Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 72 and 86. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for giving such a good explanation of them. I wish I had lobbied the Minister more, as all three amendments in this group are very good and very sensible.
Turning first to Amendment 72, I was talking last night to a friend who has very severe disabilities. He said he had noticed that, while landlords are very slow at making improvements or adaptations and allowing their tenants to do so, business, retail business in particular, is moving ahead. He talked about a new retail development in Yeovil where everything is accessible. It is roll-in, roll-out, and people with disabilities in wheelchairs, for example, have full access.
It seems that businesses are taking this seriously, so why are the Government and landlords not doing so? Renters of all ages face challenges—it is not only the older ones among us—but older renters are particularly vulnerable, for several reasons. They are more likely to have health issues or disabilities, which means they are more at risk of becoming ill because of poor housing. They are also more likely to live in poor quality homes. In view of our ageing population, this is not just a good thing to do but entirely necessary.
I welcome the support of the LGA for Amendment 86, as promoting equitable housing access and preventing discrimination is fundamental to our society. It is essential that tenants are protected from unfair discrimination when seeking housing. I do hope that Labour listens. We have seen with its welfare reforms what happens when Labour does not listen to the needs of disabled people. These are simple changes, but they are important. They would change the lives of our ageing population for the better, now and in the future—and that is what a progressive Government should do.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for speaking in this debate. It is a sensitive issue. It concerns adaptations for some of the most vulnerable in our society and touches on those who require the greatest compassion and care. We do need to support people to live independently in their own home. As a council leader, I was proud that we built a number of fully accessible, affordable homes for the disabled.
However, I must express some concerns about Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This Bill is focused on the private rented sector, yet the amendment introduces provisions relating to social tenancies. As my noble friend Lady Scott alluded to earlier today, social housing providers have not been widely consulted in the lead-up to this Bill. Imposing new requirements on them without proper consultation and discussion would be inappropriate. Any such change rightly belongs in a dedicated social housing Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said earlier that she would seek to write to social landlords and perhaps this is another opportunity for her to do so.
Furthermore, the amendment is riddled with gaps. It lacks clarity on important matters such as what happens when a tenant leaves, who is responsible for reinstatement, its cost and the loss of rent while work is carried out. There is also the issue of ensuring work is carried out to a high standard and that structural integrity is maintained. These issues are vital to maintaining the value and usability of the property, and the amendment fails to address them adequately.
Turning to Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I note that it defines “minor changes” as including structural alterations. Structural alterations hardly seem minor. While I fully appreciate the noble Baroness’s intentions and her compassionate approach, which we all share, this is a complex issue. I strongly believe that we must strike a careful balance between compassion, cost and deliverability, and we must do so in a thorough and considered manner. I hope that your Lordships’ House agrees.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for moving it so ably, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. He may remember that I visited some of the housing that he developed when he was a council leader to pinch some ideas for my own local authority. It was indeed very accessible.
Amendment 56, from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would require landlords to allow disability adaptations when a local authority has carried out a home assessment and recommended changes to be made. While the Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled renters, I completely accept that they are not always as well understood as they should be. It is right that we consider how to address barriers preventing disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need. However, as I stated in Committee, I do not consider that this amendment is the right way to do this. A new requirement linked to local authority home assessments would create a confusing two-tier system. As a consequence, even these well-intentioned measures might make it harder for people who are not eligible for disabled facilities grants to access adaptations.
As I previously set out, the Government have committed to take steps to clarify matters further to support disabled renters. We all recognise what a vital issue this is and the difference it can make to someone’s life to have adequate access to their property. We will look to ensure that the written statement of terms that landlords will have to provide to new tenants includes the duty on landlords not to unreasonably refuse tenant requests for disability adaptations.
We also intend to work closely with the sector to deliver a communications and engagement programme to raise awareness of disability-related rights and obligations among tenants and landlords, and we will explore enhancing guidance to help landlords and tenants better understand the current system. This is in addition to existing provisions in the Bill that empower disabled tenants to request the home adaptations they need. For example, by abolishing Section 21 evictions, we will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction, and the creation of the new ombudsman will give tenants a new route of redress when their adaptations are refused.
The Government have also increased funding for the disabled facilities grant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned. We have increased the grant by £86 million, bringing the total amount to £711 million. On the role of local authorities, they must provide a decision on the disabled facilities grant application within six months of receipt and the works must usually be completed within 12 months of the approval date. I appreciate that that can feel like a long time when you are waiting for an adaptation, but the Government have published guidance for local authorities in England to help to support the efficient local delivery of the disabled facilities grant, including speed of delivery. I appreciate that in some areas the availability of occupational therapists to do the assessments has proved an issue. Many local authorities are looking carefully at this issue, and I know we will be taking steps to address it.
