenants and policymakers understand how rent issues are being addressed in practice.
In short, this amendment would help foster a culture of fairness, responsiveness and trust. These qualities are essential if we are to improve standards across this sector, and I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all the amendments in this group, including Amendment 228 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a Nationwide Foundation trustee—I think I declared this last time I spoke, but I cannot remember, so better twice than never.
I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, will set out in great detail why the list of criteria is needed in the Bill. However, put simply, more detail on what the PRS database will contain needs to be in the Bill, which needs to set out core functions and minimum standards. Leaving the detail to be filled in later by regulation at the whim of a future Secretary of State is not acceptable. It will make the Bill less stable and requirements less easily understood. Landlords need clarity about what the law requires of them and tenants need clarity on what they can expect in terms of their rights.
I hope my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage will bring back on Report an amendment that sets out minimum requirements for the PRS database that can sit in the Bill, to give clarity and direction akin to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 222, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. This Bill is very big and has wide-ranging impacts. Some are certainly planned, and others are possibly unplanned. It is vital that those impacts are evaluated. It is unfortunate that, at this stage, the evaluation plan is slightly unformed, but the impact assessment makes it clear that it is going to rely on some of the data collected in this database. Given that it is going to rely on that data, I think it has to be specified in the Bill.
For example, one of the prime aims of the Bill is to increase security of tenure, thereby reducing evictions and unplanned moves. The current source of that data is from the English Housing Survey, which suffers from the vagaries of any survey at the moment and questions about its validity. More importantly, it also does not have the necessary granularity, given that the local authority level is going to be the level at which this Bill is enforced. So we need the data that is going to be collected in this database in order to be able to tell whether the Bill is at all effective, and what other effects it might have.
That is true also of things such as rental increases, which it is trying to keep a lid on. If we do not have a record of those rental increases, we will not know whether it is effective. So I am concerned to hear tonight that the database may not even be fully in action within the first year of the Act being passed. How will we know what the effects are if the Act has already been in place for over a year before we measure some of these impacts? I would love to hear more from the Minister about what is going to be in the database and when those different aspects of the database are going to be active.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am working overtime tonight. In moving my Amendment 226 I will speak to my Amendment 257 and support a number of important amendments in this group, including those from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, whose contributions I look forward to.
As colleagues will know, rent repayment orders remain one of the few enforcement mechanisms that are available directly to tenants. That is the key. They are not just about recompense; they are about ensuring that landlords meet their legal obligations and that tenants are protected when they do not, and recompense is made. Amendment 226 seeks to ensure that rent repayment orders can be applied where a landlord has failed to register on the private sector database established by the Bill. If we are serious about transparency and raising standards, non-compliance with the system we are creating must carry real consequences. I am starting to feel like a broken record, but noble Lords will get the message. Otherwise, the credibility of the database and the wider enforcement regime is seriously undermined.
Amendment 257 seeks to extend rent repayment orders further to cover cases where landlords have failed to join a redress scheme or maintain active entries on the new database. This amendment relates strongly to amendments in the previous group and on the enforceability of the database. If we want a rental system that is responsive, accountable and fair, we must ensure that tenants have clear recourse when landlords do not engage with these fundamental duties.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for Amendment 244A, which adjusts the standard proof in some cases to the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. This change is both proportionate and pragmatic. We know that gathering evidence can be an enormous burden for tenants. This amendment helps to address that imbalance while preserving important legal safeguards in more serious cases.
