Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the normal standard of proof for civil cases for these fines and probes the Government’s reasons for applying the criminal standard of proof.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I want to make it very clear that we will not have had six days in Committee. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
I do not feel that I can open this group without paying tribute to the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His amendments are why we are debating this important issue tonight. We will miss his insightful contribution to this Bill and to the House more broadly. We are a poorer place without him, and I send my heartfelt sympathies to his partner, his friends and his family for their loss. May his memory be a blessing.
This group follows on from a group on the previous day in Committee, but it focuses more specifically on the burden of proof applied in the determination of penalties. I will be brief, as on these Benches we simply have two questions for the Minister. I draw your Lordships’ attention to probing Amendments 145 and 152. We are concerned about the Government’s proposal to grant local housing authorities the power to determine whether a person is guilty of an offence under Section 16 without proper due process. Can the Minister kindly set out for the Committee how this provision is intended to operate in practice, and whether it will be subject to any appeal or review process?
I wish to draw attention to the principal reason for these probing amendments—the selected standard of proof. We are seeking to understand why there appears to be a lack of consistency in the standard of proof applied across different parts of the Bill. I have no doubt that many distinguished lawyers in your Lordships’ Committee will address this matter with far greater clarity and precision than I can. However, the question remains: why should different standards of proof apply within the same piece of legislation?
I appreciate that the Minister is herself not a lawyer and may wish to take some time to reflect and return to the Committee with a considered response, but can she kindly set out, either today or at a later stage, the rationale behind this apparent inconsistency? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242 on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
First, I join my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook by expressing my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His reputation as an exceptional legal mind represents the very best that this House has to offer.
Secondly, I remind noble Lords of my own interest as a practicing solicitor.
These four amendments seek to make two substantive changes to the Bill. First, the removal of “reckless” would ensure that a landlord is guilty of an offence only if it can be proven that they wrongly relied on a ground for possession with actual knowledge of the offence. Secondly, the replacement of
“on the balance of probabilities”
with “beyond reasonable doubt” raises the standard of proof for these offences when the local authority is determining a case.
I expect that the Minister will oppose these amendments on the grounds that they will make it less easy for a local authority to find a landlord guilty of an offence. But surely the crucial point is that they would put a proper check on the incorrect prosecution of landlords that may arise from the new system of penalties that will be imposed by local authorities.
There is also a legitimate question about how we can be certain that local authorities will have the resources they need fairly to assess cases in which landlords are accused of an offence. We need a system that ensures that landlords are held to high standards, but surely that system has to be seen to be fair. Any system that makes landlords feel that they are perennially at risk of being found guilty of an offence, even without their knowledge, will only add to the chilling effect of the Bill on our rental market.
I also agree that the standard of proof where a local authority is making a decision on a case without recourse to the courts should be high. Local authority officers should be absolutely sure when making these decisions.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, will she take this opportunity to explain how a landlord who has been found guilty of an offence by a local authority will be able to appeal that decision? Secondly, will she please answer the question about appropriate local authority resources to enable them to administer these offences?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, may I say how sorry I am to have to deal with Lord Etherton’s amendments after his sad passing? I did not have a long time to get to know him, but during my time in this House, I truly appreciated both his engagement and his wisdom on this Bill and his courtesy and kindness. I know that he will be greatly missed by the House and I add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his husband and his close friends and family. I understand that his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House, and we will all miss him. I am very sorry that he is not here today to complete the work that he started on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate on the amendments on financial penalties, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments on these. I will make the declaration up front that I am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice on this part of the Bill.
Starting with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Amendment 145 would replace the criminal standard of proof with the civil standard of proof for breaches of the tenancy requirements which are not criminal offences. These breaches can, by virtue of continuing or being repeated, form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is necessary, therefore, for the criminal standard of proof to apply.
Amendment 152 would reduce the standard of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities”, where local authorities are imposing civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences. Where civil penalties are imposed as an alternative to criminal prosecution, it is necessary for the same criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”, to apply. That is already the case, for example, for civil penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under the Housing Act 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, and spoken to on his behalf today by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Amendments 197 and 200 would, conversely, require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches.
The standard of proof is lower than that which applies to the imposition of financial penalties for breaches of other requirements introduced by the Bill. This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such, rental discrimination and rental bidding cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a £40,000 civil penalty, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 penalty. We therefore think it appropriate that local authorities need to prove these breaches to the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of resources, and I will answer that with two points. One is that the Government have committed to assess the financial impact of this on local authorities, and have committed to new burdens funding. Secondly, those fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose, or other purposes, if they wish to use them in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about appeals. Local authorities can consider evidence and decide whether, for example, the individual concerned was aware that the information they provided might be false or misleading, and if so, whether it was reasonable for them to submit it, or if they took an unjustified risk in doing so; that is the point about recklessness.
The legislation also provides safeguards. In the case of prosecution it would be for the court, not the local authority, to decide whether the accused had been reckless. In the case of a financial penalty, the landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed, and a right of appeal against the imposition or the amount of the penalty.
Amendment 148 would narrow the offence of misusing a ground for possession to evict a tenant when possession would not be obtained on that ground. It would do so by removing the element of recklessness from the offence. Amendment 242 would narrow the offence of providing information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect in the same way.
To commit the first of these offences, a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, would need to know that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord would be able to do so, it would not amount to an offence.
I do not think that limiting the offence in this way is necessary or helpful. Clearly, landlords should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk, and landlords should not take an unjustified risk when their action may result in someone losing their home. It is, of course, the case that the offence is committed only if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord, or those acting or purporting to act on their behalf, knew that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession using a ground for possession, would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords and agents to escape enforcement.
Similar arguments apply in relation to the database offence. To require knowledge to be proved in every case would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords to submit false or misleading information in purported compliance with database requirements.
It is well-established in legislation for offences relating to the provision of false or misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used, for example, in relation to the provision of false and misleading information to local authorities in connection with their functions under the Housing Act 2004—an offence that is prosecuted by local authorities.
In short, we consider that the mental state of recklessness is appropriate to apply to these serious offences, so I kindly ask that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I am really disappointed because a number of noble Lords who have been involved in all these debates over the past four days in Committee are unable to be in their seats because of the later time of day. That will not help us scrutinise this Bill as we should.
I thank all those who have contributed on Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242, which are now in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Noble Lords are absolutely right to highlight the issue of consistency —an issue we on these Benches intended to raise today —but my noble friend Lord Hunt also introduced an important new concern: the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. On matters such as these, it is vital that we draw on the expertise of the legal profession to improve the Bill’s drafting, and I hope the Minister will seek the wise counsel of noble Lords such as my noble friend as these matters are taken back to the department.
As noble Lords have rightly pointed out, the financial penalties under consideration are significant. Many landlords are small-scale or so-called accidental landlords, who may not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Committee seeks clarity on the methodology, consultation process and factors, such as the ability to pay, used in determining these thresholds.
Given the scale of these penalties, the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must be carefully examined, and my noble friend set out with clarity the issues that may arise without a sufficient burden of proof, and the legal argument underpinning these amendments. There is legitimate concern about penalties being applied without adequate legal scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We therefore welcome these amendments and believe my noble friend Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large fines are at stake, a high level of rigour and certainty must be reflected in the legal standard applied. What is more, any concerns expressed on these matters should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully considered, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s willingness to recognise in law the close family ties many people have with their first cousins once removed and other removed cousins.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments I have tabled in this group are to probe the Government’s decision to define a family in the way they have in Clause 21. The Explanatory Notes to this part of the Bill state:
“Subsection (4) provides that where there are two or more tenants and one of the tenants is a family member of the guarantor, if the family member dies then the guarantor will not be liable for rent on or after the date of their death”.
The Bill defines a family member in such a way that excludes anyone more distant than a first cousin. It is essential that the definition of a family in law reflects the family units we see in our day-to-day life. In many tightly knit communities across this country, families still live close together, with many cousins, both near and distant, having strong family ties to each other. In these communities, it seems very likely that a second cousin might step in to help as a rent guarantor, and surely that person falls within the intention of this part of the Bill.
It seems strange that the Government would seek to recognise the relationship between two first cousins but ignore the relationship between second cousins. The example I gave shows how a second cousin might, because of their close family ties, help a family member out as their guarantor, but the Bill would not include that person within the tightly defined family under the Bill. Will the Minister explain why the Government have defined the family in this way? Will she also explain why a second cousin who acts as a guarantor for their family member is treated as a second-class citizen compared with their other closer cousins? We are also interested in the case of smaller families, where perhaps an only child chooses to help a family member who is more distant on paper but who in reality is their nearest kin. There will have to be a definition of “family” in the Bill. We understand that, but we need an explanation about why this definition of the family is being proposed. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, while it is understandable that some individuals have close bonds with more distant relatives, extending the definition of “family member” to include removed or second cousins could complicate the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions, which currently offer a clear and practical framework. Broadening the definition further could introduce uncertainty for landlords and tenants alike, potentially leading to disputes over familial links and undermining the protective aims of the clause.
For those reasons, we do not support these amendments but look forward to getting on to the next group of amendments, where we believe that the issue of guarantors will become less important if a certain amendment is accepted, therefore diminishing the need for this debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to guarantors and family members, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for contributing to the debate.
Amendments 167, 168 and 169 would expand the definition of “family member” used in Clause 21 to include the grandchildren of aunts and uncles as well as siblings of grandparents. This would absolve these individuals from liability for rent owed after a tenant had died when they acted as guarantor.
I understand the noble Baroness’s motivation in probing this definition of family. She sometimes accuses me of not listening, or of not thinking these things through, but I have carefully considered the balance of these provisions. They protect bereaved guarantors from financial hardship while allowing landlords to keep guarantors in place where it is reasonable to do so.
The definition of “family member” reflects the need to encompass more distant family members who might commonly be used as tenancy guarantors. While we understand that more distant relatives than those covered in the definition may rarely be used as guarantors, defining family members for the purposes of this legislation means that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. This definition does not seek to disregard or downplay any family links between relatives who are not included within that definition—some of my second cousins might have something to say if I tried to do that.
It is worth noting that landlords holding guarantors liable in these scenarios is already uncommon, and most landlords would already act compassionately towards a deceased tenant’s family. Furthermore, by removing fixed terms, a personal representative of the deceased tenant can end the tenancy by giving a landlord two months’ notice. We believe that this strikes a balance that is fair to tenants, guarantors and landlords alike. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but I do not think that we have quite got to a better understanding of the Government’s reasons for defining a family in this way; it is just that they are going to define a family in this way.
I point out once again that many families are of different shapes to the one described in the Bill. We feel strongly that it would be a strange outcome if slightly more distant cousins were not protected by the legislation, but close cousins were. We have set out clearly that many people have very close family ties with their slightly more distant cousins. We feel that the Government have failed to adequately explain why those individuals should not have the same rights based on their family ties as other members of the family.
We reserve the right to come back to this on Report, but we hope that Ministers will listen to the argument that we have made today and consider improving this part of the Bill to properly reflect the family relationships that many people have in in this country. At this point, I beg to leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I was intrigued by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, today and it is interesting to hear that they have come from Citizens Advice. I am conscious that things have evolved over time, and he mentioned relationship breakdown. As somebody who used to rent with other people, I know there was always a certain risk when you took on a tenancy that somebody could walk out and you would be left liable.
I guess I am trying to understand—perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough—whether we will get to a point where, instead of people coming together, this will drive more accommodation into houses of multiple occupation.
I will give your Lordships my personal experience. I was working for a very large company when I moved to another city, which reflected the job situation that I needed. There is no doubt that I deliberately sought out situations that were not exactly HMOs but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord, so that it would not fall on my shoulders to think about these issues.
I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment would address the situation of making sure that there are enough tenancies and enough accommodation available, without putting more risk on to the landlord. We are already seeing quite a substantial change. I understand why the Government set this out in their manifesto and similar. I appreciate that there may be some differences on some of the impact but, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, follows up—I am happy to discuss this outside—it would be useful to discuss how much of a genuine, as opposed to theoretical, problem this really is.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these amendments to the Committee. As we on this side have consistently said throughout, we support the Bill’s overarching aim to create a fairer and more secure private rental sector. However, if it is to deliver on that promise, it must engage with the way that people rent in reality, not in theory. Joint tenancies are a common and practical arrangement, as we have heard, whether between couples, friends or flatmates. However, as currently drafted, the Bill leaves considerable uncertainty as to how these tenancies will be treated, particularly when one party wishes to leave.
Amendments 171 and 175 rightly seek to bring joint tenancies fully and clearly within the scope of the Bill. Without this clarity, both tenants and landlords could be left navigating ambiguity, with little guidance in law and potentially significant consequences in practice.
Similarly, Amendments 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms for ending a joint tenancy. This is a matter not just of legal process but of fairness and practicality. Tenants must be afforded flexibility, particularly in cases of relationship breakdown or changes in household arrangements, while landlords should not be left in legal or financial limbo.
In that context, it is right to raise the issue of subletting, which is closely tied to how joint tenancies evolve and adapt over time. When a tenant is not using all or even part of their space, subletting enables the more efficient use of underoccupied homes. This is particularly important in areas facing acute housing shortages, where every single room matters. Subletting arrangements can offer a pragmatic solution for tenants trying to manage their finances, respond to personal changes or simply avoid exiting a tenancy altogether. It can help maintain housing stability where one joint tenant moves out, by allowing a new occupier to contribute to rent without formalising a new tenancy agreement from scratch. Moreover, subletting can play a role in addressing the chronic supply issues affecting the rental sector. It offers access to more affordable rents, supports tenants’ incomes and introduces much-needed flexibility into an often rigid system.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I do hope that the Minister will not agree to this. I have a flat that I live in part-time but sometimes rent, and I am allergic to animals. The idea that I would have to consider and take an application from someone with a pet, when I could not possibly have them living there because of my allergy, seems to me quite unfair. They would come to see the flat and waste their time when there is no chance in the world that I could let it to someone with a pet. I do hope that we will not go the way of forcing somebody like me to waste someone’s time in going to see a property. There is no way that I would be able to have an animal in the flat that I live in at other times.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for his amendments. I also thank my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lady Coffey for their contributions, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who makes it very clear that we need to have a balance.
This group seeks to address the growing concern among renters, but we must also consider the valid and practical concerns of landlords. Although these proposals aim to prevent blanket bans on pets in rental properties, it is essential to recognise that there must be legitimate reasons for any restrictions. Many tenants may view their pets as family members, as we have heard, but we must also acknowledge the potential challenges and consequences of allowing pets in rental properties. These are challenges that can affect property maintenance, insurance costs and, as we have heard, the well-being of other tenants. A balanced approach is needed, one that considers the rights of tenants and the legitimate concerns of landlords and property owners.
Landlords are often responsible for the upkeep of the property and ensuring the safety and comfort of all tenants. Allowing pets may also complicate insurance policies, leading to higher premiums or even exclusions in certain cases. These concerns are not trivial and must not be dismissed lightly, but rather addressed in a way that is both fair and proportionate. The amendment in this group recognises the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the rights of those tenants and the legitimate interests of landlords.