Baroness Grender (LD)
It is my understanding that student groups are happy with this amendment and against the blanket use of guarantors. The current use of guarantors is, I am afraid, a proxy for discrimination against vulnerable groups. There is evidence that black renters are 66% more likely to be asked for a guarantor—I know that has already been said, but it is so profoundly shocking that it bears repetition. If you are on benefits, you are 60% more likely to be asked; if you have a disability, it is 20%. The great Equality Act 2010 is being driven over with the use of guarantors and I am delighted to support this amendment.
I read with a lot of care the Front-Bench speeches in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested that guarantors can be a lifeline for those with poor credit or no rental history, but on these Benches we genuinely believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The harsh and stark reality is that 550,000 private renters were unable to secure a desired home in the last five years because they lacked a guarantor.
There is not a single organisation that I am aware of that campaigns and advocates on behalf of people who could be described as those who need that kind of lifeline, who are on no or a low income, which opposes this amendment. That includes working-class, international, estranged and care-experienced students who struggle to find suitable guarantors because they do not know anyone in those highest quartiles, which are the only guarantors that many landlords will accept. They just do not have those contacts or connections.
The noble Lord further suggested that tenants have market discretion or choice if a landlord is imposing a blanket guarantor policy. That defies the logic of the current marketplace, where the low-income tenant is never in the luxury position of shopping around. Again, that choice rests only with those whose income is in the higher quartiles.
On the Minister’s point in the same discussion about guarantors providing confidence, we must ask: at what cost to fairness? Landlords already have really robust tools: a five-week deposit, the first month’s rent up front, and affordability checks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, guarantors are rarely invoked in practice. Like the noble Lord, I am currently a guarantor for my son, who is a student, so I completely understand that this is what we currently do. But in the past two years less than 3% of landlords have ever attempted to claim lost rent from a guarantor. When they did, it was 16 times more likely to be difficult than easy. Landlords have other, much more appropriate business risk management tools, such as rent guarantee insurance, rather than relying on a tenant’s family member, and so many of these tenants do not have a family member who is earning way above the median income, which is what is demanded.
Even before this legislation has come into effect, there is a worrying rise. A 2024 Generation Rent survey of its supporters found that 30% of private renters who had moved in 2023-24 had been asked for a guarantor—up from 22% of people who had moved in 2019. Always in this context, I fear that the debate is held on a presumption that renters lack responsibility somehow, unlike other tenures. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, only 2% of tenants were reported as in arrears in 2023-24. The vast majority of tenants are responsible individuals, who, by the way, often forgo other things, such as heating and eating, in order to pay rent, because they understand the severe consequences of not doing so and because the market is so limited for them.
This amendment is not a radical proposal. As Generation Rent and Shelter argue, it simply ensures that guarantors are used sparingly, appropriately and only when absolutely necessary, when a prospective tenant genuinely cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This entirely aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own current guidance.
When the Minister responds, if the Government are unable to stop this loophole for discriminatory practice, will she at least make it clear, either today or perhaps in a letter to follow, that guarantors should be used only as a last resort, that the Equality Act should be used if there is further evidence of discrimination, and that landlords already have the means to ensure that tenants pay through other mechanisms? I hope that her words today will ensure that the widespread use of guarantors is not the next version of no-fault evictions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the many who have spoken in this debate, particularly the three noble Baronesses who have spoken very passionately to say that we need to support some of the most vulnerable in our society. I agree that we need to support them.
As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, many councils use the fact that they can act as a guarantor to enable many of the most vulnerable to access a home which they would, in other circumstances, not be able to. There is clearly an appropriate role for the guarantee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, just mentioned, there is a shortage of rental accommodation—I think the figure is something like 12 people chasing every available rented home. We need to think about this when we are discussing this Bill. How do we encourage more people to rent their home so that we have a more dynamic market, with more availability there?
It is widely recognised that we need more rental homes, as is the importance of small landlords, particularly in rural areas. We also need to recognise that many of these small landlords have only one or two homes. For many of them, it is a substitute pension, and many of them have mortgages on these homes. If that is the case, they need security that they will get the rental income; otherwise, it is just too high a risk. Some noble Lords have said that the risk is small, but if it is your only asset and you have got a mortgage on it, you may not feel able to take that risk. As we have discussed before, without this, many would have no choice but to exit the market, meaning fewer rental homes and fewer people able to access a home—more people on the street. That is a particular issue in rural areas with small landlords.