I also welcome the suite of government amendments in this group, which bring clarity to how rent repayment amounts are calculated and to which offences fall within scope. These amendments, particularly those aligning the repayment period with a two-year window, provide much-needed consistency and support effective enforcement. The inclusion of new categories of offence and consequential changes to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are helpful and align with the overall intent of the Bill. However, I gently emphasise that, while the government amendments are welcome, they will be significantly strengthened by the additions proposed in my amendments. There is little point in creating systems to register landlords and offer redress if we do not give tribunals the power to act when landlords ignore them. Rent repayment orders are not a silver bullet, but they are an important tool to renters. We should not pass up the opportunity to make them more robust, more comprehensive and more effective in practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because I agreed with every word she said in her excellent opening speech. I will speak to Amendment 244A in my name. This amendment would apply the civil standard of proof for rent repayment orders pursued only on the basis of a Protection from Eviction Act offence. By changing the evidential standard for these rent repayment orders from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “balance of probabilities”, Amendment 244A will provide parity with the normal work of the tribunal and provide encouragement to tenants and those who assist them to claim redress, which was Parliament’s intention by including Protection from Eviction Act offences among the things that rent repayment orders could be claimed for. In short, the current requirement of a criminal standard of proof thwarts that intention.
Rent repayment orders are brought in the first-tier property tribunal, and the first-tier property tribunal is not a criminal court. A rent repayment order is not a criminal prosecution. The first-tier property tribunal does not follow criminal procedural rules or result in a criminal sentence or criminal record if a defendant is convicted. However, the tribunals require a criminal standard of proof. In addition, rent repayment orders are often brought by self-represented applicants seeking to reclaim rent they have paid to their landlord as compensation, and legal aid is not available for rent repayment order claims. For these reasons alone, it is therefore inappropriate that rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences should apply the criminal standard of proof.
Moreover, a civil claim in a civil court for a legal eviction or harassment applies the civil standard. This is despite the fact that civil claims typically attract much higher penalties in the form of civil damages, rather than just the chance to apply for repayment of rent paid. It is therefore logical and consistent to apply the civil standard of proof to Protection from Eviction Act rent repayment orders in line with the rest of the civil law, and this is what Amendment 244A does.
Why does getting rid of this illogical anomaly matter? First, the nature of Protection from Eviction Act offences means they are often impossible to prove to the criminal standard. Often, landlords change the locks on tenants and dispose of their possessions when renters are not at home. Illegal evictions and harassment occur in the privacy of a renter’s home, often without witnesses. The criminal burden places an extra, often insurmountable, burden on lay applicants to prove their case at tribunal. It also has a chilling effect of preventing claims being brought in the first place, as the evidence available for these offences is unlikely to meet the standard. Under the standard, therefore, renters cannot apply for rent repayment orders as they cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, even where it is clear that an offence has occurred that only the landlord would be motivated to commit. This weakens enforcement and access to justice, and undermines the whole purpose of the rent repayment order legislation.
Secondly, the incredibly low number of rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences demonstrates that the system is not working. Safer Renting and the University of York have done research which estimates that over the two-year period from 2021 to 2022, there were at least 16,000 illegal evictions—a figure which is almost certainly an undercount.
Meanwhile, data gathered by the organisation Marks Out Of Tenancy shows that, over the same time period, there were just 31 rent repayment orders on the Protection from Eviction Act ground that were successful. Despite the large number of illegal evictions recorded by individuals and organisations assisting them, people are not applying for rent repayment orders as a source of redress. The higher criminal standard results in tenants and those assisting them considering an application not worth pursuing.
Thirdly and finally, with the forthcoming abolition of Section 21, criminal and unscrupulous landlords, who are the minority of landlords, might take a calculated risk that they can save money by unlawfully evicting or harassing their tenants, as they know how hard it is for tenants to enforce against them in the First-tier Tribunal. Rent repayment orders are realistically the only option for renters to enforce their rights without legal representation. It therefore has never been more important to strengthen the rent repayment order regime for Protection from Eviction Act offences so that renters can enforce their rights and gain access to justice for these life-changing offences.
These offences are some of the most egregious a landlord can commit—illegal eviction, attempted illegal eviction and harassment. The physical, mental and financial impact of these offences on renters and their families cannot be overstated. I look forward to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s reply. I am sure she will want to reflect on the wider debate today. I hope she will agree to meet with me and Safer Renting—experts in this field—to discuss the aim of Amendment 244 before Report to see what can be done.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 170 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I declare my interests as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation.