We on these Benches have made our position clear on previous days in Committee. We continue to advocate for a balanced solution that respects the needs of both tenants and property owners. Ultimately, these amendments contribute to a more equitable housing market, where tenants with pets are not excluded from their right to live in a home that suits their needs. They also ensure that the landlord can continue to manage their properties responsibly with the appropriate protections in place.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his amendments relating to pets and rental discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for their comments on these amendments.
Amendments 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental discrimination provisions of Chapter 3 to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any unfavourable treatment in the letting process. We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their owners—even Wilberforce, the snake we heard about the other day—and we are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector.
However, it is our view that extending our rental discrimination provisions in this manner would not be proportionate, nor is it necessary. The Bill already contains measures to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. Landlords must consider all requests and provide valid justification if consent is refused. This ensures that tenants are not unfairly prevented from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider legitimate concerns such as property suitability lease restrictions—the other day we discussed superior leases, which may have clauses about pets—or potential issues with other residents, as my noble friend Lady Hayter mentioned.
Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions to the PRS ombudsman, who will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology and award financial compensation. Given that, I kindly ask that the noble Lord consider not pressing his amendments.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would allow the landlord to invite any person to offer an amount of rent under the proposed letting value.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s decisions on rental bidding and to better understand the rationale behind this section of the Bill. I begin by drawing your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 199A tabled in my name. I wish to understand why, if a tenant or prospective tenant offers a lower rent than the proposed letting value, the landlord is prevented from accepting it. If a tenant is able to secure the property at a more affordable rate, this seems a fair and beneficial outcome. If the proposed letting value is set unrealistically high, allowing offers below that figure provides an important market correction, one which benefits tenants. This is particularly relevant in weaker rental markets where negotiating powers often lie disproportionately with the landlords. I simply ask the Minister: did she consider this before putting it forward?
On these Benches, we recognise the difficult balance the Government are attempting to strike between preventing unfair and unaffordable rent increases and ensuring that the proposed letting value reflects proposed market conditions. Market conditions are, of course, determined by the supply of homes and the market rent must still incentivise landlords to remain in the sector to provide the housing capacity that we urgently need. This brings me to our intention to oppose the question that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill. The rent-setting process must be transparent, and must be free to function. We should not pretend that we can fix prices without distorting the market signals that allow for an efficient and well-resourced housing market. We must be careful not to introduce policies that mask the simple fact that we need more homes of all types. We on these Benches are committed to working with the Minister to that end, but I first ask her: has she considered whether these measures may in fact obscure the true demand within the rental sector? Understanding that demand is key to delivering the right supply and the right homes built in the right places.
Further, has the Minister considered the impact on labour mobility? Tenants in rent control units may be discouraged from relocating for jobs or education, thus reducing workforce mobility. With over 800,000 vacancies, we should not be inadvertently curtailing the movement of our workers. Finally, I wish to probe whether the Government have fully considered the potential impact on new renters compared with existing tenants. No one on these Benches doubts the Minister’s intentions; we simply fear that the department has not paused to fully reflect on these key issues.
I turn to Amendment 199B, also in my name. I will cheekily anticipate that the Minister may say, in response to this probing question: “Yes”. The Bill attempts to define the term “relevant person” in Clause 58(6) but, before the Minister reaches that definition, I wish to question its adequacy and its clarity. Is there any formal process to designate someone as a relevant person or is this determined on a case-by-case basis? Further, how is the term “acting indirectly” to be interpreted? Does this include property agents or other advisory parties? Crucially, what is meant by “purporting to act”? I am sure that those with legal expertise in this House will argue that this is a loaded term that depends heavily on interpretation. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer her understanding of it and, importantly, explain how consistency in interpretation will be ensured.
Clause 58 represents a significant shift. With that must come clear answers. I hope the Minister will help your Lordships’ House to understand the Government’s thinking more fully. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in these amendments. Two different things are going on here, one of which is not allowing the market to work. I am trying to understand what evidence there is to suggest that this is a real issue.
I will give a personal story. When at university, a group of us wanted to rent a house. Under the rules of the university, you could live only at a certain distance, and so on. Not wanting to take a 12-month tenancy, we were particularly attracted by and sought out houses that would require only a nine-month tenancy. The landlady we were involved with used to make considerably more rent in the summer through tourists and short-term lets, but also gave students the opportunity not to take on the liability of the year. That helped keep rents relatively low. I am sure that your Lordships can imagine that such a scenario, while it may seem niche, was still very important to students at that time, and so was the availability of houses reflecting that opportunity. In effect—this is nothing to be embarrassed about—we gazumped by being prepared to sacrifice a living room and turn it into an extra bedroom. It also gave a little more rent to the landlady, which was a factor when, I was led to believe, 46 groups went to see that house wanting to secure the tenancy.
While I completely understand some of the intentions of this clause about not getting into ridiculous bidding wars, I am surprised, given the real scarcity in certain parts of the country of private sector rentals, as to why we would want to unnecessarily put such handcuffs on the landlord to accept only the rent they advertise and not be creative about the situation in which prospective tenants may find themselves.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling her amendments relating to rental bidding. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for contributing. I will respond to the two probing amendments in a moment. First, however, I will set out to the Committee why I consider her fundamental objection to Clause 58 —which will end the unfair practice of renters being pitted against each other in bidding wars—to be misplaced.
The measures in Clause 58 will require landlords and persons acting for them, for example letting agents, to state a proposed rent in any written advertisement for the property. Landlords and those acting for them will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or accepting bids above this price. To respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, these are not rent controls—the landlord may advertise the property at the rent they wish to achieve, but they cannot then increase that rent as other bidders come along. Currently, too many tenants suffer from a lack of transparency in the lettings process. I cannot imagine the heartbreak of thinking that you have found a property at a rent that you can afford only to discover that the landlord or letting agent has pushed other tenants to offer more. Their experience is not that of a viewing but of a kerbside auction. The impact on renters of the practice is clear and our measures will end it for good.
This is a specific problem that we are trying to target, and the majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. However, we are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that, particularly in hot rental markets, there is a lack of supply relative to demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond what many of them can afford, or which, if they can afford it, puts an incredible financial strain on them.
I visited a housing site in Greenwich this week and I heard that, in some parts of London, a house in the private rented sector will cost a public sector worker 94% of their salary just to pay the rent. These measures will improve the experiences of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all those involved in the lettings process.
Amendment 199A would remove the prohibition on landlords inviting or encouraging a tenant to offer to pay an amount of rent that exceeds the stated rent. If this amendment were taken forward, landlords would fall foul of the rental bidding provisions only if they accepted rent at a level above the stated rent, not if they invited or encouraged its payment. While I welcome the scrutiny—and I genuinely do—of our rental bidding measures, I am concerned that this amendment would risk allowing a form of rental bidding to continue to be practised. Under this—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Sorry. While we are talking about this, does the Minister not think that what could happen—and what may happen—is that the level of rents will be above what they would normally be, because the landlord is going to go for the absolute maximum they can? Is that not a danger?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think I answered this question under a previous group on a previous day. This is not intended to be rent cap; it is intended to stop the practice of changing the rent once the rent for that property is published. It will be up to landlords to advertise the property at a rent they think they can achieve for that property and, once they have advertised it at that price, they will not be able to increase that rent when things subsequently come along.
Under this amendment, a landlord could lawfully encourage bids above the advertised price, take the property off the market and then use any bids received to establish a higher price at which to relist it. I think that would start to have an inflationary effect on rents. I am not suggesting that this scenario would be commonplace, but it would be lawful and, if it were to occur, it would clearly be to the detriment of prospective tenants. I therefore consider that our belt-and-braces approach of prohibiting both the accepting and encouraging of bids to be the right one and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Finally, Amendment 199B seeks to remove
“by any other relevant person”
from the definition of “stated rent” in Clause 58(4)(b). As I have explained, the rental bidding clauses prevent a landlord, or person acting for them, inviting, encouraging or accepting an offer of rent higher than the “stated rent”. The term “stated rent” is defined as the rent originally proposed in the written advertisement, either by the person who is now doing the inviting, encouraging or accepting of higher offers or, as the case may be, any other relevant person.
A “relevant person” could be either
“the prospective landlord, or a person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the prospective landlord”.
The latter would usually be a lettings agent, but it could also be a more informal relationship such as a friend of the landlord. It is necessary for us to avoid a loophole whereby, say, the landlord publishes the advertisement containing the stated rent and then asks his friend or letting agent to carry out the rental auction.
As such, the Bill is drafted deliberately to ensure that the prohibition applies in those circumstances, as well as the more straightforward scenario in which it is the landlord who publishes the advert and then proceeds to carry out the rental auction. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to not press this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply, and for the insight into this issue from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. On these Benches, we recognise the challenging balance the Government are seeking to achieve: protecting tenants from unfair and unaffordable rent increases, while also ensuring that the proposed letting value remains aligned with the functioning market.
These market conditions are of course shaped by the availability of housing, and any rent-setting approach must still offer sufficient incentives for landlords to stay in the market and to continue providing the homes that our communities so urgently require. I thank the Minister for her answers, but I urge her to truly reflect on the points that we have raised, to carry them back to her department and, if necessary, to come back with her continued engagement with the House.
This group of amendments, like many others, is not overtly political; it consists of serious and practical probes into serious and practical issues. In our pursuit of stronger protections for tenants, we must be careful not to deter landlords or make it unfeasible for them to continue to provide the homes our communities so badly need. These are concerns that many landlords share, and we believe that they must be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. We ask them to go back to reflect on what we have brought forward. I ask the Minister to step back and consider any unintended consequences of this part of the legislation—or, at the very least, to acknowledge the genuine concerns of those who oppose this part of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this in effect creates a formal escrow process. One of my proudest achievements was to organise a student rent strike, admittedly some time ago, as noble Lords may recognise. At the time, the university accommodation was due to be dismantled at the end of the year and as a consequence it felt like the university was not taking various matters very seriously.
I happened not to be a paying student at the time; I was a vice-warden in a hall of residence. So I did help them, but I insisted that, if I was to help them, they would have to pay over their rent to avoid being evicted. We did that by handing the money to the student union, to effectively act in escrow. As a consequence, repairs were made and everyone ended up happy—apart from the university, which did not like my role in that at all.
The reason I tell that story is that it matters that tenants should be able to withhold cash going directly to a landlord when the landlord is, frankly, taking the mickey. Awaab’s law has already been mentioned and Clause 63, which we did not specifically address, is already extending that to the private sector, and I welcome that. We need to work out a much easier way for people to effectively deploy this escrow approach. That is why I am supporting the amendment.
It is fair to say that we need to make sure that any such processes are easy to administer. Going a little bit further, there is a regularly read out statistic that something like 15% to 20% of housing benefit—or housing support, whether as direct housing benefit or through universal credit—is thought to go to properties not deemed fit for rent. I went into a reasonable amount of detail on this with officials.
The philosophy explained to me by the Permanent Secretary and other officials was that the state thus far should not determine on behalf of the renter where they are going to live; it is an important right for the renter to make that choice—even though it felt repulsive to me that taxpayers’ money was being spent in, frankly, some pretty ropey places. From my visits to some different housing, I have to say it was quite extraordinary what was going on. Sometimes, I am afraid, the dilapidation was the consequence of the tenant not allowing repairs to be undertaken—but that is a minor aside. The point is that—whether it is private money, your own money or the state’s money going to a private landlord—it matters that we have habitable accommodation. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments have raised the serious and emotive issue of the reality of tenants living in poor housing conditions and the remedies that are available when landlords fail to act. It is an area where frustration and vulnerability can understandably run high.
Amendment 206, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, proposes a system of mediated rent pauses. Under that model, tenants would be entitled to pay rent to an independent individual rather than their landlord when repairs are not carried out within the expected framework. However, we must be clear-eyed about this. How would it operate in practice? Who would this independent individual be in real terms? Would it be the redress scheme ombudsman? If so, is it appropriate or even realistic for them to be holding and distributing rent payments? Would they have the resources, legal authority or financial infrastructure to do so? It is overcomplicated.
There is also the question of safeguards. What mechanisms would ensure that the process was fair to both parties? What happens if a tenant withholds rent on the basis of a dispute that turns out to be unfounded? How long might rent be withheld, and what impact would that have on smaller landlords with limited financial resilience? It is entirely right that landlords should meet their obligations to maintain safe and decent homes, but we should be cautious about creating a system that effectively withholds rent before any formal adjudication. That could introduce significant uncertainty into the private rented sector. Would this approach encourage resolution or would it risk entrenching disputes? Might it push responsible landlords out of the market while rogue landlords simply continue to ignore the rules?
In short, while the amendment is well intentioned, and of course we sympathise with all individuals living in poor conditions and battling with irresponsible and careless landlords, it raises complex questions about implementation and unintended consequences. On balance, we are not persuaded that the provision as drafted would be workable in practice. However, there must be a better, more practical way to ensure that tenants are protected without creating further layers of bureaucracy and pushing good landlords out of the market.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling Amendment 206, ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who moved it, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, for taking part in the debate.
Amendment 206 would allow a tenant to pay rent to the ombudsman rather than their landlord if the landlord had failed to meet legal requirements on housing quality. I strongly agree with the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to ensure that landlords remedy hazards in good time—we all know the outcome when that does not happen—but I feel that the Bill’s existing provisions are the best way to achieve that. The Bill will allow private rented sector tenants to challenge their landlord through the courts if they fail to comply with the Awaab’s law requirements, such as timescales for remedying hazards. Alongside that, it will allow us to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector, which is an important move.
The PRS landlord ombudsman will provide a new route of redress for tenants and will be able to investigate complaints about standards and repairs. The Bill will also strengthen rent repayment orders, including by increasing from 12 months to two years the amount of rent that a tribunal will be able to award a tenant. Tenants can seek rent to be repaid where a relevant offence has been committed, including offences related to housing standards, such as failing to comply with an improvement notice.
The amendment has the potential to be administratively complex and risks unintended consequences that might lead inadvertently to worse outcomes for tenants. For example, rent being held by the ombudsman could delay repairs in some cases if it made it more difficult for landlords to fund the required works, a point that I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to. Existing measures in the Bill place legal expectations on landlords about the quality of their properties and give tenants access to compensation if their landlords have not met obligations in relation to standards, as well as providing mechanisms through which landlords can be required to carry out repairs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my thoughts are with the people affected by the fire in Derbyshire. The noble Lord makes a strong argument, and I will take that away with me to reflect upon.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think we are all aware of the devastating recent fires in Los Angeles. If we understand correctly, part of that was due to underinvestment and lack of planning locally. I do not think the Minister quite answered the Question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so I ask again: what are the Government going to do, particularly in rural areas, to make sure we have adequate equipment? That includes the availability of planes and helicopters for bringing water in, and training our firefighters to respond effectively to the risk of wildfires, which we are increasingly seeing.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government understand this issue. Officials have undertaken extensive consultation with stakeholders to consider current challenges and policy options, host workshops on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, and produce a comprehensive policy scoping report to inform Ministers of the next steps on this important issue. Since the transfer of functions on 1 April, the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth has been working hard to meet key partners and understand the challenges facing the fire sector, including wildfire. I know he is committed to leading this work and continues to support our fire and rescue services to provide the best possible service to help keep our communities safe.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
In view of the time that we have lost—and I must say publicly that I regret the pressure that we are putting ourselves under—I will just say that it is essential that written statements are mandated to help people resolve conflicts and provide evidence if disputes go to court. What these must contain, which is the essence of Amendment 140 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is clearly important and needs to be widely known.