Guarantors play a crucial role in the rental market. They provide an essential layer of security, offering landlords the reassurance that the rent will be paid, even if the tenant experiences financial difficulties. As we have mentioned earlier, for tenants, particularly students and young people or those without a strong credit history, a guarantor can be key to securing a home which might otherwise be out of reach. This is partly why we are so passionate about enabling rent in advance. That provision is especially helpful for individuals facing barriers, such as overseas students without UK credit records, or those who simply have no one to act as a guarantor.
With that context, I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has brought forward this amendment. However, I regret to say that, on this side of the House, we cannot support it. First, it is overly prescriptive and would constrain landlords from making what is, in many cases, a reasonable response to financial risk. Secondly, preventing landlords requiring a guarantor in such circumstances could have the unintended consequence of discouraging them from renting to high-risk tenants altogether. Thirdly, it would undermine a market-led approach to risk mitigation. Finally, the amendment would afford a broad and, we believe, inappropriate delegation of power. Combined, this would, as I said earlier, reduce the supply of available homes, increase the cost to a tenant and mean fewer people are able to get their own home. For these reasons, we cannot support this amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 62, I will speak also to Amendments 63, 65 and 66. In Committee, I raised some problems with the way the Bill was drafted for joint tenants in respect of notices to quit under assured tenancies defined in Clauses 21 and 22. It was anticipated in Committee that the issues raised would be examined further, and I thank for the Minister for having done this.
The problem was that where joint tenants had a breakdown in their relationship, there could be unforeseen consequences for one joint tenant, who might be unaware, for example, that a notice to quit had been served by the other joint tenant. I am grateful for the assistance provided by Citizens Advice, whose front-line staff identified this problem and proposed solutions, and for the work done by the Minister and her department in drafting Amendments 64 and 67, which I welcome.
I look forward to the Minister’s explanations of Amendments 64 and 67 in the expectation that I will then seek to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to joint tenancies and the procedural requirements for serving and responding to notices to quit. These amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to ensure that the provisions in Clauses 21 and 22 apply expressly and fairly to all assured tenancies. The spirit of these amendments is to promote transparency and fairness, ensuring that no tenant is left unaware of or disadvantaged by unilateral actions.
As we have discussed in this debate and in Committee, joint tenancies are an important and increasingly common form of tenancy arrangement, particularly among families, couples and shared households. Given that multiple tenants hold equal rights and responsibilities, it is only right and fair that the Bill reflects this reality by requiring all parties to be kept informed of significant developments affecting their tenancy.
These amendments propose sensible procedural safeguards. The requirement that any notice to quit served by one joint tenant be communicated in writing to all other joint tenants is fair. Similarly, where a landlord serves notice, all joint tenants should be notified promptly. It is also noteworthy that some amendments specify that certain agreements, such as those shortening notice periods or withdrawing notices to quit, must involve the consent of all joint tenants rather than just one. This is a balanced recognition of the collective nature of joint tenancies and the importance of mutual consent in such decisions.
As the Bill continues to evolve, it is our shared goal to ensure a rental market that is fair and workable for all parties involved. Although we fully understand and respect the intentions behind these amendments and welcome the constructive debate they have sparked, it is important to consider the practical implications. Requiring unanimous consent or detailed notice procedures could, in some circumstances, add complexity or delay, especially in situations where tenants’ circumstances change rapidly. Therefore, although we support the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in joint tenancies, we urge careful consideration of the balance between protecting tenants’ rights and maintaining workable, efficient processes for landlords and tenants alike.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments on joint tenancies; Citizens Advice, which has provided the benefit of its significant expertise in this area throughout the Bill’s passage; and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.
Turning first to Amendments 62 and 66, the Government’s intention is not that tenants on a joint tenancy can unilaterally end that tenancy sooner than expected, nor should a tenant be able to trap another in a tenancy indefinitely by withdrawing a notice to quit. As such, I am pleased to confirm that the Government have tabled Amendments 64 and 67, which achieve the same effect as those laid by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
Government Amendment 64 will apply where a tenant who wants to serve a notice to quit in a joint tenancy seeks to agree a shorter notice period with the landlord. All other joint tenants will need to agree the shorter notice period as well for the notice to quit to be valid. This will ensure that tenants will not be able to agree short notice periods for a notice to quit without their other joint tenants being aware, preventing tenants finding out at potentially very short notice that their tenancy is ending. This was not the Government’s intention, and I am pleased to be able to clarify this issue beyond doubt in the Bill.
