Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness but, sadly, from practical experience, I think what she is saying is not necessarily the case.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will wind up on this group and give a little more detail on my Amendment 264. It is a straightforward amendment; I like to be straightforward. Based on the facts given by noble Lords in this debate, there is evidently a genuine concern about the capacity of the courts to deliver. All contributions have been well evidenced and—I will be quite frank—are worrying.

From our perspective, as was evidenced by the contribution from my noble friend Lady Grender, we support this legislation, we want ir to work and, for it to work, we know that the courts have to be efficient. If they are not, it could undermine the core purpose of the Bill, as was passionately said by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We know of, and understand, the issues regarding the courts. These have been well articulated in every contribution across the Committee, so I will not repeat them. However, many legitimate questions have been posed to which we need answers.

On Amendment 264, it is vital that court capacity is reviewed, and that this is enshrined in the Bill to make sure that it happens formally and can be scrutinised within two years. We feel that two years is probably enough, certainly to sort out the IT—as referenced by the noble Earl—and to feel whether we are moving on to an even keel after an initial transition period. I am sure that, as we go through the rest of the days in Committee, we will look at that transition period.

The amendment looks at all the key components for the effective working of the courts. It asks to look at access to justice. We must ensure that the system is accessible, affordable and understandable for all, regardless of a tenant’s background and circumstances. It is legitimate to ask the Government for their commitment to resourcing the courts and to have hard evidence about case volume, how many cases, and how long they are taking—the last aspect being very important for both landlords and tenants.

As has been mentioned, the current evidence is of the months ticking by, which is unfair to landlords. Their concerns in this instance are valid. Under the new grounds, if eviction is legitimate, it needs to happen quickly. Delaying things by months could put some landlords in financial jeopardy and tenants in real limbo and uncertainty. I am sure that any Secretary of State would want answers to these pertinent questions within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that all is working as intended, or, if not, in time to make some remediation, as the assessment will be based on real data. I am certain that the Government, too, are concerned about this and are doing everything they can to make sure that the courts are ready; I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

However, we do not support in any way Amendment 283 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to delay the abolition of Section 21. The sooner the long-promised abolition of Section 21 happens, the better. Indeed, Amendments 279, 280 and 283, as well as, to a lesser extent, Amendment 69, would certainly result in delays in the Act coming into force. For this critical reason, we cannot support them.

However, this does not mean that we do not take this issue seriously; I am not wearing rose-coloured spectacles. I expect full answers on the readiness of our courts to deal with these radical changes. The criticism and concerns regarding the courts have been known now for some considerable time. Work must have been done, so we would expect the Government now to have some hard answers.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and all noble Lords who have spoken about concerns about court capacity to deal with the huge increase in loads that will come their way. This is not just a serious policy issue; it is an important legal one. Article 6 of the ECHR guarantees rights of access to justice within a reasonable time, and if those rights are delayed then that will impact also on landlords’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, which is about rights to property. I am afraid there is nothing in the ECHR memorandum, which I have with me, addressing the Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 points relating to delays to justice in the courts. That is an important issue that has to be addressed, and I cannot see how this sensible Amendment 264 can be denied. Incidentally, the amendment overlaps with Amendment 106, which we will consider later; for some reason, they have been put in different groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for their amendments, and I thank the noble Lords Cromwell, Lord Empey, Lord Wolfson and Lord Northbrook, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for their comments and for bringing the noble and learned Lord’s amendments before us.

I understand the concerns that Members have on this issue, which is why we engaged early on with noble Lords in advance of the Bill coming before this House. We have listened to noble Lords’ views and experience in this area. I appreciate that we may need to have further discussions.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I started working with noble Lords on the Bill some months ago to understand the concerns that they had. Where probing amendments have been tabled, I have attempted to answer in detail. On matters requiring factual answers, such as data that I did not have at my fingertips, I have responded either in writing and/or offered further meetings to noble Lords.

However, it was too late in the day when the party opposite recognised the dreadful housing crisis that it had led us into, which meant it was too late for it to finish legislation to deal with it. Today, we are faced with amendments seeking to remove core principles of the Bill that is trying to deal with it. If those come before us, I will have no option but to disagree with them. Some of those core principles were in the Bill of the party opposite when that sat before this House. This Government will take up the challenge of dealing with the issues with a degree of balance between landlords and renters and, I believe, will do a better job of it.

The amendments before the Committee today would all require the Government to make an assessment of the justice system as a result of these reforms and, in some cases, delay commencement of the reforms until certain conditions were fulfilled. Amendment 69, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the Lord Chancellor to prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which a county court is able to make possession orders for rented properties, and how such orders are enforced. That assessment will be published at such a such a time and in such a manner as the Lord Chancellor sees fit. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has also tabled Amendment 283, which, if made, would delay the commencement of these important reforms until the Lord Chancellor had carried out and published the proposed assessment and was satisfied that the court service had sufficient capacity.

The Government’s view is that the implementation of our tenancy reforms should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill said, be held back by an assessment of current working, especially one that is so broad and undefined. We have no intention of delaying these urgent reforms while we wait for an unnecessary assessment of the existing possession process. The proposed assessment will provide no new insight or benefit to interested parties. Compelling the courts and tribunals to undertake such an assessment would detract from their vital work to make sure that the courts are ready for our reforms.

Quarterly data on the operation of the court possession process for rented properties is already, and will continue to be, published by the Ministry of Justice. This is regularly reported and scrutinised. The published statistics include both the volumes and timeliness of possession orders and the enforcement of those orders. Court rules specify that possession claims requiring a hearing should be listed within four to eight weeks of the claim being issued. Landlord possession claims are taking an average of eight weeks—not seven months, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook—to progress from the issue of a claim to a possession order in the most recent quarter from October to December 2024.

Instead of publishing this unnecessary assessment, we will carry out our tenancy reforms as quickly as possible. I want to reassure the Committee that we are fully focused on making sure that the justice system is prepared for the changes to court caseload and procedures which will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to that effect. This includes investing in additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated. I hope that answers the point from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I therefore ask that those amendments are not pressed.

Amendment 205 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would require the Secretary of State to lay a Statement before Parliament setting out how the Government will ensure that the county courts are prepared for the impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill on possession cases. The Statement would need to be made within six months of the Bill being passed and assess the effect of the Bill on the volume of cases, the efficiency and timeliness of judicial proceedings, and the resource requirements of the courts in future.

As I have said, I fully recognise noble Lords’ concerns that this Bill will impose an additional burden on the justice system and understand the concern of my honourable friend at the other end of the building about the court system. As already noted, I reassure the Committee that we are fully focused on making sure that the justice system is prepared for changes to court caseload and procedures which will be required for our reforms and we are working with the MoJ and HMCTS to that effect.

To pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about resources, we are working together to agree how these reforms are implemented. This will include ensuring that the county court will have the capacity and resources it needs to adjust to any changes in possession caseloads—which will, of course, involve the assessment that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, referred to—and commitments to address the resources needed. Work is also progressing on updating rules and procedures in readiness for the implementation of the new legislation.

In the longer term, we expect our reforms to reduce the volume of court possession claims, as only those cases where there is a clear, well-evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed. This will help offset any increased pressure on the courts resulting from our reforms in due course.

His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service is building an end-to-end digital service for resolving all possession claims in the county courts in England and Wales, to make processes more efficient and easier to understand for landlords and tenants—a much-needed reform. Funding has been agreed and provided to enable the design and build of this new service, which is well under way and builds on the existing digitisation of the justice system.

The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said it had left him with the impression that this was five years away. That is not what the court service said and not my understanding of where we are with it. As I have explained, this is not a new system that is being built from scratch; it is a further module of an existing system.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, commented on the outlining of the size of the problem that our colleagues from HMCTS set out. That was the hold system that they are developing, with the approach to design and build being at prototype stage. I understand what he is saying, but the digitisation process is not the whole picture of what we are doing with our colleagues in the courts service. This service will offer an online route for making and responding to possession claims, filing documents and receiving updates and outcomes, offering improved user experience through guided journeys.

As we have heard, some noble Lords heard first-hand about the progress being made. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that the question was put, “How long will this take?” and colleagues replied, as I understand it, “Two years from March”. I thank him for those comments, but that is not the totality of the work we are doing with the courts service, so, while progress on that is really important to driving this forward for the future, we will be working with our friends in the courts service and supporting them in the interim. I therefore ask him not to press his amendment.

I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for Amendment 264, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impacts on the judicial system arising from the Renters’ Rights Bill within two years of the legislation being passed. The review would need to consider the effect of the Bill on the volume of cases, the efficiency and timeliness of judicial proceedings and the resource and administrative burdens on the courts.

As I already outlined, I want to reassure the Committee that we are fully focused on making sure that the justice system is prepared for changes to court caseloads and procedures. We are taking that issue very seriously. We will monitor the effects of these reforms on the justice system by closely engaging with the sector and analysing the comprehensive data that is already collected. It is not that we do not think it is necessary to analyse the data; it is more that we think committing to a formal review on the face of the Bill is unnecessary.