There is quite a lot in the Bill that we feel needs to be widely known, and we have all had concerns about the level of knowledge. All I will say, with my tongue in my cheek for things down the road, is that that is all the more reason to regulate those who act for landlords—such as letting agents—to make sure that they act professionally and inform their tenants correctly.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Clause 14 aims to strengthen the transparency of rental agreements by requiring landlords to provide written terms at the outset of a tenancy. This is a welcome step towards ensuring that tenants are fully informed about their rights and obligations, and that landlords are held to account for the terms they offer.
Amendment 140, in my name, recognises that legislation alone is not enough. We must ensure that tenants, landlords and, indeed, any third-party contractors involved are informed and empowered. By requiring the Secretary of State to issue clear, accessible guidance, we help to make these rights and duties real and usable in practice. Without such guidance, even the most well-intentioned legislation risks becoming an abstract concept rather than a meaningful tool for change. This is why it is crucial that the Government take proactive steps to ensure that everyone involved in the rental process understands their roles and their responsibilities.
Amendments 136, 138 and 139, tabled by the Minister, seek to refine the process through which written statements of terms are provided. The intention, as I understand it, is to ensure that landlords are held to account for providing these terms in a timely manner, which is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we must be careful to consider whether the amendments fully take into account the diverse needs and circumstances of both tenants and landlords.
The Government have a clear opportunity here to provide a system that is not only fair and transparent but also practical and achievable for all those involved. We must ensure that these provisions do not overburden landlords with an administration task but, at the same time, protect the rights of tenants by providing them with the necessary information to make informed decisions about their tenancies. While the intention is to create more transparency, it is equally important, we feel, that we do not add unnecessary complexity or red tape that could inadvertently discourage smaller landlords or make the rental process more cumbersome.
In light of these considerations, I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, is the Minister confident that the 28-day requirement for landlords to provide written statements will not lead to confusion or delays? This timeline, while designed to allow time for landlords to issue the statements, may in practice create gaps in communication, potentially leaving tenants in a state of uncertainty about their rights and obligations. How do the Government intend to mitigate these potential delays?
Furthermore, how do the Government plan to ensure that smaller landlords, who may not have the dedicated administration teams, will be able to comply with these provisions without facing excessive burdens? Small landlords, who often play a crucial role in our rental market, could face challenges in keeping up with increased administration requirements without support or resources. We must be mindful not inadvertently to create barriers that make it harder for these landlords to continue offering tenancies.
In conclusion, while we acknowledge the Government’s intention to improve transparency in tenancy agreements and better protect tenants, we must consider the real-world impact of these changes. We must ensure that reforms are workable for both tenants and landlords, without increasing the complexities of the rental process or creating unnecessary barriers to housing. The amendments, while positive in some respects, do not fully address the practical challenges landlords and tenants face. Is the Minister confident that these provisions will not place undue burdens on landlords, especially those at the smaller end of the market, and that they will effectively protect tenants’ rights without creating new avenues for confusion and non-compliance? The legislation must strike a balance that promotes fairness and transparency while also being workable for all parties involved.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have just a brief response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.
Amendment 140 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the new duty to provide tenants with a written statement of terms before a tenancy is entered into. We are already committed to supporting tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made about agents; I think we will come to that later.
We are engaging with stakeholders in developing the requirements for the written statement of term and are aware of how important it is for the sector to understand the duty. In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about small landlords and whether the 28-day period is reasonable, I am sure that will come out during our discussions with the sector. Because we are working that way, I am confident that we will be able to work through any pressures it may be concerned about. To help landlords and tenants, we will be providing a full suite of guidance, so these groups know exactly what the changes mean for them. For those reasons, I ask that Amendment 140 not be pressed.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will very briefly intervene. I agree that people who like pets benefit from having them, and I guess that landlords who do not like pets are going to have to put up with it, which seems fair enough. But—no pun intended—what a legal can of worms we are opening here. What is a pet? I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: snakes are animals, as are alligators, rats, goats, snakes, and even fleas, which some people keep as pets. That is going to cause a great deal of stress and redefinition at some point.
Listening to the very interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we heard that we are also going to introduce a category called an anti-social pet. That is going to be very hard to define and prosecute, and I suspect the unreasonable grounds for refusal will, again, cause interesting legal conundrums. So this amendment will go through, and I am happy to support it, but I wonder what legal can of worms we are opening for the future.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this section of the Bill is set to introduce some significant changes affecting the rights of renters, the rights of landlords and the nature of the relationship between those two parties, and we need to consider these provisions and the amendments to them with particular care.
Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to prevent consent from being withdrawn by a landlord once it has been granted. This proposal presents some challenges, as far as we can see, and may benefit from a more considered approach. It poses a risk to landlords when taking on a new tenant, because it raises the prospect that they could be tying themselves into a contract whereby they would have no right to remove, in future, a dangerous, aggressive or damaging animal from their own property.
In our opinion, these amendments also suffer from the way that they have been drafted. If a tenant acquired a new pet, would they be obliged to seek consent again from their landlord, or would the one issuing of consent cover all future acquisitions? If a tenant was granted consent for a goldfish, does this amendment really seek to assume that the consent is also automatically granted if the same tenant decides to buy an Irish wolfhound?
Amendment 120, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to address that fundamental question of proportionality, which I have referred to several times throughout my remarks on the Bill. This amendment rightly seeks to protect the landlord beyond the immediate term and ensures that they will still be able to make full use of their property after a tenant has left. If a landlord reasonably believes that a pet could limit their use of their property into the future and thus reduce its utility and value, it is surely reasonable to allow the landlord the discretion to protect their asset and the health of their family and future tenants.
My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising takes this responsible approach further in Amendments 121, 122 and 123, which would provide the landlord with the capacity to refuse consent if a pet was a dangerous wild animal, if a pet risked causing damage or disruption, or if a tenant wished to keep an inappropriate number of animals or an inappropriately sized animal in their property. These amendments would not only preserve the balance of the renter-landlord relationship but help to ensure the safety, protection from damage and the well-being of the landlord and tenant alike. As it stands, the Bill creates a huge risk for landlords: they could enter a contract with a tenant who could bring an unsuitable, untamed or even dangerous animal into their property without the capacity to refuse. These amendments are a sensible opportunity to redress this risk.
Amendments 124, 125 and 126, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, seek to clarify unreasonable circumstances for pet refusal, including in social housing —Amendment 124 is an extremely interesting amendment from that point of view. In our opinion, outlining these conditions could make the law clearer in application, although it is right that this should not come at the expense of the right of the landlord to safeguard and utilise their property. For instance, these amendments attempt to prevent a landlord refusing to consent to a pet on grounds of pre-emptive concerns. For this demand to balance out with respect for the rights of the landlord, it is surely reasonable to support a further amendment that would allow a landlord to withdraw consent once provided if their pre-emptive concerns turn out to be valid.
We also have some concerns about the vagueness of the language used throughout these amendments, for instance the references to
“a generalised fear of damage to the property”
and to “generalised” animal welfare concerns. The Committee would benefit from further clarification about the specific steps a landlord would need to take to move from “generalised” to what would be considered a valid concern under the text of this amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 126A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leicester and introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness. This is a very sensible proposal that is designed to build consensus and clarify points of concern over the scope and definition of the terms used by the Government in the Bill.
I think that Amendment 124A is for national, if not international, debate. Although I understand my noble friend’s concern, I think that debate probably goes wider than this Bill.
We must always remember that this Bill will be used to govern a series of relationships that involve possibly millions of people throughout the country. We have a duty in this place to make sure that the law is as clear as possible and that the relationship we create between a tenant and a landlord is fair and mutually beneficial. We need to make sure that we create market conditions in the rented sector that ensure a steady supply. If landlords start to pull out because of vague and overburdensome regulation, prices will go up and the choice for renters will go down. This is not an outcome that the Government want, nor one that will promote and protect renters’ rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank all the animal charities and organisations that have helped us with this clause. I know that other noble Lords have really appreciated the briefings that those organisations have sent out. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Howard of Rising, the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Leicester —whose amendment was ably moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their thoughtful amendments in relation to pets, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Before I go into the detail of the amendments, I reassure noble Lords how much I truly realise the incredible importance of pets to people’s lives, and I confirm that the Government have included provisions on pets in the Bill in recognition of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just mentioned that balance: we have tried really hard to get the balance right between wanting tenants to have the right to have a pet and making sure that landlords can have their responsibilities and property recognised.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and other noble Lords, for their recognition of the intent of pet provision in the Bill. No one wants people to have to give up precious pets just because of the tenure of their housing.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I would not make it compulsory to keep pets, although I took on board the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about the impact on people’s health. If you were allergic to pets, making them compulsory might be a different issue, but we have no intention of doing that.
Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that once a landlord has granted consent for a tenant to keep a pet, that consent cannot later be withdrawn. Noble Lords have mentioned my honourable friend Minister Pennycook’s advocacy of this issue. I reassure noble Lords that when a landlord gives permission for a tenant to have a pet, that consent is binding and cannot be revoked, with the exception of the very rare occasion when that becomes an anti-social behaviour issue, which it might. Apart from that, it cannot be revoked. That is because, once permission is given, it forms an implied term of the tenancy agreement. This is an unwritten contractual term that tenants can rely on, as it is legally binding. Any attempt by a landlord to withdraw consent once given would therefore be unenforceable. This principle will be clearly outlined in the accompanying guidance to ensure clarity for both landlords and tenants.
Given this, I do not believe it is necessary to add further provisions to the Bill, as doing so would introduce unnecessary complexity into legislation that is already clear on this point. The Bill is designed to create a fair and workable system for both landlords and tenants. Adding an explicit provision where the legal position is already established would have the potential to risk confusion and unintended consequences. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her Amendment 119, which seeks to ensure that a superior landlord “cannot unreasonably withhold” consent when a request is made to allow a tenant to keep a pet. Although I understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, I have some concerns about it. If accepted, it could lead to significant legal uncertainty.
Many superior leases include absolute prohibitions on pets, and introducing a reasonableness test in those cases could create confusion and conflict with existing contractual terms, which are legally binding on both parties. I intend to look at any data that might be available on the extent to which this might have an impact, but it could place a considerable burden on immediate landlords who would be required to engage with those superior landlords—who are often based overseas or are difficult to contact—before responding to a tenant’s request. That could cause delays, additional legal costs and the kind of practical difficulties the noble Baroness outlined herself in her own case—I hope permission is forthcoming for her dog. For those reasons, the amendment is not proportionate or necessary, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, will not press this amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for Amendments 120, 122 and 123. Amendment 120 seeks to allow landlords to refuse a pet request where they reasonably believe that the pet may have a negative impact due to allergens on a range of individuals, including themselves, their employees, agents, neighbours and even future tenants. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, I must express concern that it would significantly broaden the scope on which landlords could refuse consent.
The Bill already allows landlords to refuse permission where there is a legitimate concern, and guidance will make it clear that health-related issues, such as severe allergies, can be taken into account where medical evidence supports this and there is a genuine and ongoing concern to health. However, this amendment would go much further. In particular, the inclusion of future tenants introduces a highly speculative element, allowing landlords to refuse a request based on hypothetical scenarios that may never arise. That would give landlords an effective veto, entirely undermining the legislation, which aims to strike a balance between landlords and tenants. For these reasons, the amendment is not necessary or proportionate, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing it.
Amendment 122 seeks to allow landlords to
“reasonably withhold or withdraw consent”
for a pet introduced mid-tenancy, where it is deemed
“unsuitable for the property, … may cause a nuisance”,
or may risk property damage or unreasonable upkeep. While I understand the noble Lord’s intention to provide clarity, I respectfully say that this amendment is not required. The Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds, which are best judged on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, recommended some guiding principles around this and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, called for a “highway code” of guidance. We will be providing guidance alongside the Bill to give examples of the types of situations in which it may be reasonable for a landlord to refuse or withdraw their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. This will support both landlords and tenants without restricting flexibility in legislation. There is also a risk that listing specific reasons in the Bill may unintentionally narrow the interpretation of what counts as reasonable, excluding other valid concerns not explicitly named.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 128 and declare my interests as a landlord and a former PRS tenant. I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on pet deposits. First, I want to state that I am a dog lover and had dogs as pets in my youth. I was, however, horrified by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, at Second Reading of the potential cost and sustained effort required to deal with flea infestation, and there is other damage that cats and dogs in particular can cause. Carpets, for example, may need to be wholly replaced after some pet tenancies, as I have experienced at considerable additional cost, which was not met by the deposit. As your Lordships have heard, insurance products are currently non-existent or very unsatisfactory, so it makes sense, in my view, to introduce a pet deposit scheme which would make the whole process a lot simpler.
The main point I wish to make is that where a lease bans pets, particularly dogs, this should be respected. As we also heard earlier, not all properties are suitable for dogs, especially large dogs. There has been an exponential rise in dog attacks in the country, especially since the pandemic. In total, there were 31,920 dog attacks in England and Wales over the last year alone— 87 a day. Since 2022, 31 people have been killed by dogs, and there were almost 11,000 hospital admissions for dog bites in England between 2023 and 2024. These figures are truly horrific and are growing. I do not claim to be an expert on this rise, but many have put it down to the surge in dog ownership since the pandemic, poor dog training and an inability of inexperienced owners to control their powerful dogs.
If you had been the victim of a dog attack, you would understand why some seek protection in their home environment, especially blocks of flats. My wife was attacked by a dog in our open gardens. Although dogs are banned under the lease, we made an exception to allow a family with a dog. At the time, my wife was wearing a back brace, having recently fractured her spine. I placed myself between the dog and my wife, while the neighbour took five minutes to come outside and struggled to restrain the aggressive dog. Incidentally, it was not a banned breed.
Those five minutes felt like a long time. Although our neighbour was red-faced and apologetic, it was a serious and frightening incident. For months afterwards, my wife had flashbacks, as it could have been a life-altering experience, like the ones you read about in the newspaper or see on television. In conclusion, where dogs are banned under leases, those leases should be upheld, and where dogs are allowed with discretion, that should also be upheld.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the matter of pet damage insurance is an extremely important one, as it directly addresses the responsibility of the tenant in conjunction with the increased rights that they may be granted under the Bill.
In all our discussions on this question, we have acknowledged that allowing pets into rented properties brings with it a series of risks. There are risks to health in questions around allergies and dangerous animals, risks of damage to the property and risks to the well-being of neighbours and other tenants.