There is a growing use of guarantors in the PRS. Generation Research last year found that 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 had been asked to provide a guarantor. Requesting a guarantor is clearly being overused and is moving towards becoming standard practice. Moreover, a guarantor in many cases has proved to be unnecessary. Shelter found that only 2.9% of landlords attempted to pursue a guarantor for unpaid rent in the last two years, despite its estimate showing that 1.85 million renters had been asked to provide one. Guarantors are overused, unused and inherently discriminative, and make renting unnecessarily burdensome. Where a renter can prove through an affordability assessment that they can pay their rent, a guarantor should not be asked for.
Amendment 170, or one like it on Report, is a necessary addition to the Bill. Will my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage consider this amendment favourably or bring one very close to it back on Report? Will she also consider developing national guidance for fair and proportionate referencing? Although we may talk about this tomorrow, will she also consider adding information on guarantors to the private rented sector database?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to which I have put my name, along with Amendment 265 from my noble friend Lord Tope. As the two previous speeches have explained, the amendments attempt to ensure that the dangers of discrimination are not unintended consequences of the Bill. As we dismantle one source of insecurity—the abolition of Section 21—we must be vigilant that new discriminatory practices do not simply rise in its place.
Requiring a guarantor is often presented as a simple piece of standard referencing—a lifeline for vulnerable tenants—but in reality it is quite the opposite. It adds a significant and often insurmountable hurdle for many prospective tenants, typically imposed in addition to demanding a deposit, the first month’s rent in advance and passing an affordability assessment. Landlords already possess simple tools to assess a tenant’s ability to pay and to mitigate potential financial risk. Tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes provide those robust safeguards. When tenants can demonstrate they can afford the rent, requiring a guarantor becomes unnecessary and serves only to narrow the pool of renters.
The demand for guarantors is an unnecessary additional hurdle that disproportionately impacts those on low incomes, those from low-income backgrounds, those without family support networks, benefit recipients, women, single-parent households, black and Bangladeshi households in particular and, most shockingly, people with disabilities. A renter with a disability is 20% more likely to be asked for a guarantor, and a black renter 66% more likely. This is not a lifeline for the vulnerable; it is more like drowning. Independent Age tells us that this is a problem for older people, too. An older renter who can perfectly afford the rent, secure in their pension income, has recounted facing questions about their income and being asked for a guarantor.
A self-employed single mother who could pay six months in advance, topped up with universal credit, was asked for a guarantor with an income of £45,000 per annum. That is £15,000 above the UK median income. And there will be people, of course, who do not know someone with that level of income.
Throughout our debates, we have heard much about arrears, sometimes as if the problem is endemic. However, government statistics state that 2% of private rented sector tenants reported being in arrears in 2023-24; even the English Housing Survey put it at around 5%. While that is still too high, it does not reflect certain assumptions that all tenants are inevitably going to be in arrears and therefore need a guarantor.
Amendment 170 seeks to bring sense and proportionality to this practice. It does not ban the use of guarantors; it simply and reasonably restricts their use to circumstances where a prospective tenant cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, so ably put it, over the most recent two-year period, only 3% of landlords have attempted to claim lost rent from a tenant’s guarantor. When landlords have attempted this route, it has proved much harder than the standard insurance products to indemnify against non-payment.
The Government have rightly listened to calls to limit excessive upfront payments. If we tackle one form of financial barrier used to exclude tenants, we must tackle the other to prevent some landlords simply switching tactics—which I think is the greatest fear of noble Lords who support this amendment. Without this amendment, there is a significant risk that limiting rent in advance could inadvertently lead to an even wider reliance on guarantor requests, thus undermining the Bill's anti-discrimination provisions.
This amendment is a sensible, proportionate step that ensures landlords can still use guarantors when genuinely needed, while protecting vulnerable renters from being unfairly shut out of the market. I hope the Government will consider and adopt this amendment or agree to discuss a possible alternative.