The points the noble Baroness made about justice delayed being justice denied are quite right. That is why we do not want to delay all this, including abolishing the Section 21 evictions that have caused so many problems. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but I want her to be assured that we believe that analysis of the impact of the Bill on the system is critical and important, and we will be doing that using the information that is already available.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does that mean, as I take from her words, that such monitoring and review will be an ongoing and rolling process from day one?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I find these amendments very curious. The whole principle of the private rented sector is that it is a capitalist operation; it is an operation which has costs and revenue. The revenue comes from rent. Obviously, rents must be very carefully determined. As to whether it is one month or two, that seems to me of little account. Basically, what tenants need to know is that rents are likely to increase by some measure which is generally agreed. In the private rented sector, this is normally the retail prices index—the RPI, as opposed to the CPI. If there is not a return on the investment, the investment will not continue to exist. Nobody can afford to let properties if there is no return on the property. The question, of course, is: what should the return be?

There are two very important factors to think of. The first is the gross return, the gross rent, as a percentage of the market value of the property, and the question of what percentage it should be. I have produced a table which shows the different levels of rent for different values of property, but, of course, that is not the only factor, because one has to remember that the rent charged is gross before the cost of maintenance, and maintenance is hugely important. The solution to having a good private rented sector is proper maintenance and, indeed, improvement through modernisation maintenance. It may be that you put in a more economic burner to heat the house—they vary a lot, and later ones are much more efficient, but that is an expenditure. You have to get a balance there.

I suggest that very often, about a third of the rent, on average, will go on the maintenance—keeping up to date—and administration of properties. If we said, for example, that a 3% return on capital was a reasonable level for the rent to be set at, that might end up at a net 2%, which is probably about what equities yield at the moment. We must see that.

Then comes a very important point, which we shall no doubt be discussing later: the affordability of rents for tenants. The Government’s guidance has for a long time been that rents should not be more than 30% of household income. Therefore, that calculation should be made. If somebody is renting a property, they should bear in mind that that is the Government’s advice as to the amount that they can afford to pay, other things being equal. Equally, the landlord letting the property will also have to take into account whether or not the prospective tenant can afford their property. Again, it is essential that if you set a rent, you know the household income, to see whether it reaches the affordability stakes.

These are important and complicated matters, but they are crucial to the private rented sector. My worry about the Bill is that half the time the Government do not seem to understand the private rented sector. It is a business enterprise like many other business enterprises. It is not particularly virtuous or unvirtuous, but I wish I could feel that the Government, in fiddling around with it all, were trying to make it work in a practical manner for investors and those receiving the benefit of the investment; that is, the product. There is no real difference between a house that you rent and a product that you buy in a shop. It is part of how the system operates, how civilisation operates. The Government are very muddled in their thinking on this. I would have liked to have got rid of the Gove Bill, which also was ill considered and ill conceived, lacking in understanding of the real world.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we have several groups of amendments that talk about rent, money and finances, so before commenting specifically on this amendment, I want to have a little rant regarding landlord finances. The narrative is that the majority of landlords are in a terrible financial position. What evidence do we actually have for that? It is certainly not borne out by my anecdotal evidence and could be conceived as scaremongering, because my understanding is that being a landlord is, and will remain, profitable.

The idea that, to remain sustainable, landlords must be able to pass the entirety of any increased business cost and risk on to the tenant through a rent increase is, frankly, ridiculous. There is no other business model that operates in this way, and it does not add up when we look at the sum of the data that we have. The English Private Landlord Survey said that the median income of landlords, including rental properties, is around £52,000. According to the Shelter/YouGov survey of private landlords, rental income is largely additional for landlords: 50% of landlords say that they do not rely on rental income to cover living expenses.

I note that in any investments that I have made, there is a very cleverly worded phrase at the bottom: “Investments can go down as well as up”—except if you are a landlord, it would seem; even more so as you are left with a capital asset that, in this country, largely increases in value. That is my rant. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, were in her place, she would probably be quite proud of me for it.

I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding notice periods for rent increases. When the Bill was introduced in the Commons it proposed a standard one-month period. The Government’s decision to extend this to two months represents a welcome improvement that better balances the interests of landlords and tenants. This evolution demonstrates a willingness to listen and to respond to concerns about tenant security, for which I sincerely thank the Minister and her team.

Amendment 73 seeks to revert the notice period to just one month and Amendment 81 questions the differential treatment between standard and low-cost tenancies. These amendments, particularly Amendment 81, raise fair questions, which I too would like an answer to, as I have not been able to find a reason for that differentiation. A two-month notice period for rent increases represents a reasonable middle ground that acknowledges landlords’ legitimate need to adjust rents while giving tenants adequate time to prepare financially.

For many working families, a rent increase actually requires careful budgeting. I have not got the figures to hand but we know that a significant number—into the many thousands—of moves and evictions last year were due to the inability of the tenant to pay the new rent rise. One month is simply inefficient to work a decision to relocate and make those adjustments.

I commend the Government for finding a balanced approach. This middle ground solution may not be perfect from any single perspective, but it demonstrates what good legislation can achieve when all voices are genuinely heard during the parliamentary process. With these factors in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to notice periods for rent increases, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving Amendment 72.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for his comments about the balance between landlord and tenant. We are aiming to get that balance in this Bill. He is right to point to the ratio of rent to income, but that is why tenants need longer to consider the impact on their family budget. Increasingly, the proportion of income that is taken up by rent is going up and up, particularly in certain parts of the country, making it very difficult for tenants to manage increases at short notice and without adequate notice to plan their family budgets.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about consultation with landlords on the impact of rent increases. Because of a question during the debate on a previous day, I undertook to give a written response on the consultation that has been carried out before and during the course of this Bill. I will provide that response in writing to noble Lords; it is being prepared at the moment, and I will get back to them with a summary of that.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments. She is quite right to refer to issues of rental income and capital assets. As I have said many times, we must make this fair for everybody, and make sure that everybody gets what they want. Landlords want a tenant who will look after the property and pay their rent, and tenants want a landlord who will make sure the property is available, looked after and in good condition—that is what we are all after.

Amendment 72 would reduce the amount of notice of a rent increase that a landlord will have to give a tenant from two months to a period equal to a rental period. For example, where the rent is paid monthly, this would reduce the notice period from two months to one month. I appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, that these are probing amendments.

Together with Amendment 72, Amendment 74 would remove the requirement for landlords to serve a rent increase notice two months before the rent increase comes into effect. We do not agree with this position. The Renters’ Rights Bill will deliver our manifesto commitment to empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. This includes by requiring landlords to give two months’ notice of a change, rather than one. This was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out, the result of debates in the other place and of lobbying from a number of groups that have been speaking to us. This will ensure that tenants who may struggle to pay a rent increase will have time to consider their options, seek advice and, where necessary, take steps to challenge the rent increase at a tribunal.

Receiving a rent increase can be distressing for many tenants. We want to give tenants time to reassess their budgets and consider their options. It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, do not agree that tenants should have this protection.

Amendment 73 seeks to decrease in the Bill the notice period for a landlord to serve a rent increase from two months to one month. Similarly to Amendment 72, we do not agree with this position. A two-month notice period will give tenants time to review their budgets before the rent increase takes effect and to take advice, if necessary or appropriate, from advice agencies such as Citizens Advice.

It is regrettable that the Opposition have tabled this amendment, because they supported this position on the matter. Their original White Paper, in 2022, promised to

“increase the minimum notice landlords must provide of any change in rent to two months”.

It is disappointing that they have changed their minds on this, and now wish for tenants to have less time to consider their options when receiving a rent increase.

Amendment 81 seeks to increase from one month to two months the amount of notice of a rent increase that landlords of relevant low-cost tenancies need to provide. Social landlords that fall under a new definition of a relevant low-cost tenancy in the Bill will be exempted from most of the changes the Bill makes to rent increases. This means that landlords of relevant low-cost tenancies will be permitted to increase the rent via the Section 13 process at any point in the first 52 weeks of a tenancy, and then once every 52 weeks thereafter, and must give at least one month’s notice. The new amount may take effect after this notice period if it is not challenged by the tenant in the tribunal. These landlords will still be able to use review clauses within a tenancy to increase the rent, as they can at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, there are a lot of issues in this group, but the bottom line, again and again, is the imbalance of supply and demand, and the imbalance of power between tenant and landlord. Demand significantly outstrips supply. The landlord/tenant balance is surely like a see-saw, with one fairly heavy person on one end and a nice sylph-like person on the other end. I believe this legislation just wants to even it up a little bit.

There are those of us who feel that, in this kind of market, landlords can and do charge what they want. Rents have been going up significantly, driving more people out of the private rented sector and—I think this is a point on which we have so far not joined the dots—into the arms of their local authorities under the homelessness and temporary accommodation route. We need only look at the rising figures to know that this is happening and happening at scale. We have debated it regularly in your Lordships’ House over several years.