Given this, we believe it is reasonable to grant the landlord the capacity to require the tenant wishing to bring a pet into their property to have pet damage insurance. I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I thank him for all the work he has done on this—which I think is really important work—but I am disappointed that there does not yet seem to be a product in the market for this.
However, we have to continue down the insurance route as well as down the route of having deposits. It is important, as is in my amendments, that before this section of the Bill comes into effect, there is a final decision from the Secretary of State on an insurance product that is available. If that is not going to come forward, we will have to relook at the issues that have been brought up by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in Amendments 127 and 128, which, as we have heard, provide an alternative avenue for redress should any damage be caused. This is a flexible addition to the Bill, and discretion is going to be important, but it is important to give people the option here, whether it be through a deposit or through an insurance product which is on the market in the future.
There is concern over the deposit, because it is there for very specific reasons, and when you add a further reason—damage by pets—the amount of deposit may have to be looked at again. The noble Lord opposite brings up the idea of a pet deposit along with the deposit. The principle behind this is that when you have a right to have a pet, you also have responsibilities for that pet. It is correct that landlords should be permitted the ability to claim redress when their properties are damaged, and tenants should be responsible when choosing to have pets.
It is important that we make sure that there is some form of redress for any damage caused, if the landlord wishes. Some landlords will welcome pets without any further insurance or deposit, but where the landlord wishes it, there must be some way for the tenant to have some form of redress at the beginning of the tenancy, in case there is any issue with their pet’s damage or anything else concerning that pet.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits. The noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have all contributed to the debate.
Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank the noble Earl very much for his constructive engagement with me and my officials in the department in recent months. The benefit of the noble Earl’s expertise in this area has been very valuable and very much appreciated, so I am grateful to him.
Amendment 127 seeks to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. While I completely understand the concerns behind the amendment, respectfully, I disagree with its approach. One of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords’ concerns over potential property damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined. Requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership in rental properties—that is the balance between rights and responsibilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned. Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance of ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to rent with pets, while also protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk.
It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance products designed specifically for pet-related damage are emerging in response to the Bill—not just from Anguilla, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is therefore both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on either tenants or landlords. I emphasise in response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am a little bit confused as to where we go on this. We are hearing that there is no product at the moment, and there are differing views as to whether there will be a product. The Government are not interested in looking at extra deposits, and I understand the reasoning for that. But if we do not have extra deposits and there is no product, where do we go with this? When does this come into effect if there is no protection for the landlord in the future? I am just confused about the timescale. How long are the Government going to wait for a product to be available?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand those concerns. As I have already mentioned, the department is talking to insurers all the time. We are looking at the messages from them that they are developing new products in anticipation of the Bill going through, and we will keep monitoring that during the passage of the Bill. We do not want to create a delay in one of the Bill’s key objectives, which is facilitating pet ownership. We do not want to put a block or barrier in the way of that, but we understand that we need to keep this dialogue going with the insurance industry to see where we are as the Bill progresses.
Amendment 285 seeks to ensure that tenants have access to specific insurance products to cover pet-related damage before landlords can require such coverage. This is a similar point: the amendment would similarly create an unnecessary delay in giving landlords the confidence to rent to tenants with pets. The insurance options tailored specifically for pet damage exist in limited numbers at the moment. That is because landlords have had the discretion to refuse pets, so they have used that as a way of getting around the insurance issue, and it has led to low demand for such products. We believe that the Bill will change that by providing tenants with a fairer opportunity to rent with pets and giving landlords the reassurance they need. We do not believe that a mandatory delay should be made law, as we hope those new products are coming forward with the Bill.
If Clause 13 is postponed, tenants’ struggle to secure homes just because they have a pet will continue. Once the law is in place and landlords begin accepting more tenants with pets, we think the insurance market will adapt to meet the demand, and delaying Clause 13 would only prolong the struggles of responsible pet owners. Given these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will consider not pressing these amendments. We will continue to monitor this situation and carry on our dialogue with the insurance industry.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry to ask the Minister further questions, but is the Minister saying that landlords will be required to take pets without insurance or any further deposits if there is no product available? If that is the case and a product comes in six months to a year later, will the Bill then allow landlords to ensure that tenants get that insurance product? I am not quite sure how that will work.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
We will be amending the Tenant Fees Act so that landlords will be able to require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet. Landlords will be able to require tenants to have that insurance.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I think the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment is commendable. I worry, however, that if a property is altered, it will be limited by the assessment made by occupational health, within the limitations of local authority budgets and what the cost is estimated to be. In some properties, particularly older ones, these alterations can be very substantial.
The question arises: what happens if the tenant leaves the property and it has to be reinstated? That would be a relatively simple operation for a straight stairway, but not all properties are like that. Installing a lift would be a major structural operation. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could assess what the implications would be when someone left a property and how it would be reinstated. Reinstatement can often be more costly than the installation.
With regard to undertaking minor amendments, it depends on what we mean by minor. If building control consent is not required and people alter a property, they can undermine the structure very simply. It is not difficult—a lot of older properties may not have the same structural integrity as more modern ones. If people can say that a change is only minor, what is the boundary and what are the limitations if we have no definition of what a minor alteration is? If someone starts interfering with the structure of a property without the requirement of building control consent, there will be difficulties ahead, as there can be implications for the adjacent property. If various adaptations are needed in a terraced house, it can affect properties on either side.
Who would pay for the removal of the adaptations in the first place? Although the noble Baroness has tabled a very well-meaning amendment, I fear that, if given an inch, people would take a mile because they would not want to bother with getting the various consents. People could undertake quite substantial and perhaps even risky amendments to property without consent. Again, the question arises: how do we reinstate them afterwards?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their important amendments on disability adaptations. This is a crucial issue, and the Government have a duty to find the correct balance again between ensuring that disability adaptations are available to tenants and considering the significant impact that some provisions could have on our landlords.
Amendment 133, which proposes an obligation for landlords to grant permission for home adaptations following a local authority assessment under the Equality Act 2010, rightly highlights the importance of accessibility. However, we must also consider the practical and financial implications. Landlords, particularly those with smaller portfolios or those who operate on very tight margins, are already contending with a range of rising costs and regulatory pressures. Although the amendment’s intention is clear and commendable, the Government, we believe, must ensure that any new duty is accompanied by adequate support mechanisms so that landlords are not forced to absorb potentially substantial costs that could threaten the viability of their business or the quality of their housing stock.
Amendment 178 would allow tenants to undertake minor adaptations without seeking landlords’ consent. This is not merely a modest proposal—it raises some serious questions. Although “minor adaptation” may sound innocuous, this interpretation is highly subjective. One tenant’s minor change may in reality be a significant alteration that affects a property’s structure, aesthetics or marketability.
We must be clear that even small, cumulative changes can lead to a loss of value, future repair costs or regulatory complications for the landlord. Properties not designed or built to accommodate such modification may be especially vulnerable. This amendment risks creating confusion, undermining landlord confidence and ultimately reducing the availability of homes to rent, particularly in lower-cost segments of the market. Landlords must have clarity, and they must be protected from unintended consequences. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, what happens when the tenant leaves, and who pays for reinstating the property?
Amendment 191, which seeks to prohibit discrimination against prospective tenants requiring adaptations, addresses an issue of genuine concern. We support the principle of tackling discrimination wherever it occurs; however, we must also recognise that landlords will reasonably assess the suitability of their properties and the cost implications of meeting specific needs. To avoid placing landlords in an impossible position, any new obligations must be underpinned by clear guidance and, where necessary, financial support.
I urge the Minister to bring forward some proposals before Report that genuinely balance the rights of disabled tenants with the realities that landlords face. If we are to ensure that homes are both accessible and available for disabled people, we must avoid shifting the full cost burden on to landlords, particularly without due process, oversight or compensation. The aim should be a system that is fair, proportionate and sustainable for all the parties involved.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments relating to home disability adaptations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments.
Amendment 133 seeks to require landlords to permit home disability adaptations when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, but I recognise that such rights are not always easy to enforce in practice. I therefore agree with the noble Baroness that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need.
However, I do not consider this amendment to be the right way to achieve that. In particular, there are significant risks to introducing a new requirement linked to home assessments. These assessments are carried out by local authorities as part of the means-tested disabled facilities grant process. The amendment would therefore create a two-tier system and could make it harder for people who are not eligible for the disabled facilities grant to access adaptations.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we recognise how important those home adaptations are to make sure that older and disabled people live as independently as possible in a safe and suitable environment. I have seen at first hand, as I know she has, the real difference that these adaptations can make. That is why the Government have awarded an £86 million in-year uplift to the disabled facilities grant for 2024-25, bringing the total funding to £711 million.
That increased funding will allow more eligible people to make vital improvements to their home, allowing them to live more independent lives and reducing hospitalisations. The Government have also confirmed that amount for 2025-26. To ensure that the disabled facilities grant is as effective as possible, we also continue to keep different aspects of the grant under review. For example, we are currently reviewing the suitability of the £30,000 upper limit. I have known cases where, because of the scale of the adaptations that are necessary and the impact of inflation on construction work, that needs to be reviewed. The Government are also reviewing the allocations formula for DFG to ensure that funding is aligned with local needs. We will consult during 2025 on a new approach, with a view to implementation as soon as possible after the consultation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That is a very positive response. Can we have that in writing, please, to save us from going through Hansard, as to those further measures that the Government intend to take? Will they be in the Bill or in guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will provide in writing all that I have just outlined.
Amendment 178 seeks to allow private rented sector tenants to carry out disability adaptations to their homes without first obtaining consent from their landlord if the cost of these adaptations is below a threshold set in regulation. I agree that the Government should seek to address barriers preventing disabled tenants getting the home adaptations that they require. However, this amendment is not the right way to achieve it. The amendment defines which disability adaptations are classed as minor solely by reference to cost. This would not capture a range of other factors—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—that a responsible landlord would need to consider when deciding whether to permit alterations.
These factors could include interactions with building regulation requirements—a very important set of requirements on landlords—the need for consent from third parties and how easy it will be to return the property to its original condition. As many of these factors will be dependent on the features of each individual property, it would not be possible to define “minor adaptations” in a way that works effectively for all housing in a private rented sector as diverse as ours. Given the challenge in defining which adaptations are minor, it is likely that some disabled tenants would make genuine mistakes, for the best reasons, and carry out adaptations that were not in scope of the legislation. If successfully challenged by landlords in the courts, this could result in negative consequences, such as being ordered to pay damages to remove the adaptation. The risk of this happening could deter tenants from exercising such a right.
This amendment would also create a new right for tenants alongside the existing obligation on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 not to refuse consent for disability-related improvement. That could make the system more confusing and more difficult for tenants to navigate. Therefore, the amendment would not be an effective way of supporting disabled tenants and could even make things worse. The Government are already taking strong action on this through the existing measures in the Bill and the further commitments that I have set out.
Amendment 191 seeks to extend the rental discrimination measures in the Bill to persons requiring home adaptations. We recognise very much the important issue that this amendment raises and agree strongly that people with disabilities should not face discrimination when accessing the private rented sector; nor should they be unreasonably refused the adaptations that they require. We hope that the transformative reforms to the private rented sector delivered through the Bill will make a substantial difference to support disabled tenants. The abolition of Section 21 and the new PRS ombudsman address the two key barriers identified by the 2024 report of the former Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee: retaliatory eviction and access to redress.
Disabled people are, however, already afforded the full protection from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. As part of this, landlords and agents are forbidden from victimising or discriminating against a person based on a disability in relation to the offer of a tenancy, the terms on which a tenancy is offered or their general treatment of that person. Expanding the Bill’s rental discrimination provisions in this manner would create an unnecessary dual system, increasing complexity and causing confusion, leading to an overlap of responsibilities between local authorities and the courts.
Homelessness: Young Adults
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a key point about supporting young people leaving prison. We have provided an uplift of £192.9 million to the homelessness prevention grant, which brings the total funding up to £633 million, the largest investment in that grant since it began. We are also setting out our plans in relation to all types of homelessness and housing in a housing strategy that will come forward later in the year. The ministerial working group on homelessness is paying particular attention to homelessness among young people, because we know the long-term damage it can do.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in light of the rising rates of youth homelessness, can the Minister let me know how much of the £1 billion grant that has gone to local authorities has been specifically directed to homelessness among young people—or has none of it been directed? If not, why not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We trust our colleagues in local government to direct money to where it is most needed. We will be looking, under the ministerial working group that is looking at homelessness, to see whether we need to take any further specific action on youth homelessness, but our colleagues in local government are very good at making sure they tackle the areas of most need in their local areas.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Assessment of operation of possession process(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which—(a) on applications made by landlords the county court is able to make orders for the possession of dwellings in England that are let under assured and regulated tenancies, and(b) such orders are enforced.(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish the assessment at such time, and in such manner, as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.(3) In this section—“assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy within the meaning of the 1988 Act;“dwelling” means a building or part of a building which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;“regulated tenancy” means a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to assess the operation of the possession process to ensure that the courts service has the capacity to deal with the increased demand expected because of this Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their amendments.
Before I get into the substance of the debate, I would like to issue a plea. I hope the Minister knows that I have the utmost respect for her. However, so far in Committee, we have been disappointed with the responses we have received to our debates and amendments. I can say in good conscience that, when I sat in her seat on her side of the Chamber, I treated every amendment put before me with respect; I often took issues back to the department to consider and, where possible, made changes. That is because I understood that it was the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise, revise and improve legislation. Unfortunately, it does not feel like this is still happening. Questions go unanswered and suggestions are dismissed without sufficient consideration.
This House has always been more about reason and substance than blind political ideology. I hope that the Minister can approach our debates going forward in that vein. I know full well that Ministers cannot always have the answers at their fingertips, and I am very happy to have written answers on points of details. However, I do ask that the Minister treats our House and our suggestions seriously, in the nature that they are intended.
This group addresses a critical issue that will determine the success or failure of the Bill: the capacity of our courts to deliver it. Let me say from the outset that we fully support the ambition to strengthen security and fairness in the private rented sector. That commitment was made clear in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Within that, the previous Conservative Government set out that Section 21 would not be abolished until meaningful court reform had been undertaken and sufficient progress achieved. Such caution was not merely prudent but essential, considering the challenges facing our courts system.
This Bill abandons the careful sequencing we set out under the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. Under our approach, Section 21 would not have been abolished until meaningful improvements had been made to His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. We also committed to a six-month implementation period for new tenancies to ensure that the system could cope. These safeguards were not incidental; they were essential.
However, in this Bill, those safeguards are gone. There is no clear commitment to upgrade court capacity before abolishing Section 21 and no phased rollout to protect the system from being overwhelmed. As a result, we face a real risk that our courts will be asked to carry out a far more demanding role without the necessary resources, reforms or readiness.
The ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill is commendable, but ambition alone is not enough. We must also confront the operational realities. This legislation will place significant demands on our already stretched courts and tribunals system. If we press ahead without ensuring that the system is properly resourced, modernised and fully functional, we risk undermining the very objectives that the Bill sets out to achieve. Tenants and landlords alike need a process they can trust: one that is timely, fair and accessible. Without that, this reform will falter at the first hurdle.
Let us be clear about the scale of what we are asking the courts to do under this legislation. With the removal of Section 21, we are fundamentally reshaping the legal framework for possession. Possession cases that might previously have been resolved swiftly, albeit controversially, will now be channelled through more complex, contested grounds. This is a just and necessary step, but it is one that demands an equal and opposite increase in our ability to administer justice efficiently.
Yet the system is not ready. The Civil Justice Council, the Law Society and countless court users have been sounding the alarm for years. Backlogs are rising, court rooms lie unused for lack of staff and overburdened judges are stretched too thin. In some parts of the country, landlords wait months, not weeks, for a simple hearing. In turn, tenants are left in limbo and often under the threat of eviction without resolution or recourse.
We must remember that delay is not neutral. It is not a benign inconvenience. It is a deeply disruptive force in people’s lives. For a landlord, it might mean months without rental income, with mortgage arrears mounting. For a tenant, it means living in a state of uncertainty. That silence—those weeks and months of not knowing—is not just stressful but debilitating. It leaves tenants feeling powerless and unable to plan their future and move forward.
It is for that reason that I urge the Minister to consider carefully Amendment 69 in my name, which requires the Lord Chancellor to conduct an assessment of the possession process. This assessment would examine how county courts handle applications from landlords for possession of properties under both assured and regulated tenancies, and how those orders are subsequently enforced.
This is a foundational step. If we are to move away from Section 21, we must be absolutely confident that the remaining legal routes for possession are functioning effectively, fairly and in a timely manner. This is not just a tick-box exercise; it is about ensuring we have a legitimate understanding of where our courts stand, their capacity and whether they are in any fit state to take on the increased volume and complexity of cases that this Bill will inevitably bring.
The amendment ensures transparency, accountability and evidence-based implementation. Without such an assessment, we risk walking blindly into a situation where the courts become the bottleneck, where neither landlords nor tenants can get timely access to justice. Likewise, Amendment 283 provides an essential safeguard. It would ensure that Section 21 cannot be abolished until the assessment outlined in Amendment 69 has been published and, crucially, that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the courts have the capacity to manage the increased demand. This is not an attempt to delay reform indefinitely; it is a commonsense measure to ensure that reform is deliverable. It puts the infrastructure in place before the policy takes effect. Without this step, we risk setting both tenants and landlords adrift in a system that simply cannot cope.
I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this very significant group. The amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in particular, underscore the necessity of certifying that the court system has the capacity to manage the anticipated increase in possession cases. Amendment 279 in his name stipulates:
“None of the provisions of this Act, other than this subsection, come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the average time for the court’s disposal of landlords possession actions in respect of residential property is as timely as in the year ending 23 March 2020”.
This benchmark is not arbitrary. It reflects a period when the system was functioning at a level that we can reasonably expect to return to. Furthermore, Amendment 280, also in his name, reinforces this by requiring the Secretary of State to certify that the courts are not only timely but efficient and adequately resourced to handle the increased caseload.
These amendments are not about delaying progress. They are about ensuring that progress is achievable and that the reforms we implement are not undermined by an overburdened and underresourced court system. As we have discussed, the abolition of Section 21 will undoubtedly lead to more contested possession proceedings. Without the necessary court capacity, we risk exacerbating the very issue that we seek to address: delays, uncertainty and a lack of access to justice for both tenants and landlords. The amendments before us today provide a prudent and responsible approach to ensuring that our court system is ready to meet these challenges.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments. They represent a balanced approach that aligns the ambition of the Renters’ Rights Bill with the practical realities of our courts system. We have noble Lords present who are experts in that system and I look forward to listening to their contributions. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name has much in common with the other amendments in this group, which are probing amendments to see whether the capacity of the courts is up to dealing with the cases that are likely to come before them—not least the likely increase in possession cases when the Act is implemented, and of course to deal with any backlog that has accrued between now and when it comes into effect.
Amendment 283, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, is the most demanding of the amendments. It basically defers the abolition of Section 21 until an assessment of court capacity has been completed and the Secretary of State is satisfied about capacity. Amendment 69 finds her in a more conciliatory mood. That amendment does not delay the abolition of Section 21 but requires the Lord Chancellor to monitor progress and ensure that the capacity is there, and it sets no time limit on that assessment. My Amendment 205 finds a middle way, requiring the assessment to be carried out within six months of the passage of the Bill, while Amendment 264, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is more generous, allowing two years. Neither would hold up the abolition of Section 21.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is completely correct. We need to make sure we are taking account of the impact on the system from the start. We believe that over time it will reduce the volume of cases going to the court service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out, not many cases end up in the courts system, but there are some that go down that route. We will be monitoring them from the outset.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
On that point, I have just gone online and it is still being quoted that there is a seven-month delay, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook said. If it becomes clear during the process leading to the implementation of the Bill that the courts cannot cope and it will have a severe impact on people’s lives—the lives of both landlords and tenants—will His Majesty’s Government be brave enough to slow down the implementation of this Bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I hope I have already made clear, we do not want to slow down implementation. We think the reforms we are bringing forward are really important and very much overdue. We do not expect that it will have the impact the noble Baroness has just outlined, but we will continue to monitor it and we will support our friends in the courts service with whatever help they need to make sure the impact is mitigated.
I turn finally to Amendments 279 and 280, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on the Bill, particularly on the judicial impacts. It has been incredibly valuable to me to have that input. Amendment 280 would require the Secretary of State to certify that landlord possession actions in respect of residential property are processed by the courts in no greater time, on average, than they were in the year before the first Covid-19 lockdown. In addition, Amendment 279 would delay the commencement of important reforms until this proposed assessment had been carried out.
As I have previously outlined, I recognise that landlords need a smooth and efficient process in the county court for the minority of cases where court action for possession becomes necessary. But we will not tie the implementation of these urgent reforms to an arbitrary target of court timeliness. The sector has already waited too long.
As noted, the Ministry of Justice already publishes quarterly statistics on the operation of the county court possession process, and court rules specify that possession cases requiring a hearing should be listed between four and eight weeks from the issue of the claim. If the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says that that figure is still disputed, I am happy to get back to her on that.
Setting a target for the possession process as a gateway for the operation of other Bill provisions would not be meaningful. A key stage of the process is the application for a warrant of possession. This is dependent on the actions of the landlord and is therefore outside the control of the courts service. Where a tenant stays in a property beyond the date set out in the possession order, a landlord can choose whether to apply for a warrant immediately to enforce a possession order granted by the court, and whether to apply to transfer the case to the High Court. We will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Justice on implementing these reforms. This includes ensuring that the county court has the resources it needs to adjust to any changes in case loads, and that the relevant rules and procedures are updated. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, requested a meeting. I am very happy to continue meeting on the progress of digitisation and the other interim steps that we are likely to take.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for clarifying that point. Indeed, I was talking about the claims to order median timeliness being eight weeks. It is difficult to take measures from different places—there are lies, damned lies and statistics, as we all know—but, as I mentioned, in the longer term we expect the reforms we are introducing to reduce the volume of possession claims. That is why the monitoring that I set out in response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is really important, so that we can see where this is taking us. We expect that only those cases where there is a clear, well-evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed, and that should, over time, reduce the volumes overall.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the insightful contributions made during this debate and the amendments we have discussed, particularly those proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson for speaking to them with such in-depth knowledge, which was much appreciated. The whole debate underscores shared concerns across the Committee about the capacity of our courts to effectively implement the Bill.
As I made clear throughout the previous days in Committee, the ambition to reform the private rented sector is commendable, yet without a robust and adequately resourced court system, these reforms risk being totally undermined. Amendments 283 and 69 in my name would create a foundational aim to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place before significant changes are enacted, thereby safeguarding the interests of both tenants and landlords.
The Minister remarked on the first day of Committee and has continued to say that the Government are working with the Ministry of Justice to complete a justice impact test. This assessment is intended to identify the additional burdens on the system arising from the new policies in the Bill and to ensure that the system is fully prepared for any increases in workload. This commitment is welcomed, but we need to know how long this justice impact test will take to complete. Will it be ready before the Bill progresses through Parliament? Given the significant implications for the court system, it is imperative that this assessment is thorough and timely and that the Bill is impacted only once we know the court system is ready for these changes.
The capacity of our courts is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the success of this legislation. As we have discussed, delays in the court process are not merely procedural; they have a real-world consequence for tenants and landlords alike. I urge the Minister to expediate the impact test and to ensure its findings are fully considered before any further steps are taken. I reiterate the importance of aligning the ambition of the Bill with the practical realities of our court system. The amendments before us provide a prudent approach to achieving this balance. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to continuing our discussions on how best to deliver. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this point.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I do not doubt the genuine compassion and sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but I feel there is a real incongruity about the current position of His Majesty’s Official Opposition to favour landlords and make evictions quicker and easier. The message to tenants via this amendment is, “Your unwanted evictions will take place only in the school holidays, so on 21 December rather than earlier in December”. I genuinely feel that it would be unworkable and that circumstances differ. I could actually argue the opposite: I would rather my children were safe in school while I negotiated trying to find where we were to live. I just do not think we can say that one size fits all on this.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 70 before the Committee today. It is a thoughtful and considered probing amendment that rightly recognises the significant impact that housing stability can have on a child’s education. During the pandemic, our children and grandchildren suffered greatly. Schools were closed, youth clubs shut down and extracurricular activities ground to a halt. The disruption left many young people adrift at a crucial stage of their development, and only now are we beginning to understand the effects. It is therefore incumbent on us all to support and uplift the next generation. However, the Government must ensure that the burden does not fall disproportionately on individual landlords. It is not, and should not be, their moral obligation to serve as the final safety net for vulnerable families. That responsibility lies with us—with the state, with local authorities and with society.
Owning a property does not automatically confer great wealth. It does not equip an individual to shoulder the complex needs of a struggling family. The Government must tread carefully to ensure that their actions do not drive up costs in this sector, which fall most heavily and disproportionately on low-income families and the most vulnerable members of our society. A sustainable housing market depends on both tenant security and landlords’ confidence. This is a very tough balance to strike, but I believe that the onus is on us all to strike it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would allow the court to grant an order for possession of a property that houses school-aged children only during school holidays, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their comments. I understand the probing nature of the amendment and the compassion that sits behind it. However, I gently point out that at the latest count, we have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation, a situation driven by the lack of attention to the housing situation paid by her Government. Therefore, while we want to do as much as we can to support families and children, I think it takes quite a lot of front to come before this Committee with this kind of proposal when we have that terrible situation of 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. I heard this morning of a three year-old who has been homeless for his entire life—astonishing.
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment; however, I am going to talk about the practicality of delivering it. It would likely mean that, where possession has been sought, the courts would need to check whether the property contains school-age children and whether it is the school holidays or not, before scheduling a hearing. Not only would this create additional work for the courts—we have just spent quite some time debating the pressure the courts are already under—it could cause delays for landlords in obtaining possession orders. That is an issue the Opposition have taken great interest in. For example, a landlord’s case could be next in line to be heard, but, because it is the beginning of the school summer holidays, the hearing would be delayed for six weeks.
Furthermore, although provision is made within the amendment for regulations to be made annually to define the school periods, it would be an onerous task. School holidays vary across local authority areas and sectors; they can even vary within an individual area. My grandchildren live at the same address but go to different schools and have different holidays. This would likely cause confusion and added complexity for landlords who wish to seek possession of their properties.
While it is absolutely right that tenants enjoy a greater level of security in their homes, we have said that landlords must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to seek to take their property back. It would not be reasonable to add additional barriers, complexities or delays to the possession process.
Our reforms give renters much greater security and stability, so they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives and communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. That is why we are introducing the many protections for tenants, such as banning Section 21 evictions, increasing notice periods and introducing a 12-month protected period at the beginning of a tenancy during which landlords cannot evict them to move into or sell the property. However, that must be balanced with the needs of landlords, who must enjoy those robust grounds we have already spoken about. Judges already have some discretion when deciding the date on which a tenant should give up possession. Even if an outright possession order is made, pursuant to a Section 21 notice or on a mandatory ground, the date for possession can be postponed for up to six weeks if a tenant can show that this would cause exceptional hardship.
As well as it being impractical, there is also a principled argument against this amendment. Being evicted will almost always be a significant upheaval for tenants—I accept that—particularly for those with children, so I understand the intent behind it. However, it would not necessarily—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out—always be easier for parents to deal with a possession order or eviction during the school holidays. During termtime, parents may have significantly fewer caring responsibilities, particularly if their children are younger. Therefore, many parents find the school holidays a time of increased responsibility and stress. Families being evicted during school holidays may also mean having to take up that school holiday with the necessities of moving, rather than doing activities with the children. So it may make it more difficult for families, not easier. It is for these reasons, both practical and principled, that I ask for this amendment to be withdrawn.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment questions the Government's reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord from agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the Tribunal under Section 14.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in my response to all amendments in this group, I will be guided by a principle of stability and fairness—fairness for both tenants and landlords. This is not a debate about unchecked gain, and nor should it result in the erosion of property rights. It is about balance, responsibility and securing a system that works for everyone.
Amendment 75 in my name probes the Government’s reasons for preventing the tenant and landlord agreeing a rent value that is higher than the rent set by the tribunal. Just consider this scenario: the tribunal makes a determination, but then the landlord embarks on a renovation, which includes new appliances and upgrades throughout the property. Under this legislation, even if a tenant voluntarily wishes to pay a higher rent to reflect improvements made to the property, they would be prohibited from doing so. Two consenting adults, tenant and landlord, may well agree that the enhanced value of the home warrants a modest increase in rent. A mutual agreement will exist and yet the Bill would override that agreement. Why should the Government intervene to prevent it? That is one example, but it is, in truth, superfluous to the broader point I wish to make. If a mutual will exists—if two adults come to an agreement, regardless of whether we personally deem their reasons rational—why should any Government say no? Why should this Bill override that choice? We must be careful not to legislate away agency in the pursuit of protection, and I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
Amendment 78 in my name seeks to prevent the Secretary of State expanding the definition of low-cost tenancy by regulation. This definition is important: it is not a technicality but fundamental. It determines not only how a property is treated under the law but how the relationship between the tenant and the landlord is structured. I understand that this is a significant power. Does the Minister agree? Anyone familiar with detail in the implications of this Bill will surely recognise that the power of a Minister to alter the foundations of an existing contract is unacceptable. Therefore, can the Minister commit to removing this regulatory power ahead of Report? If not, can she please set out in writing why she believes the Government should be afforded this power?
Finally, Amendment 86, in my name, probes the Government’s reasons for allowing a six-month period in which an application may be made to the tribunal under the newly constructed Section 14(A1). Six months could lead to a significant increase in claims being directed towards an already overburdened tribunal service. Have the Government properly considered multiple timescales and modelled the impact each would have on the tribunal system? If this vital work has been overlooked, will the Minister commit to reviewing the impact of the chosen timescale on the total claims and return to the Dispatch Box with this at a later time? This is not an unreasonable request, and I hope the Minister agrees.