Homelessness: Young Adults
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, Monday this week marked three years since the repeal of the Vagrancy Act was given Royal Assent. Yet each night since then, young people forced to sleep on the streets have still faced criminalisation because each day nothing has been done to commence that repeal. That is despite the Government’s position that the Act is antiquated and not fit for purpose, and despite the additional powers the Government say they need before repeal being contained in the Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill still does not have the crucial commencement date required to repeal the Vagrancy Act. Will my noble friend liaise with her ministerial colleagues to ensure that the Government use the Crime and Policing Bill to finally commence the repeal of this pernicious and outdated law?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend knows how strongly I agree with the comments she has just made. The Government view the Vagrancy Act as antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. No one should be criminalised for simply sleeping rough on the streets. We must ensure that we avoid criminalising those who are the most vulnerable, while also ensuring that police and local authorities have the wide range of tools they need to make sure that communities feel safe. We are in the process of making sure that happens. As my noble friend will know, repeal of the Act needs to be included in forthcoming legislation. Colleagues in the Home Office are exploring options to do just that, and I want to make sure it is done as quickly as possible.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Many housing and tenant-focused organisations, such as Generation Rent, and organisations on the Renters’ Reform Coalition support this amendment. Put simply, it seeks to ensure that public funds cannot be used to justify a rent hike.
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that government grants are for a public good. They are funded by the taxpayer with a clear purpose. This amendment refers to grants for making homes warmer, safer, more energy efficient and, in essence, cheaper for the tenants who live in them, many of whom live in fuel poverty. It cannot be right that a landlord receives public money to upgrade a property—money received largely because the tenant within the property, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, is on a low income—and is then allowed to raise the rent because of the same improvements. It is not fair and I believe it betrays the very spirit of public support.
With this amendment, the Government could stop that situation occurring, as well as provide better protection for tenants so that they can enjoy the benefit of the improvement, which potentially would have been secured because of their personal circumstances in the first place. So I ask my noble friend the Minister whether she will consider Amendment 90 carefully and come back to noble Lords on the government position on the amendment before Report.
I would also like to ask whether current schemes, such as the Great British Insulation Scheme, have grant conditions that explicitly prohibit rent increases following property improvements funded by public money. If not, will the Government consider amending those conditions so that they do, and agree that this condition should be added to all future schemes? I appreciate that my noble friend may not have the answers to hand, but perhaps she could write to me and all noble Lords with the details and intention with reference to Amendment 90?
Homelessness
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they are making on reducing homelessness.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we are facing a homelessness crisis in every part of the country, with record levels that have become nothing short of a national disgrace. This Government acknowledge the devastating impact that homelessness has on so many lives. The current situation did not happen overnight; it is the result of long-standing neglect. We are addressing these failures head on with an injection of cash—allocating an extra £233 million to councils directly for homelessness, taking total funding to £1 billion next year—and through the long-term approach of working with mayors and councils across the country. The Government have set up an interministerial group chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, today marks 1,000 days since Royal Ascent was given to repeal the Vagrancy Act. Repealing this outdated law, which punishes people experiencing homelessness and pushes them further away from support, had overwhelming support from every party and every section of your Lordships’ House. Despite this, the last Government, and to date this Government, have not yet commenced repeal, citing concerns over the need for replacement powers, even though the latest report from MHCLG shows that this Act is being used less and less by police forces and that nearly half of them do not use it at all. I ask my noble friend one simple question: when are the Government going to commence the repeal of the Vagrancy Act?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her campaigning around homelessness and on this issue. The Government view the Vagrancy Act 1824 as antiquated, cruel and no longer fit for purpose. No one should be criminalised for sleeping rough on the streets. I share her passion for ensuring it is confined to history, where it belongs. We want to ensure we avoid criminalising those who are most vulnerable, while ensuring that police and local authorities have the tools they need to make sure communities feel safe. As we move towards our steps on the Vagrancy Act, we are working closely with the Home Office and local partners. I was pleased that my honourable friend Minister Ali was able to announce yesterday an additional £20 million to deal with severe winter pressures, taking the total to £30 million.