I was not surprised to read on the front page of the Guardian this morning that one of its surveys found that private rented sector landlords are fleecing taxpayers as a direct result of the temporary accommodation crisis. The Guardian found:

“Local authorities in England are paying 60% more for rooms in … bed and breakfasts and hostels than it would cost to rent similar-sized accommodation”


in the private rented sector. There are far more details in the front-page article, but it is irrefutable that some private landlords and hotels are cashing in on England’s hidden homelessness crisis. The lack of supply creates a vicious cycle that is costing the country an enormous amount of money. Thus, we support all the measures the Government are taking in the Bill to try to curb unreasonable rent increases and prevent economic evictions. We will discuss this more in the next group.

We are also concerned about market rents being the deciding factor for the tribunal, given a market that is significantly undersupplied, especially in areas of the country with high housing prices. If market rents are used, they should be based on existing equivalent rental properties in the area and not just new builds, which are usually more expensive and can be overpriced. I look forward to debating the amendments in the next group, which are trying to bring some resolution to this.

I will dispatch positively and succinctly all the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. Her commitment to the social housing sector and her work with registered providers is well known. It is no surprise that she was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to whom the same accolades could apply. Such providers are in a dilemma over rents and at the mercy of the Government as to when and by how much they can increase rents, as the noble Baroness outlined very well. We are concerned that there is increasing evidence that a significant number are cutting back on their future development plans to build social and affordable homes at a time when we all want the opposite.

On the First-tier Tribunal, there seems to be a real fear around the Committee that renters will all rush to challenge their annual rent rise, as has been said by many. I am pragmatic about this. I think it is probably wise to expect an increase, which is why we wholeheartedly support Amendment 87, from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I was a little too late to put my name to it—the nominations had closed, so to speak—but I would have. If there can be a simple mechanism to weed out claims that have absolutely no chance of success, as has happened in Scotland, it must be worth considering.

We can clearly see from recent tribunal hearings that cases are often contradictory and inconsistent, and seem to rely on different sources to make a judgment, which means they are often based on an incomplete picture. This is why I have submitted Amendment 106, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Howard, for which I thank them. We are simply seeking assurances that the tribunal is fit for purpose and ready to go, and that adequate consultations have been carried out.

What is worrying is a recent survey by Generation Rent, which I too thank for its work all year round and in particular with this Bill. The survey found that less than one-third of renters had actually heard of the tribunal, with fewer than 10% claiming to know a lot about it. There is clearly a lot more work to do before we even get a trickle of people, let alone a tsunami of people or everyone, making an appeal against their rent. Thus, we could not support any amendments that involve tenants paying landlords’ costs, or allowing the tribunal to award higher rents, as these are new barriers to renters exercising their rights.

However, I have a degree of sympathy with Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and very ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. The rent should be backdated to when it would have been legally allowed to be raised, otherwise there really is an incentive to appeal: “What have we got to lose?”. To me, it does not seem fair.

Finally, it feels wrong, as has been said by several noble Lords, that a landlord should add value to their capital asset and then use that immediately to hike the rent—a financial win-win for the landlord. Likewise, Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has some merit.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 106 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I declare an interest as a former landlord.

Clause 8 of the Bill amends Section 14 of the 1988 Act to allow any tenant to challenge a rent rise in the First-tier Tribunal. It will be free of charge. No tribunal ruling will be able to increase the rent proposed by the landlord. By challenging the rent rise, as we have heard, the tenant will automatically delay any rent rise by several months, however modest and justified it may be.

This will obviously create an incentive for tenants to challenge single rent rises, regardless of the merits, and without any risk to them doing so. As we have heard, if their appeal is unsuccessful, they will then be liable to pay the increase in rent only from the date of the tribunal’s determination. That is incredibly unfair on landlords, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Cromwell have given. What have tenants got to lose? My focus is to express strong support for seeking to ensure that the tribunal has adequate resources to cope with the likely increase in the number of rent rise challenges it will face. Okay, not 100% of tenants are going to challenge rent rises, but there will be a significant increase unless changes are made to the Bill to remove the incentive to do so, because they have nothing to lose.

Given that the tenant will hold all the aces in the pack, the tribunal floodgates are likely to be, or are at risk of being, opened. Without more tribunal resources, this will greatly increase delays and create even more incentives to challenge rent rises. The Government need to get this right or the system will grind to a halt, landlords will leave the sector in droves and tenants will be at risk of homelessness. As I said at Second Reading, there needs to be balance in the very welcome improvements that the Bill makes as a whole. The relationship between landlord and tenant has to be a two-way street to maximise the effectiveness of the Bill.

As this amendment proposes, there needs to be a proper consultation, including with the senior judiciary, before these provisions are commenced, to ensure that the tribunal system is adequately resourced to cope with the increased demand—what on earth could there be against that? This is such a sensible and unobjectionable amendment, and I am looking forward to seeing it accepted by the Minister and appearing in the next proof of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to which I have added my name. I endorse what she said just now when she spoke to the amendments.

When I spoke to the fourth group, I pointed out that, as presently drafted, the Bill will, at a conservative estimate, give rise to 1 million applications per annum to the rent tribunals. Other noble Lords have commented on the problems which will occur. The rent tribunals will be overwhelmed. With the delay for any rent increase, this will amount to a de facto rent control, with a corresponding and inevitable loss of rental accommodation when landlords disappear from the market as they cease to be able to cope with the ever-rising costs, not least the cost of increasing regulation.

I spoke at Second Reading to the problems in Berlin, where rent controls had to be abandoned owing to the lack of rental accommodation. These amendments would help introduce some realism into the system, so that applications to the rent tribunals are for genuine reasons and not merely because it would be silly not to go to the rent tribunal when there is no risk and a possible gain.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I had thought that there would be a few more speakers than that, but hey.

I wish I could be half as certain about what is going to happen in the future as some noble Lords here—they must have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. I feel this Bill is almost an act of faith. It is quite obvious that we believe that it is going to do good things and that Armageddon will not happen. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, argued her case very well and sincerely, and likewise she believes that. At the moment, neither side really knows what is going to happen. To use the cliché: only time will tell.

The problem with so many amendments being regrouped is that we are into groundhog day, so I will be brief. As previously stated, we do not support amendments that would disincentivise tenants challenging rent rises and feel that most of these amendments fall into that category. The Bill is about a power balance between the tenant and the landlord, and is a genuine attempt to redress that balance. A lot of the amendments and statements made by some noble Lords want to maintain the status quo; for us on these Benches, that is an imbalance. We are just going to have to disagree about that.

The noble Baroness referred to the realities of the housing market. Our interpretation is that landlords can charge whatever they want—whatever the market will sustain—and we do not believe that that is right. In doing so, I genuinely believe we are creating an underclass of people who will never be able to fit into the private rented sector. That is perhaps an argument for another day.

The Minister has perhaps already answered Amendment 105, but I am quite happy to hear it again, given that I agree with the noble Baroness that such a review is important and necessary.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on rent regulation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.

As I set out earlier, the Bill will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent amounts. This is a central aim of the Government’s reform agenda and reflects our manifesto commitment. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. This will prevent unscrupulous landlords—let us face it, most of them are good, but there are some unscrupulous ones—using rent increases as a back door means of eviction, while ensuring rents can be increased to reflect market rates.

We are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe a rent increase is above market rates. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what adjustments to rent are sustainable for both parties. We need to think about possible triage arrangements if there is no agreement between them.

We anticipate that our reforms will lead to some increases in cases, but, as I have already stated, we are working closely with the judiciary to ensure the tribunal has the capacity to deal with cases. In the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as on reviewing resourcing and working practices in readiness for any increase in demand. I am not sure if it will be 1 million applications, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, but we anticipate that there will be some increase initially, until the way that this works drives down demand in the future—which I think it will. This is part of our wider work to make sure the justice system is prepared for the changes to case loads and procedures which will be required for our reforms.

As now, tenants will be able to challenge the rent payable in the first six months of a tenancy if it is above market rate at the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal can determine the open market rent only to be lower than or the same as the tenancy rent itself. The tribunal will not be able to increase the rent above the amount originally proposed by the landlord. We see this as a rebalancing mechanism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said.

Amendment 92 seeks to allow the tribunal to determine the open market rent to be higher than that originally proposed by the landlord. We believe that limiting the tribunal to determine a rent to be either the same as the landlord themselves proposes or an amount lower than this is fair to both parties. If landlords have agreed a rent that they consider to be acceptable at the beginning of the tenancy, they should have no fear of a challenge at tribunal.

I turn to Amendment 93. This Bill enables a tenant during the first six months of a tenancy to challenge the rent payable. It is an important provision that should stop a minority of unscrupulous landlords exploiting tenants desperate to find a new home. It strengthens our ban on rental bidding, ensuring that any landlords who seek to charge over the odds can be challenged. When a tenant challenges their rent, the Bill states that the start date of the new rent determined by the tribunal

“must not be earlier than the date of the application”.

This reflects Section 22 of the Housing Act 1988, where a similar provision already exists to allow backdating of a determination where a tenant has challenged an excessive rent.