Many of the amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s thinking and understand how they have arrived at the current text of the Bill. Unsurprisingly, given the importance of these matters, this group contains numerous amendments; I hope the Minister listens carefully to the views expressed across the Committee and is not too ready to dismiss them all in her reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 in my name. Each relates to the potential unintended consequences of Clause 7 for registered providers of social housing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his support.
Before turning to my amendments, I express my strong support for the Government’s ambition to give greater rights and protections to people renting their home. Since the previous Conservative Government first promised to end no-fault evictions in 2019, almost a million renters have received a Section 21 eviction, which is a leading cause of homelessness. It is right that the Government have acted decisively to end this unacceptable situation for good.
While most of the Bill is focused on reforming the private rented sector, some reforms will affect housing associations because the majority of homes that they provide use assured tenancies. This includes housing for people on low incomes, people needing high levels of support, people in crisis and people in need of short-term and emergency accommodation.
I understand that significant progress has been made to amend the Bill to negate any unintended consequences for social landlords. This has been strongly welcomed by the National Housing Federation and others that support this legislation. There have been welcome changes to ground 1B and ground 6, as well as the introduction of ground 6ZA, which will allow social landlords to gain access to properties both to meet housing need and to deliver essential redevelopment and improvement works. However, housing associations would still very much like to see further clarity in the Bill on proposed changes to the process for rent increases.
Housing associations are not-for-profit social landlords: they invest any income back into the development and maintenance of the homes they provide and into supporting residents and communities. To maintain fairness for tenants, to ensure administrative efficiency and alignment with benefits and utility rates increases, and to provide business certainty for repairs, maintenance and services, housing associations increase all tenants’ rent on the same day, usually in April. The Bill helpfully acknowledges this and attempts to provide a mechanism by which social landlords can still administer annual rent increases in the form of contractual clauses instead of Section 13A notices.
Retaining registered providers’ ability to use clauses in tenancy agreements to increase rents is positive, as it provides them with a practical method for increasing rents on the same day for all tenants. The loss of this rent-harmonisation mechanism would have been a significant disruption—and, indeed, unnecessary, given how heavily regulated this sector is compared with the private rented sector.
However, the ability to use contractual clauses instead of Section 13A notices could be clearer than is stated in the Bill currently. The Explanatory Notes clarify that contractual clause increases can be used, but the Bill says:
“For the purpose of securing an increase in the rent under a tenancy … the landlord may serve on the tenant a notice”.
It goes on. This reflects the wording applying to PRS tenancies, where the word “may” is used in a mandatory sense, as the only way that the landlord can increase the rent is through the process in Section 13 of the 1988 Act. In contrast, where it applies to relevant registered provider tenancies, “may” is used in a permissive sense: the landlord can use a Section 13A notice, but they also have the option to increase by a clause in the tenancy agreement.
The Bill provides for this method of increase by agreement between the landlord and the tenant. However, it does not make it clear whether each increase must be agreed or whether a mechanism for increase in the tenancy agreement covers all increases.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not saying that; I am saying that the penalty for the person challenging their rent would be in the debt that accrued from the backdating. That is the point I was trying to make.
Amendment 97 is a consequential amendment linked to Amendment 94 which aims to ensure that, where a tenant challenges a rent increase notice at the tribunal, any rent increase determined by the tribunal would be backdated to the date on a Section 13 notice. I have already set out why the Government do not agree tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.
Amendments 96 and 98, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should be considered in the light of his Amendment 103. Amendment 96 would allow a rent increase to be backdated to the date of the notice. It would, however, limit this to cases where the tribunal has determined that the rent increase proposed by the landlord is the same as or lower than the market rate.
Amendment 98 would similarly change when the rent increases apply after the tribunal determines a rent. It would mean that, if the tribunal finds that a landlord’s proposed rent is lower than the market rate, the rent increase would take effect from the date the landlord originally intended. However, where a landlord has proposed a rent above the open market rate, it would apply from a date on or after the date of the tribunal hearing. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the potential for the courts to be overwhelmed. We have had extensive discussions on this capacity issue.
I believe I answered his points around the ECHR in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, last week, but I am happy to take that back to the department’s lawyers again. I have also responded previously to the noble Lord’s points about the impact on build-to-rent investment. The Government do not agree that tenants should be forced to pay backdated rent.
I have more amendments to get through, but I see that I am out of time. If noble Lords are happy for me to carry on, I will.
Amendment 99, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seeks to backdate a rent increase to the date of the notice. It provides that tenants may either pay the backdated rent in one payment or in 12 equal instalments. Amendment 104 is consequential to Amendment 99 and seeks to define the terms “the uplifted rent” and “the rent difference”. Amendment 101, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, similarly proposes that tenants pay a backdated rent increase in equal instalments for a period of up to six months after the date of the tribunal’s determination. I am sympathetic to the underlying premise of these amendments, which is that tenants might face financial problems in paying a rent increase approved by the tribunal. Although these amendments seek to smooth out the impact of an increase, it is much better to remove the cause of the problem, which our current policy achieves by ruling out backdating in the first place. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seeks to remove the tribunal’s ability to delay a rent increase for up to two months after the date of determination in cases of undue hardship. The Government strongly believe that being able to defer rent increases for a short period is a necessary protection for renters. This will give them time to adjust and consider their options, while ensuring that the landlord can achieve market rent. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Finally—noble Lords will be pleased to hear that—Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation on the resources available to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). My department has worked closely with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice throughout the formulation of this Bill. This collaboration has carefully considered implementation and resourcing issues. Our shared aim is that the tribunals are well equipped to implement our reforms effectively, as I have repeated a number of times during our debates. Work is progressing in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to increase capacity, as well as to review resource and working practices. The noble Baroness’s amendment understandably reflects the need to ensure the tribunals are equipped to implement these reforms, but the proposed consultation would not provide any new information beyond the work that is already under way. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as expected, this has been a technical and densely packed group of amendments, with numerous contributions from noble Lords who clearly possess deep knowledge of this Bill. I have found their insights invaluable, and I trust the Government will reflect seriously on the points raised today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for rightly seeking clarification on the mechanism available to social housing providers to increase rents. Amendments 80, 80A, 82 and 83 are thoughtful probing amendments and we thank the noble Baroness for bringing these to the attention of everyone in the Committee today. This is an important issue for both social housing providers and for tenants living in social housing. Clear rules and understandable mechanisms build trust and transparency. Furthermore, a standardised approach, underpinned by clear and consistent rules, ensures confidence in the process that governs rent and tenancy management. The Government have a duty to communicate these mechanisms, not only to this House but to those forced to respond to this incoming legislation. In fact, I would argue that the latter is much more important. As we have repeatedly noted throughout Committee, this legislation is technical and detailed, and so the Minister has an obligation to clarify. I trust she will welcome any further amendments brought forward with the purpose of testing and probing the Government’s rationale and decision-making process.
I now turn to Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. Any amendment brought to the attention of this Committee which seeks to alleviate the pressures on the tribunal process must be considered by the Government. This is an important area, and the noble Baroness should be commended for putting forward ideas to help filter out appeals which simply do not have any prospect of success. Prolonged uncertainty is not good for the landlord or the tenant. Delays in resolving disputes will keep both parties up at night and add to the pressures of everyday life. Additionally, backlogs will reduce confidence in the system and many will lose faith with that service as a legitimate protector of their interests. This is not an exhaustive description of all the issues arising from an overburdened system, but it highlights the serious risks we face if these concerns are not addressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly highlighted the critical issue of resourcing within the tribunal system. This is a thoughtful amendment which clearly commands support. Ensuring that the tribunal system is adequately resourced is vital. The Secretary of State must take responsibility for ensuring that their own policies do not undermine or overwhelm the very system intended to deliver justice and security for tenants and landlords alike. My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, among many others, spoke with his usual vigour and clarity on this issue. On many issues in Committee he has shown his understanding that it is only by striking the right balance in this legislation—I will say it again—that we can we hope to achieve an efficient and effective rental market for the future.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to reduce the backlog by adding a drawback or consequence of taking a case to tribunal if unsuccessful. I recognise the determination of the noble Lord to take the pressure off the tribunal system.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raises an interesting probing issue in relation to government grants. I was interested to hear that the Minister is going to look into this further. I welcome that and will be interested in what she comes forward with.
I turn to Amendments 91, 94, 97 and 100, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The Committee is right to consider amendments that tighten up and clarify the timing of when a rent increase or notice becomes effective. The Committee is also right to explore options that ensure a predictable timeline for this process, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for tabling these amendments.
Lastly, I briefly allude to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Amendment 104 highlights the importance of clear, conscious definitions within law. Definitions provide certainty and consistency in application, and every Bill should have well-defined terms. Our courts rely on this, our public bodies rely on it and those who are expected to follow the law deserve it. I hope that the Minister agrees with this principle.
Next, Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is a useful probe into rent tribunals. To remind the Committee, this amendment would ensure that, if a rent challenge were unsuccessful, the reviewed rent would apply from the date that the increase was due to take effect, rather than the end of the legal process. We must consider the incentives and signals that the legislation sends to tenants, but additionally we must seek to protect landlords from financial losses caused by legal delays firmly out of their own control. I listened to what the Minister said on this, but we will be bringing this back for further discussion in the future. Across the Committee, we must consider proposals that ensure that tenants are not hit with sudden, unaffordable lump sums, but also ensure that landlords are properly compensated for a lawful rent increase. This amendment would bring this consideration front and centre, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for speaking to it today.
Briefly, Amendments 96, 98 and 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, are interesting and quite thoughtful proposals. Where it is possible to do so fairly, rent should indeed be determined at the open market rate. Ensuring that rents reflect genuine market conditions helps to maintain balance and fairness in the market, for both tenants and landlords.
This was a packed and detailed group, with numerous proposals from across the Committee. Not only did I find it a fascinating debate, but once again it highlighted noble Lords’ understanding of the key issues facing the sector. I hope the Minister is listening carefully to the knowledge and expertise across this Chamber and can therefore help the Government make this a successful Bill at the end of the process. We have to ensure that we can enhance the availability of houses, alleviate the burden of unaffordable rents and really deliver security for tenants. Right across the Committee, we agree that renters need a better deal, but I fear that this group is yet another part of the story and, as it stands, the Bill is not quite the answer. However, at this time, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement that agreed tenancy rents can only be decreased by the Tribunal, therefore removing the potential incentive for tenants to appeal all rent increases when they would only go down or stay the same.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 92, 93, 95, 102 and 105 in my name, which relate to rent controls and caps. I apologise if I repeat quite a bit that other noble Lords have been debating, but I think this is an important issue and I would like to give my own explanation of my amendments in this group.
Amendment 92 in my name addresses an issue of critical concern both to landlords and to the overall functioning of the rental market. The current provision limits the ability of tribunals to increase rent, allowing only for reductions. Let us pause for a moment to consider what such a provision creates. In practice, what incentive does it give to tenants? In essence, this provision incentivises a clear motivation for tenants to appeal all rent increases, as we heard earlier, regardless of whether the increases are reasonable, aligned with market value or necessary. Why? Because they know that the worst outcome for them will be that their rent is either frozen or reduced.
I have tried over the course of our debates on this Bill to understand the Government’s position on many of its provisions. On this provision, I find myself asking who exactly came up with this. Who thought it was fair or reasonable to restrict the ability of tribunals to increase rents while leaving only the option for reductions?
Under this existing framework, tribunals can never increase rents, regardless of the circumstances. Not only does this create a totally imbalanced system within the rental market: more pressingly, how will the tribunals cope? How can we expect the tribunals to fairly adjudicate cases when the scope of their decision-making is so narrowly constrained?
On the issue of tribunal capacity, I once again ask the Minister to assure the House that tribunals will have the necessary resources and capacity to manage the inevitable increase in the number of cases under this new system. If the Minister does not have the figures on this available today, can she commit to writing to me with the details in full? It is essential that we understand how the Government intend to support the tribunals, given the increasing workload and the very real risk of backlogs that this Bill may introduce. I do not believe that it is sufficient simply to introduce this provision without a clear plan for ensuring that tribunals can operate efficiently and without significant delays.
I must ask: is this what we really want? Are we truly creating a fair system if landlords are unable to maintain rents that reflect the realities of the market? At what point do we risk undermining the rental market altogether? If landlords begin to feel that any rent increase, no matter how justified, will result in a tribunal-imposed reduction or freeze, will they not simply choose to exit the market—and what will this do to the rental supply?
To put it plainly, this provision will lead to fewer rental properties, fewer long-term stable tenancies and, ultimately, higher rents for tenants. We cannot ignore the wider consequences of this approach. Amendment 92 seeks to correct this imbalance by giving tribunals the discretion to make a neutral decision based on the facts before them. It would allow the tribunal to increase rents if justified, just as it could reduce rents when necessary. In doing this, we would be creating a balanced system that reflects the realities of the housing market and treats both landlords and tenants fairly.
Amendment 93 addresses another fundamental issue: the ability of tribunals to backdate rent reductions. How can it be fair to require landlords to repay rent that they agreed to in good faith at the start of the tenancy? If a rent increase has been agreed to, how can we justify forcing landlords to pay back significant sums retrospectively? The provision does not just destabilise the relationship between the landlord and the tenant; it undermines the entire principle of contractual fairness. If landlords face the risk of backdating payments, why would they agree to any rent increases at all? And what happens to trust between landlords and tenants when rents can be altered retrospectively? The solution is simple. Amendment 93 would ensure that rent reductions cannot be backdated, promoting stability and fairness.
Amendment 95 ties directly into this. It addresses the delay of rent increases by tribunals. How can we justify automatic delays to rent increases when those increases are fair, reasonable and in line with market conditions? This provision creates an incentive for tenants to appeal rent increases simply to delay them. Of course tenants would do this—if they know that they can delay rent increases for months or even longer, regardless of whether the increase is justified, why would they not do that?
The reality is that the current system encourages tenants to use the tribunal process as a delaying tactic, even when there is no real case against the rent increase. What does this do to landlords, who rely on these rent increases to cover rising costs, maintain their properties and meet their financial obligations? What happens to them when the tribunal can, at any time, delay a rent increase without a justifiable reason?
I therefore ask the Minister how the Government expect landlords to respond to this. Can she explain why we are encouraging tenants to delay rent increases when the increases are reasonable and necessary? Does she not see that this provision disincentivises landlords from entering or remaining in the rental market at all? If we allow this to continue, the only winners will be tenants who exploit the system. Landlords will be left with fewer options and fewer incentives to maintain or improve their properties. At what point do we risk irreparable damage to the rental market?
Amendment 95 seeks to correct this imbalance by ensuring that rent increases are delayed only where there is clear evidence of undue hardship for the tenant. This would prevent tenants delaying rent increases simply for convenience and would provide landlords with the certainty they need to operate within a fair system.