Amendment 93 would prevent a tribunal backdating the determination of the new rent payable to the date of the tenant’s application. It would mean that the new rent could take effect only from the date of the tribunal’s determination. I understand that the purpose of this is to ensure that the landlord will not have to repay the difference in rents back to the tenant. The Government encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what rents are sustainable for both parties. The Bill levels the playing field to enable a more equitable discussion about levels of rent before anything comes to the tribunal. To be clear, the aim of this is to prevent as many cases as possible ending up in court action.

In our view, the noble Baroness’s amendment would limit the ability of tenants in the first six months of an above-market tenancy to get justice for the period that the case is in the courts. It would also increase the risk that landlords would seek to exploit desperate tenants by extracting above-market rents. I am really concerned about that, because one of the key principles of the Bill is to stop that happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, most of the amendments in this group are disagreeing with the Government’s ban on being able to ask for rent in advance, and all basically say the same thing. While I am very supportive of the Government’s aims, there are legitimate questions to be answered in this area. By preventing tenants paying rent up front, will the Government potentially reduce the housing options available to financially vulnerable people? So says the letting and landlords’ association. Is it a way to crack down on discrimination against low-income renters by unscrupulous landlords? So say the Government and the lobby groups for renters.

Amendments 108 and 111, which would allow up to six months’ rent in advance or even 12 months, are troubling. Rogue landlords could pressure vulnerable tenants to mutually agree to these excessive payments, circumventing the very protections that the Bill seeks to establish. Furthermore, Amendment 112’s provision for tenants to specifically request such arrangements in writing could easily be manipulated. Landlords might simply make such requests a condition of securing the property, forcing tenants to choose between signing or losing their housing opportunity.

However, what we do know is that people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, those with lower incomes, the self-employed, the overseas students, those with a bad credit history, those who fail referencing checks and those with no family member to act as a guarantor will all have challenges passing referencing and affordability checks. They are the risky renters. The Government’s amendments are clearly designed to protect these financially vulnerable people from exploitation, but the big question is: how will agents and landlords manage tenancy risk in the future? Tenancy risk is a reality. With over 20 tenants chasing each vacancy, landlords will, legitimately and legally, be able to pick the person who represents the lowest risk. The bottom line for them is economic reality. Your Lordships have all heard my views, but even I would say, “Who can blame them?”

There are many thousands in these various groups. How do the Government think that they will get housing in the future? How will landlords mitigate the risk of tenants who fail references and have no renting history in the UK or who have CCJs against their name? Millions of people fall into these categories. My deepest worry is that the rent in advance system will go underground and people will be asked to stuff cash into brown envelopes, while rental payments will be edited to make it seem that all is well. Desperate renters will do desperate things to put a roof over their heads. I hope that I am wrong and not being unduly harsh on landlords or tenants. It seems to me that such people are left with the sole option of a professional rent guarantor service. What else is there? I am quite sceptical of local authorities stepping into that role, although they do much already to make tenancies survive and to help tenants.

What are the Government doing to ensure that those services can operate legally and responsibly, and to help this group of people? Are they part of the solution? I look forward to the noble Baroness’s answers.

Finally, to reiterate the point, a market that is significantly undersupplied and where the market rules of supply and demand result in continually rising rents, impacting most on precisely this large group of risky renters, has already resulted in a whole cohort of renters who are forced into homelessness and overpriced temporary accommodation. These are the very people who would in the past have been in social housing, of which there is, as we know, a huge shortage. The free market, under the rules as they are now, has led us to this place—a broken system—and there is no one denying that. Continuing as we have thus far can lead only to more of the same.

The Bill is a brave attempt to recognise the current imbalance between tenant and landlord, but if we do what we always do, we will get what we always get, and that is not acceptable.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Truscott and Lord Hacking, for their amendments in relation to rent in advance, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for commenting on these amendments.

Taken together, Amendments 108 to 110 and 112 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow landlords or agents to charge rent in advance when this has been mutually agreed with the tenants in a tenancy agreement. This Government are clear that the practice of landlords or agents charging rent in advance is unfair. Many of us will have heard the stories, many of them of requests for large amounts of rent in advance that have pushed families into financial hardship or locked some out of the sector completely. In other cases, unscrupulous landlords use rent in advance to pit prospective tenants against each other and create these dreadful bidding wars to help people secure a property. That is why the Bill will prohibit a landlord or letting agent requiring or accepting any payment of rent before a tenancy has been entered into. In addition, a landlord will be able to require only up to one month’s rent in advance in the window between a tenancy being entered into and that tenancy beginning.

I want to be crystal clear on this point: once a tenancy has begun, tenants will remain free to pay their rent prior to the agreed due date should they wish to do so, although landlords will not be able to require this and any attempt to require it will be challengeable by the tenant.

Amendment 108 would allow landlords to include terms in a tenancy agreement that require rent in advance to be paid up to six months before it is due. It is the view of the Government that this amendment would fail to protect tenants from exploitative rent in advance practices. Landlords, being able to require up to six months’ rent in advance when this is agreed in a tenancy agreement, could, in a market where properties are hotly contested, push tenants into agreements that stretch their finances to breaking point to secure a tenancy.

Amendment 109 would limit rent in advance to four months when agreed in a tenancy agreement. This has the same effect, with the potential for tenants in hotly contested markets to feel compelled to agree to terms that require significant financial outlay. Even the limit of two months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, proposes in Amendment 110, in our view does not go far enough to protect tenants. In a scenario where a landlord can request two months’ rent in advance, this is still a significant financial expectation of a tenant. Given that the tenant will also likely be required to pay a five-week tenancy deposit, they could face being asked to stump up more than three months’ rent to access a property.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I firstly declare an interest as a private landlord of residential properties in Hampshire.

I support Amendment 60, to keep the rent arrears landlord legal action limit to two months rather than four. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, said, landlords are not charities, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, agreed with this. I also support Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which also seems very sensible.

Local authorities are already reluctant to sanction a change of use from residential to commercial, so they exercise careful control over this. As the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said, money from permission to convert residential properties to commercial can be used to pay for and improve properties, and something that has not been mentioned much so far is the EPC problem that a lot of these cottages have, and the extra money that needs to be found to pay for this.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to thank all the parties in the renters’ coalition for their work on many aspects of the Bill, particularly this one. They have very patiently answered my every query as I have attempted to familiarise myself with all the grounds for possessions and the implications of that.

Before I move to the detail of my Amendments 26 and 27, I would like to offer support for Amendments 24 and 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. If one recalls—because she was right at the beginning of the debate—this was about ground 6B, when the house is required back for works to be done to it. Given that the landlord is not obliged to provide alternative accommodation while the works are done, we believe it might justify consideration of compensation, mainly because—this is interesting—6B is already being described on property websites as a “loophole”. Ground 6B currently lacks clear definitions and proper oversight, so it runs the risk of being misused, disputed or even ignored. Any moves to reduce court use, given our concerns in this regard, are also to be clearly welcomed.

Amendments 26 and 27 pertain to the two no-fault grounds for eviction: namely, ground 1, moving in a family member, and ground 1A, selling the property. First, the increase in notice periods from two to four months for eviction on these grounds is most welcome, giving tenants more time to find a new home. Amendment 71 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, strengthens this further by the discussion of compensation, as she outlined, and we feel that this complements our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The noble Lord is, as I said, very persuasive.

[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.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lords have said there. The principle against retrospection is long-lasting and fundamental to our constitution and our legal system, and it is enshrined, as has been said, in the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is an ECHR memorandum on the Bill in which the assessment is made that it strikes a proportionate balance between rights of property on one hand and the rights of tenants on the other. I would like to know from the Minister whether that proportionality assessment has properly taken into account the significance and the implications of the retrospection that has been drawn attention to here. What actually are the implications of that retrospection? What does it affect? If those words are kept in the Bill, what rights do they actually affect which are imposed in a new way by the Bill?

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Not wishing to lower the tone of erudition in the Committee, I would say, “latine non studi”. In plain English, what I would like to say is that the kernel of the noble Lord’s concerns is about certainty and clarity over arrangements. We have all had letters from different people saying, “I don’t know whether this means I now have to change”. So I genuinely think that there is an issue around clarity and understanding and, to that end, I really look forward to the Minister’s response, because what we all need is a clear and flexible framework for tenancies that everyone understands. She spoke in some of her answers about making it simpler, but it seems that, historically, we have inherited quite an amazing array of differences, and it is perhaps no wonder that some people are struggling. So I think that the transition, and transitional arrangements, is something we should look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly because, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has set out his case so coherently and in such detail that I need raise just a couple of points. Before I do, I declare an interest: I do not let out any residential property, but I have a couple of family members who let out one each.

I support all four of the amendments in this group, because there is considerable uncertainty about how the Bill will affect shared owners who become the so-called accidental landlords that have been referred to. They often sublet as a survival strategy, to deal with exceptionally difficult financial circumstances, which the noble Lord set out. Where co-owners try but, as is common, fail to sell, the proposed 12-month letting period ban—the lack of a letting period—risks punishing the very people who simply do not have the financial resilience to cope with a 12-month void in their ability to sublet. This applies acutely to the poorer and more vulnerable end of the market, so I trust that it will be of particular interest to this Government.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.