Why is the Renters’ Rights Bill so intent on restricting rent increases, when in many cases increases are entirely justified by market conditions? The provision that rents can only be decreased creates an artificial cap that disregards the economic reality of the rental market.
Moreover, by limiting rents to reductions, we are effectively disincentivising landlords from maintaining or improving their properties. Is the Minister aware of the potential long-term consequences of this? Amendment 102 seeks to address this by replacing the requirement for rents to be decreased with a possibility for rents to be adjusted according to the circumstances. This would create a more flexible and fair approach, one that allows the tribunal to consider the economic reality of the rental market without imposing artificial restrictions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Market rates are usually driven by demand, not by what happens in the courts, so I do not think that will be the case.
On Amendment 95, for too long tenants have been afraid to challenge an unreasonable rent increase for the fear that the rent can be raised beyond what the landlord has asked for. The Bill will reform how the tribunal works to ensure that tenants feel confident in challenging poor practice and can enforce their rights. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. That strikes the right balance between empowering tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases and ensuring that landlords can increase to the market rent.
Amendment 95 would require the tribunal to backdate a rent increase to the date of the rent increase notice, except where this is likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant. This amendment would punish the most vulnerable tenants who may already be struggling financially. Therefore, to ensure tenants are not unexpectedly thrust into debt, it is right that the new rent amount would take effect no earlier than the date of the tribunal determination. This will give tenants the time to prepare for any changes to their rent and seek independent advice on how best to manage their finances. For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the tenant will continue to pay the rent that they were paying before—it is the increase in the rent that is being challenged through this process.
Turning to Amendment 102, I reiterate that applying to the tribunal should be a last resort for a tenant. Good landlords and tenants will discuss what rent is sustainable for both parties but, if they cannot come to an agreement, a tenant has the right to challenge a rent increase at tribunal. As I have said, for too long tenants have been afraid to do that. I note, too, that the Opposition once supported our position on this matter. Their original White Paper said the tribunal will no longer have the power to increase the rent above the amount the landlord asked for. It is regrettable that they now disagree with themselves and want to make it easier for tenants to be evicted by the backdoor.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the Minister explain this? If a tribunal is taking quite a long time, then the decision is made and any increase happens from the date of that tribunal’s decision, and the landlord can go to a tribunal only every 12 months, does that 12 months start from the date of the tribunal’s decision, or can it go back six, seven or eight months prior, so that it could be nearly two years rather than one year?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s question. My understanding is that the year starts from the date the tribunal decisions are made, but I will check that and write to her.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
So you could lose six or eight months—it could be nearly two years. If the Minister could confirm that, it would be useful.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will clarify that in the letter.
Amendment 105 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of Clause 8 on the First-tier Tribunal, and to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on whether further measures are needed to prevent distortion of the rental market by the tribunal’s determinations on rent. As I have made clear on similar amendments, the department is already collaborating extensively with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, as well as the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that the property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal is prepared for the implementation of the Bill, including any changes to its role in determining rent.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on the Minister’s last point on scaremongering, I do not think we are. I suggest that she might like to look at the latest weekend Bloomberg report on the rental sector in London. The number of landlords going out of the rental market is quite scary. It is said very clearly that they are going out because of further regulation of the sector. I will send the report to her if she would like; it is interesting.
I thank noble Lords who contributed on this group. In closing, I will return to our central concern, which runs through the whole group of amendments: the balance between landlord and tenant, between fairness and workability, and between principle and practical consequences. At the heart of this is the fundamental question about whether we believe in a truly impartial rent tribunal system. As the Bill stands, it allows only downward rent adjustments. Amendment 92 would correct that. It would give a tribunal the discretion to assess the facts and adjust rents up or down, depending on the evidence. That is the essence, we suggest, of a fair system that reflects market realities, not just one side of them. This imbalance is deepened further by the proposal to allow rent reductions to be backdated. Amendment 93 addresses this. Landlords who have acted in good faith, charging an agreed rent, should not be faced with demands to return funds months after the fact. That is not stability but uncertainty, and it undermines trust in the system.
That uncertainty only grows with the automatic delay of rent increases. Amendment 95 brings much-needed clarity to this. It ensures that rent increases are pushed back not simply as a matter of course but only when there is clear evidence of undue hardship. Without this, we risk creating a system where delay becomes the default tactic and landlords bear the cost. These problems are compounded by the Bill’s insistence that proposed rents can only be reduced. Amendment 102 introduces necessary flexibility. If we are asking tribunals to assess fairness, we must let them consider the full picture, not force them into decisions that ignore inflation, market trends or rising costs.
This brings us to the question of implementation. The tribunal system is already under enormous strain. Amendment 105 makes a straightforward, sensible request that the Secretary of State reviews the capacity of the system to manage what this Bill will ask of it. Without that, we are setting it up to fail. I urge the Government to consider the cumulative effect of these provisions. On paper, they may appear technical; in practice, they will drive landlords from the market, reduce housing supply and increase pressures on rents. This is not what this Bill should achieve, but at this stage tonight I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group represent yet another instance where the rights of renters intersect with those of landlords. This group of amendments is indicative of the broader Bill and, rather than increasing the availability of homes, we believe it risks reducing the supply of rental properties. This could drive up costs for renters at a time when the cost of renting has already risen significantly. It is, of course, important to make sure that the legal framework which governs this relationship protects those who are renting, but we cannot forget the landlords. They should also have their rights upheld. Landlords should have their rights over their properties respected and retain the ability to recover possession of their homes when they need to.
I start by speaking to Amendments 24 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. They assume that the landlord is in some way liable to pay compensation for exercising rights, which surely are theirs by virtue of the fact that they actually own the property. Determining when in specific cases compensation is required is surely the responsibility of a court. To assume that compensation is always required tips the balance against the landlords and would likely discourage many responsible, principled landlords from entering the market and meeting the high demand for rented properties that we see across the country.
In the same vein, Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would place an administrative burden on landlords, which would have a dampening effect on the housing market. Houses are important personal assets. Piling on layers of regulation will further suffocate the market and limit the agency of landlords to use the assets that they own.
Conversely, we believe that Amendments 60 and 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, strike an appropriate balance, recognising that landlords need to be protected from bad actors, who could have a devastating financial effect on them. Landlords should not be punished for supplying rental properties to the market. Maintaining the existing possession grounds for rent arrears would mean that they can operate in the market with confidence that they will not be left out of pocket.
Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord de Clifford, further speak to the fact that landlords should retain the right to make use of their own property as they see fit. It is neither the role nor the place of government to dictate to home owners how their personal property should be used.
Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to conflate the rights of the landlords with their responsibilities. The landlord, by owning the property, has the right to make decisions about how that property is used. The tenant, in renting from that landlord, is expected to respect the rights of the landlord as the property owner. This relationship does not in any way suggest that the landlord should be liable to forgo income while still providing the service. This measure would clearly disadvantage landlords in their legal relationship with their tenant and would depress the market, which is already undersaturated.
Finally, I welcome that Amendments 142, 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Hacking, strike the appropriate balance between the rights of the renters and the rights of the landlord. We need to remember that we are talking about a market, which requires flexibility and adaptability so that it works for consumers and providers. Allowing landlords to make these decisions without being hamstrung by long-term obligations means that they can act in the mutual interest. A flourishing market benefits renters as much as landlords. This balance is imperative to achieve a flourishing market. I urge the Government further to consider, between now and Report, this crucial balance between landlords and tenants, most importantly to protect the tenants in this sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Hacking, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Grender, Lady Jones, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Carrington, Lord de Clifford, Lord Cromwell, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments and comments during this debate. It was great to hear from the noble Earl about the long-term tenancies that he has, of 21 to 45 years. I made the point at Second Reading and on Tuesday about the symbiotic relationship that can and should exist between landlords and tenants. Our aim is to foster that relationship and the balance that makes it work properly as we go through the process of this Bill.
Amendment 24 and Amendment 30 seek to make possession under ground 6B contingent on compensation being first paid by the landlord to the tenant. Amendment 24 specifically prevents a court making an order for possession unless compensation has been paid; Amendment 30 sets out that landlords must pay compensation at a level set by the Secretary of State in regulation before they can take possession. Ground 6B allows a landlord to evict tenants where they are subject to enforcement action and eviction is the only way that they can comply. It is intended to prevent landlords ending up in the legal limbo of having broken the law but having no route to comply with it.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in Clause 21 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will move my Amendment 32 and speak to Amendments 33 and 34 in this group. All three of these amendments are underpinned by the same principle, that of consistency. When anybody involved in a tenancy speaks about “family members”, there should be clarity on what that means, but the Bill is not consistent in its definition of a family. This inconsistency will make it much harder to achieve clarity for those who will have to work with this legislation in the real world. I will briefly outline the two definitions of the family that are currently in the text of the Bill.
In Clause 21, which relates to renter guarantors, the Government have defined family members in a broader way, including nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, partners, children and cousins within the definition. In Schedule 1, which we are debating today, the definition is much narrower, limiting the definition of family members in that part of the Bill to parents, grandparents, siblings, children and grandchildren. We have tabled these amendments to highlight this inconsistency, which will create an imbalance between the definitions of the family of a tenant and that of a landlord. While inconsistency applies to nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, partners, children and cousins, I will use the example of cousins to illustrate my point.
Surely whether a person is a landlord or a tenant, all families should be treated equally before the law. It cannot be right that a tenant’s cousin who is a rent guarantor is defined as a family member, but a landlord’s cousin is not defined as a family member for the purposes of ground 1. Can the Minister please explain why she believes it is acceptable for a cousin of a tenant who is their rent guarantor to be treated as a family member, but the cousin of a landlord is not treated as a family member for the purposes of ground 1, under this legislation? Does she agree that this is an inconsistent way of defining family members?
We are also interested in the perverse outcome that would result in a circumstance where a cousin of a person acts as a rent guarantor but also has another cousin who is a landlord. Under Clause 21, they would be the tenant’s family member; under Schedule 1, they would not be the landlord’s family member. In the real world, they are family members in both cases. It is unacceptable that an individual in this position would be treated in one way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a tenant and in a different way in respect of their relationship with their cousin who is a landlord.
Additionally, I am not certain whether cousins of tenants and cousins of landlords are different classes of people. If we are to treat cousins as a class of people for the purposes of the Bill, it seems that the Bill will affect private interests of cousins of landlords in a different way to the interests of cousins of tenants. We feel that this is unacceptable, and it should be resolved.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 seek to expand the definition of a family member for the purposes of possession ground 1. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into the property. These amendments widen the ground to allow a landlord to claim possession from an existing tenant to move in relatives of their spouse, partner or co-habitee, along with nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins.
In choosing which of the landlord’s family members can move in under ground 1, we have reflected the diversity of modern families while drawing a line short of where some might wish. But we are of the view that to expand the ground any further would diminish tenant protections too far. It would open tenants up to evictions from a wide range of people—potentially very significant numbers indeed where families are large—while providing more opportunity for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked why “family member” is used in Clause 21 while close family member is used in the moving-in ground. The moving-in ground is designed for very specific circumstances where a landlord’s family member is in need of accommodation, so it is right that this definition is narrower, as tenants risk losing their home. New Section 16N of the Housing Act 1988, “Guarantor not liable for rent payable after the tenant’s death”, as inserted by Clause 21, is specifically targeted to stop those grieving being held liable after a tenancy should have been ended, and it is right that this is a broader protection. The use of guarantors is wide ranging and, as such, a wider definition is needed to encompass all relevant persons. However, that is not the case when a tenant is facing eviction from a property.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. These amendments may appear complicated in their drafting, but they have one simple objective which is to deliver a consistent definition of the family across the Bill. While I am very disappointed that the Government do not feel able to accept the amendment today, I hope that the Minister is willing to discuss a way to resolve this inconsistency in future meetings as we make progress on the Bill.
The law should be as simple as possible and, crucially, consistent, so that those who have to deal with the legislation in the real world can do so without unnecessary confusion. It is clear that two different definitions of the family will create confusion. A consistent definition would prevent that confusion. While I reserve the right to bring this back on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
But, as the noble Lord was not here from the start of the debate, I am afraid he cannot speak.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing a debate on possession grounds. This is an important issue, as it ensures that a landlord—who is often also the employer—can regain possession of a property when it is needed to house a new employee.
I will address Amendments 48, 49, 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. These amendments raise an important and complex issue concerning agricultural tenancies, particularly in the light of the proposed reforms to tenancy law, including the abolition of fixed terms and the removal of Section 21 no-fault evictions.
At present, agricultural landlords can avoid creating an agricultural assured occupancy—an AAO—by serving notice before the tenancy begins, thereby establishing it as an assured shorthold tenancy, or AST. This provides access to Section 21, which allows landlords to regain possession without the need to demonstrate fault. It is a mechanism widely relied on in the agricultural sector, where housing is often tied to employment or operational needs. With the removal of Section 21, this option will no longer be available. As a result, there will be a significant shift in the way in which agricultural landlords recover their properties. We must ensure that alternative grounds for possession are workable and fair, and can lead to the recovery of a property.
I do not suggest that there are easy answers here. However, I believe that this area requires careful scrutiny and targeted solutions. I believe the noble Lord’s amendments offer a useful starting point for this discussion and he has rightly brought this to the attention of the House. I urge the Government to consider these issues closely and to engage further with agricultural landlords to ensure that they have the means to house new farmers under their employment.
Finally, I will talk to the remaining amendments in this group: Amendments 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 63. We must recognise the value of maintaining the availability of essential employment-linked housing and consider how best to safeguard it in practice. This of course must have thoughtful consideration, as the implications of any decision made affect not only the landlord and the employer but the broader rental market. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as part of a broader and much-needed discussion on how landlords can fairly regain possession of a property when a tenancy is tied to employment that has come to an end. I have milked many cows in my life, and even at Easter I was lambing ewes, so I know a lot about this.
Many roles with occupational housing are time-sensitive and hands-on. A new employee may require immediate access to the same accommodation as the previous employee in order to perform their duties. Herdsmen and herdswomen are often up at 3.30 in the morning to begin milking and shepherds may be lambing right through the night into the dawn, and for their own welfare as a family they need to be on site to fulfil that role. Animal welfare on farms also requires staff to immediately be available at all times, whether it is for calving, lambing, farrowing or just for sick animals, so accommodation on site is absolutely critical. The same applies to those managing diversification of agricultural properties and businesses, managing holiday accommodation or providing security for storage facilities on the farm, for example.
Failure to ensure timely access to such housing can have significant operational impacts. It can delay essential work and place considerable strain on the profit-making enterprises already operating within tight margins. This debate is therefore not only about the protection of property rights; it is fundamental to supporting those agricultural businesses, the people employed in them and the welfare of the stock on those farms, which rely so heavily on occupational housing as a practical necessity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these amendments relating to agricultural tenancies, and thank him, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their obvious farming expertise as they have taken us through the rationale for the amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her comments about the long relationships that are often prevalent in rural tenancies. It is important to make the point that one of the aims of the Bill is to facilitate those longer tenancy relationships.