If many of the amendments to this Bill are designed to make us look at unintended consequences for certain groups of people, these amendments concern one group of people who wholeheartedly deserve and need us to look at how the Bill will impact their situation as shared owners who cannot sell their flats and are subletting due to a variety of legitimate reasons. The specific conditions of their model of part ownership were so cogently outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young, that, noble Lords will be pleased to know, I will not even attempt to repeat them. That has led to their campaign to plead with us—“plead” is almost not a strong enough word—to look at ways to ameliorate the devastating situation in which they find themselves.

The key element of concern is the stranglehold that the registered providers have on the property—no doubt deemed to be a good thing in normal times, but this situation is far from normal. Due to that stranglehold and the restrictive rules that shared owners must abide by, for the majority of shared owners subletting is a loss-making operation by design. I am not given to hyperbole, but I cannot think of anything worse than being in the situation that they are trapped in.

The term “accidental landlord” was a new one to me, but when I heard first hand from the shared ownership owners, I felt their pain—it is a really messy issue. Let us not forget that, if you have gone into shared ownership in the first place, it is highly likely that your finances are going to be stretched anyway—no high salary, no inheritance, and no bank of mum and dad—or you would have bought outright. As has already been said, the 2025 survey of the Shared Owners’ Network found that 90% of subletters were created because of the building safety crisis.

Another shocking statistic was that, in November 2024, the National Audit Office stated that the Government will not reach their 2023 target for the remediation of high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding. This building safety crisis is set to continue for over a decade or more, so it is not a big stretch to say that the problem of accidental landlords will increase. That is why I too was disappointed that this was not picked up by the impact assessment—perhaps the Minister can explain why.

The issue is certainly complex, and I am absolutely certain that the Minister is fully knowledgeable about it and sympathetic to it. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, are trying to find out whether there is a way forward through this Bill to help this group of people. Alternatively, perhaps the Minister will take it upon herself to follow this up by other means.

I will end with a few words from one of the many emails from the aforementioned Stephanie, but I will pick up on a slightly different point. She says that

“we are not bad people … we’re trying to cope with an impossible situation … we don’t need to be punished for failing to sell the unsellable flats that are already ruining us”.

Between the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Stephanie, they say it all—and they have our full support.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case and highlighted the unique circumstances of shared ownership owners. These amendments address the specific and pressing concerns faced by shared ownership leaseholders under this Bill, and we believe that they would help ensure that this group is treated with fairness and clarity.

Shared ownership has proved to be a valuable tenure, enabling many individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder. However, as has been highlighted, there are circumstances where shared ownership owners find themselves trapped, and we do not want them to be disadvantaged by this Bill and face unforeseen consequences. They are subletting not out of a desire but out of necessity

To avoid repetition, I will speak to the amendments together in a way that highlights their collective aim of protecting shared ownership leaseholders, who often have limited means. Clearly, they speak to the potential unintended consequences of the Bill and the repercussions of fire safety.

Amendments 19 and 20 focus on the impact that Clauses 1 and 2 will have on shared ownership leaseholders, particularly those who rent out their properties under licences. The amendments seek to provide clarity on how these leaseholders will be affected by the proposed regulations, ensuring that their unique circumstances are properly considered. In particular, Amendment 20, which defines “shared ownership lease” by reference to Section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, would be an important step towards eliminating any ambiguity in the application of the legislation to this group.

Amendment 107 addresses a significant practical issue: many shared ownership leaseholders face restrictions in their lease agreements that prevent them profiting from subletting. In some cases, they are not even permitted to increase rent during a subletting arrangement, regardless of market conditions. This amendment seeks to ensure that leaseholders in these circumstances are not unfairly burdened by rules that were never designed with their situation in mind.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 14, tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson. Local authorities have a duty to ensure fairness for their social housing tenants, and I believe the steps taken in the Bill to restrict local authorities and housing associations in their use of demotion orders are wrong and unnecessary.

The reality is that a small minority of tenants cause misery to other tenants through anti-social behaviour. A report from Nottingham Trent University in 2018 suggested that 30% of social housing tenants are more likely to come across anti-social behaviour, crime and drug dealing. Likewise, a social housing residents’ survey report from 2022 found that 26% had been impacted by anti-social behaviour.

Local authorities and housing associations are already severely restricted in the action they can take against the small minority of tenants who cause misery for other tenants who are law-abiding and play by the rules. Withdrawing the ability for local authorities and housing associations to issue demotion orders will severely diminish their ability to combat anti-social behaviour. As far as I am aware, the Government do not even collect data on the number of demotion orders that are issued each year to social housing tenants, so one has to question how big an issue this really is at present. I hope that the Government will accept Amendment 14, given that it is an instrument used by housing associations as the treatment of last resort.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness earlier; she was on my blind side. She mentioned those of us who have been involved in local government. Well, I had the pleasure, I would say, of being in a beacon council under the Blair Government when the now noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was actually doing all the work with the then Labour Government on anti-social behaviour. We recognised that it was a serious issue on many of our estates—and a deeply challenging one at that. I would argue that councils are not necessarily restricted in what they can do, but it is very challenging. It is difficult, and we often found that the courts were very sympathetic to tenants while we were sitting there going, “But you don’t have to live next door to them”.

Very often, another issue that occurred was that neighbours, after months of ongoing, low-level, constant nuisance, retaliated in some way. Such incidents were then reduced to being 50/50, when in actual fact you had only to speak to the people around the neighbourhood to know that that was not the case. These things are difficult to prove and difficult to get evidence on. People do not always write the dates down—“Oh, please keep a diary”—you know. Sometimes, even that is quite difficult for people. This is an area, Minister, where we would like to explore more what the route is for proving and what the bar is, what the level is, that has to be satisfied.

I must admit that I did not read into the Bill that it was that much of a restriction or a difficulty, but perhaps I have missed something. The National Housing Federation certainly has not listed it as one of its key concerns. That, in itself, perhaps tells me how much of an issue it is, but I would support the noble Baroness if that proved to be the case. As I say, I know from very bitter experience just how difficult this area is, and it is most likely to be the one that would come up most in certain areas.

[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.

Local Authorities: Temporary Accommodation Costs

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right to highlight the importance of attracting funding into housing. I recently attended a session in the City to encourage that, and there was a lot of interest in investing in the housing sector. We are also determined to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates fairly and properly, and we recognise the importance of a smooth transition out of asylum support accommodation for individuals granted refugee status. We are working with the Home Office to ensure that those individuals can successfully integrate into local communities.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned a welcome increase to the homelessness prevention grant. However, does she agree with the latest statistics from the District Councils’ Network that the Government’s new formula for allocating that grant has meant that some of the councils worst hit by homelessness will lose up to 39% of their homelessness prevention grant? Will the Minister commit to looking at those cases individually and reviewing the formula to ensure that it does not reduce for those areas experiencing the greatest challenges?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness referred to the homelessness prevention grant. The overall increase to that fund—the largest since the grant began—is important. It will be allocated to all local authorities in England based on their homelessness pressures. I will talk to the District Councils’ Network to see what it has found, because the grant is supposed to be allocated to meet the homelessness pressures of individual local authorities.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. I can see the merit in a clause defining the Bill’s purpose, and Ministers will advise us on that—except that the whole Bill defines its purpose.

I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, used the word “secure” several times in her speech, confirming that:

“The purpose of this Act is to improve the ability of renters in the rented sector to obtain secure, fairly priced and decent quality housing”,


as in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 1. I do not understand how the noble Baroness can propose an amendment that talks about the security of decent-quality housing at the same time as Amendment 8 proposes that small landlords—that is, those having fewer than five properties—could continue to be able to issue Section 21 no-fault notices.

I have to assume that it is now the Conservative Opposition’s intention to withdraw Amendment 8, for otherwise I do not see how, in all honesty, a statement can be made in Amendment 1 that the objective is for secure, decent-quality housing in the private rented sector when for many properties no-fault evictions would be allowed to continue under the Conservatives’ Amendment 8.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My noble friend Lord Shipley has eloquently kicked things off for our Benches. I will make a few general comments about how we will conduct ourselves during the course of the Bill.

We do not agree with the assertions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. We think that the intentions in the Bill are perfectly clear. Whether it will live up to those intentions only time will tell, which is why we too would be looking at reviews. In fact, the noble Baroness’s Amendment 261 is very similar to my own Amendment 263, so I will reserve comments on reviews until we discuss that group.

I say to the Minister that we really want the Bill to go through, and for that to be done professionally and swiftly, in a well-scrutinised way, so we will not be making Second Reading-style speeches or commenting on every single item and amendment. I would therefore like the Minister to take it that silence means we agree with the Government’s position. However, we will probe, challenge and seek evidence and reassurances, and I think the Minister would expect no less from us.