I will make a few general comments, particularly that we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. This ground balances both. It allows agricultural workers to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs.
Widening the ground—for example, to include contractors—could, we believe, open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could contract someone to do a nominal amount of agricultural work for their business and, on that basis, use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds were available.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about the self-employed and contractors. We recognise that it is sometimes necessary for landlords to move tenants on where accommodation is intended for a particular purpose, and understand that employee accommodation plays a critical role for many employers, so we are strengthening the possession ground by making it mandatory. It would not be right to broaden the ground too much, and thereby reduce the security of tenure for more tenancies, as this would be contradictory to the purpose of the Bill.
There are other arrangements that a landlord can use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses for the contractor to make their own arrangements, using licences to occupy, or paying for them to be hosted in an Airbnb. As people working away from their home are often working on short-term projects—for example, in the construction industry—tenancy agreements are unlikely to be the right solution in these circumstances.
Taken together, Amendments 48 to 53 would expand the types of agricultural worker that other rural tenants can be evicted in order to house. Amendment 48 replaces the word “person” in the ground with the term “agricultural worker”. As I have discussed, we do not support the overall intent of these amendments, which would reduce security of tenure for all rural tenants with a landlord engaged in agriculture.
Amendment 49 removes the requirement for the incoming tenant to be employed by the landlord, replacing it with a broader definition of “working for a business operated” by the landlord. Amendment 50 specifically mentions service occupants, who are defined later. Amendment 51 changes the wording of the ground from “employee” to the broader “agricultural worker”. Amendment 52 adds a definition of “agricultural worker” for the purposes of the ground which is far broader than an employee. Amendment 53 defines “service occupier” for the purpose of the ground.
The current drafting of ground 5A allows for tenants to be evicted only in order to house employees. Together, these amendments expand this group to include service occupants, contractors and self-employed persons. This definition is far too broad and would endanger security of tenure for existing rural tenants. It would give a landlord running an agricultural business a much freer hand to evict anyone living in their property by, for example, creating a contract with another person to do a nominal amount of work for them. It is just not the right balance. Rural tenants do not deserve less security than others, and the amendments proposed would open up tenants renting from a landlord involved in agriculture to being evicted in a much wider range of circumstances. For this reason, I ask for Amendment 48 to be withdrawn.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the Minister explain how this scenario will work? It happens quite a lot, particularly on dairy farms, in my experience. Let us say that an employee milking as a herdsman, living in the one herdsman’s property on the farm, leaves at quite short notice. The day after that employee goes, the cows still have to be milked. The only way to get somebody in quickly to milk them is on contract—that is an easy way of doing it. How will you get that person living close enough to be able to look after the welfare of that herd of cows and milk them twice or three times a day when you do not have any property because you cannot get rid of the employee who has left?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Presumably there would be a time lag anyway because of the notice period that is required. Whatever arrangements are made in those circumstances would need to be used in the circumstances that the noble Baroness describes.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to understand in what circumstances the Government feels it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State not to publish the form or ensure the form is the up-to-date version.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 68 seeks to make a modest but sensible change to Clause 6 by replacing “may” with “must”. The intention here is clear: to ensure that the Secretary of State is under a duty—not merely a discretion—to publish the prescribed form for a notice of possession and to ensure that it is kept up to date. We simply do not understand why the Government believe that discretion is necessary in this case. If a form is to be relied on by landlords and tenants alike, and ultimately by the courts, it must be accessible and current. Anything less introduces the risk of confusion, inconsistency or even procedural unfairness.
Can the Government kindly explain the rationale behind retaining this discretion? In what circumstances does the Secretary of State envisage not publishing the form or not ensuring that the version in use is the most recent? This is a matter of basic clarity and procedural transparency, and I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on this point.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in a strange position: having argued earlier on discretionary powers to change “must” to “may”, I now find myself in support of changing a “may” to a “must”. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that making this open, available and transparent would be a good thing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that I can explain this very quickly and simply. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment regarding the form of notice for proceedings. Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to publish the prescribed form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. The form will continue to be published on GOV.UK. Amendment 68 by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would not affect whether the Government are required to prescribe that form. This requirement is already laid out in Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988 and is not repealed by any measure in the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Clause 6 provides that regulations may allow the Secretary of State to publish and update the required form without the need for any updates to be made by way of statutory instrument, as is currently the case. It is crucial that the information that landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. As the notice of possession proceedings remains a prescribed form under Section 8(3) of the Housing Act 1988, the requirement for the Government to prescribe the form persists; however, Clause 6 provides a simpler mechanism in which the form can be updated—it is the mechanism that changes.
I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am afraid that I am still confused, and what I would like to do is to read her explanation in Hansard and reserve the right to bring this back if we do not think that it is clear. It did not quite make sense to me, but I am sure that it might if I read it in the next couple of days. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Housing: New Homes Target
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, but does the Minister agree with the OBR’s experts that the Government are set to miss their 1.5 million homes target?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook forecast net additions to the UK housing stock to be 1.3 million, but we have to take alongside that the work that we have done since then on skills, the new homes accelerator and government funding for social and affordable housing. The trajectory of all that is very much in the right direction. We know there is more work to do; we are determined to do it; and we are very happy to stick with our ambitious target.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Can I just add that I was disappointed that we did not have any phraseology in ancient Greek? We will have to put up with that for today, I suppose. I echo my noble friend Lord Carter’s point: I think it would be really helpful, whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of retrospective legislation, that a proper list is set out as to which rights are going to be affected. I think everybody outside this Chamber is going to need that, in practice, in the rental sector. It would be very helpful if something could be published that literally specifies which bits are going to be affected retrospectively and how.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for bringing Amendments 16 to 18 to the Committee today. The question of the retroactivity of the Bill is not just a question of how it will be applied, it is a question as to whether it is fair at all. It is easy for Governments armed with executive powers to apply the law retrospectively, but it should be the duty of every Minister to ask: is this the right way? Is it the fair way?
I invite noble Lords to imagine that they signed a tenancy agreement under a clear set of rules in January 2025; they followed all the rules; then, in June 2025, Parliament passes a law saying that their tenancy is now invalid. Well, many will have to imagine no longer, because once the Bill gets Royal Assent, tenants and landlords may find that their agreements are no longer valid.
The predecessor of the Bill adopted a model of prospective lawmaking by setting out a two-pronged approach to implementation. It would have assured that substantial changes were introduced at a suitable pace, one that brought the sector along with it, giving it time to understand the new requirements and adapt accordingly. In their haste to publish the Bill, the Government appear willing to abandon the principle of prospective lawmaking, placing an immediate and heavy burden on landlords. The Committee will be well aware that 45% of landlords own just a single property. These are not professional landlords with teams behind them. They lack the infrastructure to absorb complex regulatory change. They are not poring over the details of legislation, nor do they have time to follow days of Committee proceedings. How do the Government expect these individuals to implement such sweeping reforms all at once and without a serious and structured implementation period?
At this Dispatch Box on Tuesday, I quoted some statistics from Paragon. In the same survey, it noted that 39% of landlords had not even heard of the Bill. Will the Minister please explain how the Government will communicate these changes? The department must begin explaining in clear and simple terms what is coming down the track. Landlords need to know that change is coming. Regardless of the Bill’s specific contents or intentions, its retroactive nature will pose challenges. It will not only bring an abrupt end to agreements freely entered into by two consenting adults, it will unleash a wave of challenges upon landlords through its immediate implementation.
I turn to the litany of amendments put down by the Government. We welcome the right to sublet and want to ensure people do not lose that right, but we want it to be implemented with clarity. On these Benches, we would prefer those specific tenancy types which underlie the right to sublet—such as fixed-term assured tenancies or assured shorthold tenancies—to remain. We set out our clear case yesterday and we will continue to stand up for a sector that delivers choice and variety and provides the homes we need. Will the Minister explain the Government’s adjustments to the context of Clause 3? It is clear that they intend to restructure the legislation, so on these Benches we wish to ensure that the effects of superior leases are appropriately addressed within the updated framework. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that tenants in sublet arrangements are not left in legal limbo?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these amendments before the House and for clearly setting out the minor and technical corrections to the legislation. Ensuring legal consistency is crucial, and aligning the wording with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will help maintain uniformity across legislation.
As we will discover in coming days, the agricultural aspects of the Bill are both detailed and complex, containing numerous references to specialised terminology. Any technical amendments that help harmonise such language are most welcome on these Benches.
I trust the Minister will continue to approach these proceedings with a collaborative and constructive mindset. These amendments demonstrate that the legislation, as drafted, is not beyond improvement, and we welcome the Government’s recognition of that fact. It is our hope that suggestions from your Lordships’ House are given due consideration and are not dismissed too readily from the Dispatch Box.
We trust that the Minister will also view forthcoming amendments in the spirit intended: to test and to probe the Government’s rationale in pursuing particular policy choices, particularly when it comes to the inclusion or the omission of specific clauses and definitions in the Bill. We are grateful for the opportunity to raise these important issues and we welcome continued constructive dialogue on how we can best improve the technical framework of the legislation.
On that note, I wish to ask further questions of the Government on government Amendment 183. From our understanding, this amends the Charities Act, as the Minister said, to ensure that the disposition of leases which are assured tenancies will be subject to that Act. However, as she said, the requirement to obtain a written report from an independent property adviser could be costly. The costs of these reports vary, and they can impose a significant burden on whoever is footing the bill for them. So I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify in writing that no charities will be required to obtain this particular report and, if there are some that will continue to need it, can she set out the conditions on which those reports from an independent adviser will be required?
If trustees do not comply with the law, they may be personally liable if this report is required and they do not do it; therefore, it is really important that we get absolute clarity on who, if anybody, will be required to do that. I reiterate the importance of keeping the core text of the Bill simple and, where possible, as focused as we can.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Just to respond briefly to the noble Baroness, I understand that the change to the Charities Act 2011 means that charities would not be required to obtain the designated adviser report prior to granting. They would be required to obtain advice and consider whether the terms of the lease are the best that can be reasonably obtained by the charity; that would be the requirement for trustees. But I will respond in writing to the noble Baroness just to confirm that that is the case.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 14, 66 and 67 standing in my name.
Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities but is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. Quite often, anti-social behaviour replaces productive community spirit with fear and tension, leading to residents feeling trapped and helpless. Anti-social behaviour strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home.
The consequences of anti-social behaviour are often forgotten. The costs of repairing damage, the need to enhance and increase security measures, and the day-to-day administration involved in responding to complaints from neighbours all place a significant and often unsustainable financial strain on housing associations, local authorities and landlords across the country.
As drafted, the Bill reduces the powers available to local authorities and social housing landlords in cases where tenants are responsible for anti-social behaviour. Amendment 14, tabled in my name, seeks to preserve the ability of landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour. Loud noise, vandalism and intimidation leave residents helpless, and local authorities must have the power to uphold community stability without the detriment of demotion. How can the Government ensure that there are consequences for this ruinous behaviour?
Amendment 66, tabled in my name, probes the Government’s objectives in creating a duty on the court to consider any co-operation on the part of the tenant against whom an order is sought. On these Benches we wish to understand the real-world impact of this change. I ask the Minister: what constitutes co-operation? Is it replying to an email or answering a call, or does it require a tenant to display a serious and notable change in their behaviour? Is this simply a requirement for engagement or would there be a requirement to take practical steps to prevent anti-social behaviour in the future?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to anti-social behaviour, and I agree with her powerful statement on ASB. As a councillor, I saw at first hand, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Eaton, did, the utter misery that is caused to individuals and communities through the irresponsible actions of others and I properly understand why it is important that we have provisions to tackle it.
Amendment 14 seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. This amendment seeks to enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy because of anti-social behaviour. However, the amendment as drafted would not work; the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure where assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict shorthold tenants via Section 21 are abolished. There will therefore no longer be a tenancy with lower security to demote tenants to. To work, it would require a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; that is the issue with the amendment as drafted.
I reassure the noble Baroness that tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. In addition, the Bill amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.
As well as the positive changes that the Bill makes towards tackling anti-social behaviour within the rental sector, we will crack down on those making neighbourhoods feel unsafe and unwelcoming by introducing the new respect order, which local authorities will be able to apply for and which will carry tough sanctions and penalties for persistent adult offenders. Together, those changes will ensure that the needs of victims are at the heart of our response to anti-social behaviour—that is what is important. Too often victims have felt that the power is all on the side of those who are committing the anti-social behaviour and not on the side of victims—that cannot carry on.
In response to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, about local authority housing tenants, the Bill introduces reforms to the assured tenancies framework, which applies to both the private rented sector and private registered providers of social housing. Local authority tenants are provided secure tenancies under a different tenancy regime. The vast majority of local authority tenants are secure lifetime tenants, and therefore they already enjoy a high security of tenure. Local authority landlords also have existing powers to tackle ASB, including eviction grounds similar to those in the Bill.
The point is taken from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about the further information about evidence and where the bar is going to be set; I will take that back to the team and come back to her. For these reasons, we feel this amendment is not needed and kindly ask that the noble Baroness withdraws it.
I turn to Amendment 66, which seeks to remove the requirement imposed upon judges, which has been introduced by the Bill, to give a particular consideration to whether a tenant, against whom a possession order is sought under ground 14 for anti-social behaviour, has engaged with attempts by the landlord to resolve the behaviour. We believe this change represents the wrong approach, for two reasons.
First, the Government believe that landlords should attempt to resolve problematic behaviour issues with tenants before attempting to evict them. By directing courts to particularly consider whether a tenant is engaged with these efforts, landlords will be incentivised to make them. Secondly, it is right that the court should give particular consideration to whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve the behaviour so that courts may be more likely to evict a tenant who has, for example, been obstructive throughout the process. Where a tenant has shown willingness to engage constructively with the landlord, it is right that the court considers this factor, and it is for those reasons that we introduced the requirement.
I turn to Amendment 67, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to expand the factors that a court is specifically directed to consider when deciding whether to make an order for possession against a tenant in a house in multiple occupancy for anti-social behaviour under ground 14. Currently, courts will be directed to give particular consideration to the past impact of the tenant’s behaviour on their fellow HMO tenants. This is in recognition of the increased impact that anti-social behaviour can have when victims have to share facilities and live in close proximity with the perpetrator, as the noble Baroness mentioned. Judges will also consider all factors relevant to the case and will already be directed generally to have consideration of the future and ongoing impact of that behaviour. As such, we do not think this amendment is strictly necessary to achieve the intended effect, although we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for flagging up that point.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first of all, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, and the Minister. All are from local government and understand anti-social behaviour over many years and the effect it can have. We on these Benches recognise that what is often described as anti- social behaviour may indeed be a symptom of much deeper, complex personal struggles. Those underlying issues, of course, deserve serious compassionate attention. So it is important that the Government are looking at the issues surrounding anti-social behaviour. I am particularly interested—I do not need an answer tonight —in bolstering the capabilities of support services within local government, to ensure that intervention can give people a real chance to turn things around before they get to the stage of being evicted.