We all know that the main problem is the shortage of homes, particularly social homes. The Bill is not intended to solve that problem. It has to be seen as part of a suite of policies that the Government are trying to bring in—and, to use the same phrase again, only time will tell. However, landlords have cried wolf before—over the Tenant Fees Act, I believe—and Armageddon did not happen. That is not to say we should not take their concerns seriously, nor that the Government should not monitor and review, but the most important thing in the Bill is the abolition of Section 21. That was promised by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when Prime Minister, back in the mists of time, so it is long overdue. It is time that we cracked on with this, and we will do our bit to ensure thorough scrutiny but swift passage.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and as part owner of rented properties in Bingley, West Yorkshire. I support Amendment 261, tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, with its proposed new clause:

“Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market”.


Specifically, I welcome the proposed addition of a review of the impact the Bill will have on requests for social housing. The vast majority of landlords in this country are good, honest people who do a real service in maintaining Britain’s housing supply and providing decent homes to people before they start the journey of getting on to the property ladder, but the reality is that, with the ever-increasing regulation placed on landlords, not least the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions, which has already been mentioned, the signing of tenancy agreements will become more of a risk.

In reality, landlords will no doubt be more reluctant, under the new burdens placed on them, to take on more vulnerable tenants—for example, those who enter the market for the first time, without references, and those in receipt of housing benefit. Amendment 261, on reviewing the impact the Act will have on social housing, is necessary because local authorities and housing associations are going to come under pressure as never before to provide social housing, either because supply in the private rented sector will become more challenging to access or because rents are likely to spiral out of control under these proposals. I therefore support fully the amendment tabled by my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I have to confess to the noble Lord that I had written down exactly what he said—that these are not two nice amendments to bring in fixed tenancies by the back door—but then I thought, “He’s actually just creating a new ground for repossession”. What I am concerned about from the previous debate and this one—and I urge the Minister to clarify this—is that there seems to be an idea that rolling tenancies are unstable. I have several friends who are landladies, and we have had discussions about this over one or two glasses of wine and—believe it or not—they are not fazed by this. They have not reacted hysterically, because their attitude is, “My tenants like to stay long term; I’m a good landlady”; they do not see that that is a problem. But clearly there is a problem because we have had the reaction. I say to the Minister that the messaging has somehow got lost that this is not a less secure tenancy and that, in fact, the expectation is that the tenancy will roll on, and I believe the Government have tried to make the paperwork and things easier for that to happen.

If that messaging was correct, I do not see why a tenant would need incentivising to stay if everything was going okay. So forgive me if I sound perplexed: I thought I had a clear view about this, but the noble Lord has kind of knocked me there. I think it is because of the messaging that we have had about the instability of rolling tenancies, whereas I believe that that is not the case. I would be very interested in what the Minister has to say on that. I appreciate that the noble Lord’s speech was not long; it was engaging oratory and got the little grey cells going.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Perhaps the noble Baroness and I should discuss this over a few glasses of wine also, although I do not drink—but she can have the wine. I do not think the amendment creates a new ground for repossession; it gives the tenant greater security of tenure by removing half the causes for which a landlord could serve notice—I think that is what we will have to discuss over the glass of wine. It applies in special circumstances, where a landlord does not anticipate the need to sell or the wish to move in a family member but wishes to incentivise their tenant, who could leave at any moment on two months’ notice, to stay longer. So they say, “I’m prepared to give you greater security of tenure as an incentive to remain and continue paying the rent”. It is not more complicated than that, but I am glad that I managed to lift the bafflement and look forward to a chat afterwards perhaps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Before I comment on the noble Baroness’s Amendment 8, I would like to apologise for my cough, which laid me low for most of the recess. I am conscious that, especially when my noble friend Lord Shipley was speaking, I was struggling. I offer my apologies for that.

Would it be impolite to call this a wrecking amendment? Yes, it would be impolite, but, from our Benches, it certainly feels like one. As was mentioned previously in an earlier group, if this amendment were accepted, it would affect around 85% of rented homes. In effect, it would completely gut the legislation of one of its key objectives. We on these Benches cannot agree with that. We entirely support the abolition of Section 21.

That said, I have listened to the many reasoned and reasonable responses, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, clearly believes, as do many others, that the provisions of this Bill will involve more landlords and tenants going to court. The readiness of the courts for this legislation was one of the reasons why the previous Government rowed back on that. It is reasonable to ask the Minister for the Government’s assessment of the readiness of the courts and for the impact assessment that has been made. We are concerned that failings in the courts will undermine the main principles of the Bill.

Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond satisfactorily to the points that he raised.

Reading the Explanatory Note, my question is: who decides whether an application for a development is “of national importance” or “a matter of urgency”? I assume that there is a proposal from a department, presumably from the relevant Minister, that then goes to the Secretary of State in the noble Baroness’s department, and that the final decision is made by the Secretary of State, but on the recommendation of the relevant department. I assume that this means that the relevant department cannot itself define that something is urgent and of national importance. I think I have concluded that it is both, but that the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. For me, the vital question for the Minister to clarify is: will the public be able to object? The Minister talked about the need to try to ensure consultation with local people, but will local people be able to object to an application, or will the decision lie simply with the Secretary of State?

I noticed the Minister’s comments on scrutiny. I think she said that there will be full scrutiny of the use of powers, but paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The instrument does not include a statutory review clause”,


and paragraph 10.2 says:

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government will monitor the overall effect of the implementation of the Crown Development and Urgent Crown Development routes for planning permission”.


It is not clear to me to what extent that will involve Parliament. I want to hear from the Minister that the monitoring review will be thorough and part of normal parliamentary procedures on matters of this kind.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of how we got from there to here; its clarity is welcome. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, for their forensic questioning, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We on these Benches are in agreement that projects in the national interest, especially those deemed urgent, must and should be expedited as swiftly as possible. We are also in agreement that the present system has failed to deliver the improvements necessary to promote economic growth and improve the productivity of our vastly unequal regions.

Subsidiarity, a word we do not hear very often, cuts to the heart of this SI and the changes it introduces. Decisions must and should be taken at the most appropriate level, proportionate to the impact of the decision, which this SI attempts to do. Only time will tell whether it has been successful.

However, to me, this is a two-way street, with powers devolved down as well as taken up. It is nothing short of madness that when I was an elected mayor, I had to go through a four-year torment and two judicial reviews needing the Secretary of State’s approval—of which there were many during those four years—to be able to turn an allotment site into much-needed facilities for our local hospital. Conversely, it is also unacceptable that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow have been in discussion for decades. Evidence abounds that something needs to change and the system is failing. I am therefore interested in the Minister joining the dots for me as to how the new regional super-mayors will be involved in this process, given that the Government are also giving them greater planning powers.

We can also see how this joins up to the Government’s broader agenda. We have all lived through the Crown Estate Act and agree with its aims to use land—we look forward to the clarification mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—to create lasting and shared prosperity for the good of the nation as a whole. We can see how the SI is designed to drive through nationally significant projects at pace. However, the then Opposition, us included, were greatly concerned that such powers would be used only when necessary and with appropriate safeguards in place.

We will have to watch to see whether the safeguards and processes envisaged by these changes are effective, and whether the definition of “national importance” has been consistently applied and the criteria as laid out adhered to. Perhaps the Minister can give us some examples of what applications constitute a matter of urgency and warrant an expedited planning process.

Our overriding concern is the need for accountability and transparency. Can the Minister clarify what is envisaged—in the words of the Minister in the other place—to ensure that

“the House as a whole”

will have

“the opportunity to consider and scrutinise their general operation”?—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/25; col. 33WS.]

Is this for each application or the generality of the process? To paraphrase my noble friend’s question, we would seek clarity on the review.

There are legitimate concerns around the erosion of local democracy—of not listening to local voices and their elected representatives. Can the Minister reassure us that all voices will be heard and consultation will be wide ranging, as appropriate to the application? I underline that phrase. Does the Minister agree that the undeniable right to be listened to and consulted does not confer a right of veto?

I am unconvinced that a retrospective annual report in the form of a letter of decisions taken, placed in both Libraries, fulfils the commitment to make sure this is scrutinised and accountable. We are looking forward to the changes to come in the context of the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I am sure we are all eagerly looking forward to—or not. However, that is an argument for another day. We support this SI, with caveats on future scrutiny and transparency.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as usual I declare the fact that I am a current councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her explanation on the SI and the reasons behind it. Like my fellow noble Lords, I recognise that we need to get on with these major infrastructure projects. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, gave the example of Heathrow, but one can also think of the Lower Thames Crossing, which I understand has received approval just today, after about 800 million pages of planning documents.

It is important that we do that, so in principle we support the need for the SI. The Minister has reiterated to us how important it is to get on with these things, but to do so by completely ignoring the public and the local planning process is a concern to this side of the House. We really want the assurance that it will be done only in exceptional circumstances and where speed is absolutely necessary. We recognise that the planning process is far from perfect; I too look forward to debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This very much seems to be a mechanism to shoehorn through a process in a system that does not work. We really ought to look at making the system work.

I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on why it is so necessary to do that and her assurances on why it is necessary to circumvent local planning processes and local transparency. I also support the calls from fellow Peers that local involvement should be maintained and representations to the Minister should be still able to be made.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025 were laid before the House on 13 January 2025. These draft regulations increase planning fees for householder and other applications. This will provide essential extra funds to local planning authorities and improve the efficiency of our planning system. This is vital to speed up decision-making and support the Government’s plan of building 1.5 million homes and delivering economic growth.

I will start by providing some context and background to these regulations. Currently, the income from planning fees does not cover the cost to local planning authorities of determining applications. Overall, there is a national funding shortfall of approximately £362 million, the burden of which is borne by the general taxpayer. By increasing fees for applications with the greatest funding shortfalls, we can cover a greater proportion of the costs associated with processing these applications.

It is estimated that these fee increases will generate an additional £56 million annually for local planning authorities. This is a substantial sum that will significantly enhance the capacity and efficiency of our planning services.

We consulted on proposals to increase fees in July 2024. Respondents were generally supportive of our proposals, recognising the need to boost the funds available to local planning authorities, if this leads to improvements in planning performance. Noble Lords will realise that the Local Government Association has long campaigned for increases in planning fees.

I now turn to the detail of the regulations. First, they increase the fees for householders who want to enlarge, extend or alter their home from £258 to £528 for a single house and from £509 to £1,043 for more than one house. I recognise that some may consider that, during times of economic pressures for householders, we should not be increasing planning fees. However, in light of the clear funding shortfall that exists, it is right that applicants should contribute more towards the costs incurred by local planning authorities in delivering a planning service, rather than the taxpayer funding it.

We estimate that, in most cases, the cost of the planning application is less than 1% of overall development costs. Furthermore, some householder development can already be undertaken through permitted development rights and so would not be subject to a planning application fee.

The regulations also increase fees for a range of other application types, which currently are set too low. They increase the planning fees for prior approval applications from a flat fee of £120 to £240 and from £258 to £516 where they include building operations, and for the change of use of commercial buildings to residential uses from £125 per dwelling to £250 per dwelling. The regulations also increase the fees for discharge of conditions from £43 to £86 for householders and from £145 to £298 for all other applications, including discharge of biodiversity gain plans.

Finally, the regulations introduce a new three-tiered fee structure for Section 73 applications that are used to vary or remove conditions on planning applications. This reflects the higher costs associated with Section 73 applications on major developments. The regulations also make corrections to two fees that were erroneously set too low when the fee regulations were last amended in 2023. These regulations do not impose a fee on listed building consents, which continue to incur no fee.

I want to be clear that the Government expect local planning authorities to use the income from planning fees on their planning application service, so that they can build up their capability and capacity and improve performance. We know that this is what applicants expect in return for paying higher fees. In addition to these fee increases, the Government have committed to a £46 million package to enhance the capacity and capability of local planning officers. This includes recruiting 300 additional planners. I recognise that there is no planning officer tree where we can go and pick them; this is going to take a little time.

The Government have also announced their intention to introduce a measure in the planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. This comprehensive approach ensures that local planning authorities are not only better funded but better equipped to handle the demands placed on them.

To summarise, while we take forward our measures for local fee setting, these regulations will provide local planning authorities with an immediate boost in resourcing. This will enable local planning authorities to budget with more confidence and be better equipped to deliver the housing and growth that our country needs. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support this rise in planning fees, so I apologise now for repeating some of the very good points that the Minister made. She should not expect me to keep saying that for ever, but I do on this occasion.

We have all known for years that planning departments are underfunded; they are not covering their costs, and the position is simply unsustainable. I am interested that the Government have decided to go for an interim position rather than a full cost recovery. I can kind of understand their wanting it to be balanced, but I wonder whether the work has been done on what will be needed to get to that position, which we believe we should get to.

As the Minister said, planning departments have long been subsidised by the taxpayer through council tax; they have been bearing the burden of the costs of planning applications, which do not directly benefit them—particularly for individual householder applications. It seems completely illogical that everyone should contribute to an individual’s home improvements, which usually add value to just their property.

We welcome the change of emphasis from the last Government, who did at least increase the fees in December 2023—but I always felt that their agenda seemed to be to keep fees down. I note that a Conservative Member of Parliament in the other place described the rise as “eye-watering”. My riposte is that he clearly does not know what builders are charging these days, as the planning fee, which is an essential tool to getting the development right, is but a tiny fraction of the total cost. Two friends have recently had extensions to their homes, and when I hear how much they spent on the projects as a whole, I feel that £528 is probably the lowest in the grand scheme of their costs.

Major housebuilders are demonstrably making money, and their applications take the most time and expertise, so a rise to begin to cover costs seems entirely reasonable—more so given the financial challenges that local government faces. Some of the pre-app talks and site visits can be really extensive and time consuming.

If we have a concern regarding sustainability, it is about the recruitment and retention of planners. The ambition to recruit 300 new planners is laudable and welcome, and it seems churlish to point out the fact that it equates to just one planner per authority—but that is the reality. The Home Builders Federation pointed out, through a freedom of information request, that 80% of local planning authorities are operating below capacity.

The recruitment and retention problem is exacerbated by differential salaries. The best young graduates appear to be snapped up by the major housebuilders, as they can afford to pay significantly more than local authorities. Especially in areas of high house prices, that can make recruitment even more of a challenge.

The Minister will know that some local authorities are working together to look for solutions by co-operating rather than working against each other, competing for the same people and even poaching. Career opportunities can be better for an individual if they can work across several councils, especially with smaller districts.

The RTPI has pointed an important fact—that there is a lack of robust data on how many planning officers we have in each region and local planning area. Accurate data would help to pinpoint where resources and training are most needed, so perhaps the Minister could give us some more detail on the changes to the Pathways to Planning programme.

We think that all these increases are necessary and overdue, and accept that it is sensible to tie this to an annual increase. The fact that previous rises were not index-linked was part of the problem. The gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened significantly over time.

There has been some talk of monitoring and ring-fencing of funds. Because of the parlous situation of local government funding, will local authorities rob Peter to pay Paul? In my experience, most councils will honour the intentions of government when money is handed out for specific needs, and we see no reason why that would not be the case here, without the need to mandate it or introduce checks. This Government are committed to decentralisation, so it is essential to let go and trust local authorities. Trying to micromanage budgets could be unnecessarily overbearing. We believe that councils should make all their own spending decisions. The Government already have mechanisms in place to monitor planning performance.

The Minister was right to point out that councils get no fees from the massive extension to permitted development rights, yet when there are problems with those conversions, the planners are drafted in to give advice and help to put things right. The key is that if there had been a need to obtain planning permission, the issues would have been sorted out right at the beginning. Will the forthcoming planning Bill be more helpful in this regard? We hope so, and in particular we look forward to allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. A degree of flexibility to adjust to local circumstances and needs is essential.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I reiterate my declaration of interest that I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. These regulations propose important changes to the planning process, including substantial fee increases for householder applications, prior approvals and approval of details reserved by condition; and a new three-tier structure that will differentiate charges for householders, non-major developments and major developments. I thank the Minister for going through the instrument in some detail, and I will try not to repeat too often what she said.

Although His Majesty’s Opposition do not oppose these regulations in principle, we recognise that careful consideration is needed to ensure that these changes serve the interests of both home owners and developers.

The proposed increase in planning fees reflects the increasing demands on planning authorities and the need to recover costs, as the Minister mentioned. The fee for household applications will rise by 105% overall. We agree that these higher fees are necessary, as they ensure that planning authorities will have the resources to operate effectively. However, we must also be mindful of the impact on home owners, especially those who wish to make relatively modest improvements on their homes. We need to strike the right balance between cost recovery and affordability, ensuring that these fees do not place an undue burden on householders already facing financial pressures.

In addition to the householder fee increases, there are Section 73 increases, which, as outlined, will range from £86 for householders, £586 for non-major developments and £2,000 for major developments. This three-tiered structure is logical, and it is fair that the larger developments pay more, but we must ensure that the distinctions between the different types of development are clear, transparent and rational. We must also consider whether these fees inadvertently discourage smaller-scale developments or overburden individual home owners.

Finally, for biodiversity net gain approvals, there are increases of over 100%, from £145 to £298. What is the cumulative impact of all these fees? That is vital. What will they do for various developers, householders and so on? It is right that we get the right resources, but we also need to ensure that we do not overburden developers or small SMEs and enable them still to have financially viable projects.

The aim of these fees is to give resources to planning departments, so it is vital that they then deliver. Given the amount of frustration I get from householders, developers and so on about delays in the planning process and bureaucratic hold-ups, it is important that the fees result in faster, more efficient decision-making. We cannot just raise fees; we have to deliver faster, better planning processes.

I take this opportunity to note that, as mentioned earlier, the proposal to increase planning fees was originally a Conservative proposal—we did it in the previous Government—but I commit again that we need to fix the planning system so that stuff gets done in the allotted time. Timeliness and efficiency must accompany these fee increases.

Looking further ahead, I will touch on some of the proposals in the NPPF, which is really important. One reason we have delays in the planning process is that the planning system is complex, difficult and uncertain. The Government have made it clear that their intention is to simplify the planning process, and we welcome these efforts. We hope that they deliver a simplified planning system, but I also urge caution that simplification, while an important goal, should not come at the cost of clarity or integrity in the planning system. We need a process that is both simpler and more certain, and delivers quality developments so that businesses and individuals can have confidence in the decisions that affect their properties and developments.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the necessity of these fee increases and the proposed changes to the planning system, we urge the Government to ensure that the reforms strike the right balance. The Official Opposition are not opposed to reform, but we call on the Government to ensure that the planning system remains accessible and fair, particularly for smaller developers.

Moreover, as we look at these fee increases and the broader changes to the planning system, we encourage the Government to reflect on the need for a system that is not only more efficient but more responsive and certain. It is essential that the planning process delivers timely and effective decisions to business communities and home owners alike.

Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the point the right reverend Prelate makes about the conversion of family homes into HMOs. I do not have those figures here, so I will write to her with a response.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, evidence from Scotland shows that only 4% of tenants with a rent rise use the First-tier Tribunal to challenge that rise. How will the Government ensure that more tenants are aware of and use this right? Does the Minister accept that, in a system where demand significantly outstrips supply, a tribunal decision that the rent is fair does not make it affordable?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely understand the point the noble Baroness makes, but tenants will be able to dispute rent increases they think are above market rate by referring their case to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market, and it will determine the rent. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence, and the tribunal will not be able to determine a rent increase higher than the landlord had originally proposed—all through our Renters’ Rights Bill. So we are improving the position for tenants, and for landlords, who will be able to make their case at the tribunal.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on their entry to the House. I really enjoyed both their speeches. I felt they were delivered with passion and with that which is always welcome in this House—humour. I thank the Minister, who has been very generous with her time in answering our many and varied queries.

This has been a very lengthy and informed debate, and at times somewhat heated. I was reminded—if I needed to be—that we are indeed a nation of pet lovers. Coming at this stage in the batting order and knowing that we all now really just want to hear the Minister’s responses to our very wide-ranging concerns, I have ruled out a lot of facts and details that noble Lords have diligently provided. I am aiming to be succinct, I hope, and not too repetitive.

First, I thank from our Benches the very many who have sent us briefings, particularly the Renters’ Reform Coalition—especially Generation Rent and Shelter. For the landlords—and let us be honest, the majority are good landlords—I thank the National Residential Landlords Association, Propertymark and LARG. They all welcome the Bill in different ways but see unintended consequences. We must explore these, and seek to remedy them and strengthen the Bill, which will be our task over the coming months.

As many have said, we too are pleased to receive the Bill. On the whole, there is much to be welcomed, such as the abolition of Section 21, which has been trailed so much and for so long that it is very much taken for granted. We do not accept the plea from landlords that we should wait until the courts are ready; they should be by now as they too have had ample notice. My question to the Minister is: are they ready?

That said, we do think there are other legitimate concerns from the landlords’ side, as was very well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her detailed contribution. We will join that ride on the see-saw. In particular, we ask the Government for a timeline of the many and various aspects of the Bill to provide certainty, because that is what has been missed in all this. The sector—tenants and landlords—need certainty for all parties, so that we do not jeopardise the Bill’s key objectives in haste or unpreparedness.

It must be said, and has been said by several noble Lords, that a lack of supply of homes for social rent over decades has brought us to this crisis point. The noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined this particularly well. This has created an entire cohort of renters who would have previously been housed in social housing but are now struggling in the private rented sector. They can often be the most vulnerable and financially challenged, and in need of additional support. Our real concern is that despite the Bill they may well still be at the sharp end of renting, unable to access the rights enabled in the Bill and vulnerable to being threatened by the least scrupulous landlords—as was passionately and forcefully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. We also have concerns for these residents around eligibility checks and guarantors. We need the issues raised by landlords to be fully answered to protect these renters.

The Bill relies on tenants to challenge their landlord across a range of issues, not just regarding rent rises but on unfit properties and repairs, as we have heard. Of course, the Bill gives tenants more rights. We applaud that but doubt whether the residents about whom we are most concerned will have the means or the motivation to take advantage of the new rights. Can the Minister outline any changes that will be brought in, possibly in other ways, to support tenant advocacy, as is the case in the social rented sector? The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed out just how complex the current system is. It will deter even the hardiest tenant.

The Bill is clear that a database could be a great aid to tenants in this regard. We believe that it has the potential to be a game-changer, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Grender. We regret that the detail of its contents is to be left to secondary legislation. We seek for some clear criteria to be enshrined in the Bill to ensure that it really is fit for purpose. In particular, we would support failure to register on the database becoming a breach of duty which would count towards a rent repayment order. That would provide a real incentive to register, in addition to the heavy fines indicated in the Bill.

On renters repayment orders, we are pleased that the Bill introduces six more offences that constitute a breach, but we feel that this is somewhat neutered by the First-tier Tribunal’s powers. It appears that it must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one of these offences has been committed, as this is the criminal standard of proof—it is a very high bar. I listened intently to the nuanced and detailed response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on this.

It is clear that every one of us is concerned about whether the measures in the Bill would lead to a drop in supply. It is strongly claimed by the landlord sector— I believe that evidence from Scotland has actually been mixed—but is contested by others, as there may be different reasons why some of the baby boomer owners have decided that they have had enough and want to sell up.

What is in no doubt is that there are legitimate concerns about the flight of landlords to more lucrative short-term lets, such as Airbnb. This concern is heightened in the Bill by the measure to abolish fixed-term tenancy, which, while a welcome measure for many, could have unintended consequences. Therefore, we feel that some provision for a review should be built into the Bill, no matter what it ends up being, because the rhetoric on both sides of this argument needs to be tested against reality. As the supply side is the crucial issue, can the Minister tell us when there will be a level playing field between both rental sectors, as the Airbnb side is far less regulated at present and there are no incentives to encourage landlords back? Several noble Lords will say that the Bill actually does the opposite.

The Liberal Democrats support build to rent. Supply of this and social homes is vital to climb slowly out of our housing crisis. We can no longer rely solely on the landlord owning between one and five properties, which has been the main market for decades, thus we will explore means to incentivise more build to rent. We also want to keep the smaller landlords in the game, and we should acknowledge that repossession of one’s property is a legitimate concern. They should be reassured that the grounds for repossession have been strengthened, but grounds 1A and 1B still remain a cause for concern. We believe that the threshold for sale and moving in a family member should be higher than at present, as this could still be a fig leaf for an illegal eviction—for once the tenant has moved out, who will in fact check that the house is sold or the family have moved in?

This leads us to the legitimate questions that have been raised by several noble Lords about the capacity and resource readiness of local councils and other agencies to deal with the Bill. Enforcement and the capability of enforcement are big issues; without effective enforcement, the Bill fails.

We were very pleased that the Government have been bold enough to extend the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector. Many noble Lords supported this measure, but let us not underestimate it; it is not easy, having spoken to both landlords and tenants, to judge who is at fault. I feel that there is more debate to be had there, but we know in our hearts that the consequences can be fatal.

We are in no doubt that it will be a leap for many landlords who genuinely want to improve their properties, but it is a mountain to climb, as too many of our properties are non-decent—or is it indecent?—which is quite shocking for such a wealthy country. What we are concerned about is the reality shown to us by numerous case studies, including from Citizens Advice, that any property improvements resulting from public money have been shown to result in the landlord immediately asking for higher rent from the very tenant whose financial situation gave rise to the eligibility of the landlord to receive the grant and add value to their property in the first place. This cannot be right. We will look to explore this unfairness further in Committee.

We have heard from several noble Lords, and we were shocked to learn, that Ministry of Defence properties are exempt from the Bill. The argument has been put forcibly by others, but I will just say that our service families deserve, at the very least, the same as everyone else.

A key issue mentioned by several noble Lords—especially memorable was the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—is the whole notion of affordability. We know that, in many parts of the country, rent is simply not affordable. My noble friend Lord Tope outlined the incredibly difficult situation in our capital city, but elsewhere too people are paying a far higher percentage of their income on simply putting a roof over their heads. This is not sustainable. The evidence and detail of this is irrefutable. We support the measures in the Bill to try to give some stability to rent increases, as many people are stretching themselves to the maximum to pay rent and the year-on-year increases implicit in the Bill—which do not keep up with wage increases and the cost of living—are simply unsustainable.

We are sceptical about how the First-tier Tribunal will work and the amount of work it may or may not end up with. We do not agree that its criteria to agree on a fair rent should be market rent, precisely because of the dearth of supply. We would like to work with the Minister to find a way forward on rent increases that is fair to both landlords and tenants.

Although we are not as pessimistic as some, we are not without a degree of scepticism about the unintended consequences of the Bill and whether the see-saw is balanced or broken. But we will work constructively to get it over the line.