Government Amendment 67 will clarify that all joint tenants must agree, alongside the landlord, for a notice to quit to be withdrawn. This will ensure that it is clear that tenants must all agree to sustain a tenancy and make absolutely clear that one tenant cannot trap another in a tenancy indefinitely. These changes will ensure that joint tenancies can continue to operate effectively in the future tenancy regime and ensure maximum clarity for all parties. As such, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments and will instead support the government amendments.
Turning now to the noble Lord’s other amendments, Amendment 63 would require a tenant to inform all other joint tenants of their serving a notice to quit, and the landlord to do the same. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord’s intent. We all agree that tenants and landlords should communicate transparently with one another and take action to ensure that all parties are aware that a tenancy is coming to an end. With regret, however, I am unable to support codifying a requirement for this in law. The Government are concerned that, in certain circumstances, this may place individuals at risk. This is particularly true for victims of domestic abuse, who may not be able to safely inform a perpetrator that a notice to quit has been served. Indeed, some victims may choose not to serve a notice to quit at all. I also have practical concerns about the amendment. It might give rise to frustrating and counterproductive disputes between tenants. It might also cause tenants to question whether a tenancy has been validly ended if the requirement is not complied with.
Amendment 65 would allow a tenant to serve one month’s notice to end a tenancy if a landlord has served a possession notice on grounds 1 and 1A. That would be a reduction from the usual two months’ notice required by the Bill. Although I appreciate that the intent is to offer tenants greater flexibility to find a new property, we think the Bill strikes the right balance. Landlords must now give four months’ notice when using these grounds, and we think it is reasonable that the property be occupied for at least two months of this period, unless there is specific agreement to a shorter period.
I note that allowing a shorter notice period automatically might place other joint tenants in a difficult situation—for example, if they have not been able to find alternative accommodation as quickly as their housemates. This is recognised in the noble Lord’s other amendments. In many cases, the landlord will be supportive of a tenant moving out sooner than would otherwise be permitted. In those cases, there is nothing to stop all joint tenants and landlords agreeing a shorter notice period.
I hope that the noble Lord recognises that we have given very careful consideration to these amendments and have accepted those where we think the Bill could be strengthened, although I fully appreciate the intent behind his other amendments. I therefore ask him not to press those amendments for the reasons I have set out.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, on this amendment, I think we are unanimous. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for this amendment. I approve of his technical knowledge on this and can agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender—just occasionally.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope that the next day of Report will go just like that. It will be wonderful.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 74. As he noted, I have added my name to it, and I am delighted to do so. The Government are very pleased to support the amendment, technical as it is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, it will make a positive difference. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing this forward. The amendment is a positive step towards creating a fair and transparent rental market with a more streamlined regulatory process. We want to ensure that letting agent businesses are able to receive reliable and tailored advice on complying with regulations under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
The amendment will allow a primary authority scheme to be set up for the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The reliable and tailored assured advice issued by the primary authority is recognised by other local authorities. This helps businesses avoid costs and difficulties caused by different local authorities interpreting and enforcing the same rules inconsistently. The primary authority scheme also promotes great co-operation between businesses and regulators, fostering a collaborative environment that ultimately increases compliance rates while lowering enforcement costs and reducing administrative burdens. The Government strongly support the amendment, recognising its potential significantly to improve the rental market. I hope the whole House will support it.
Housing Associations: Financial Assistance
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. We went into a bit of a decline in the modern methods of construction industry. I am a great supporter of it; it holds great potential for the future. We will support and encourage developers who are taking that approach. There is no difference in the safety of those properties because all types of property come under the same building regulations framework. In fact, I went to see an amazing office block, just across the river here, that is made with a timber-frame approach. I hope we can continue to encourage the development industry to make progress with those methods.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My noble friend Lord Bailey raised the delivery of affordable housing in London. In May, G15, the group representing the largest housing associations in London, said that there had been a 66% drop in affordable housing built in London over the last two years, down to fewer than 5,000. Given the lamentable failure of the Mayor of London to deliver, will the Government allocate the near £12 billion in funding for affordable housing directly to the London boroughs so that they can get on with the job?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The exact details of the programme will be published shortly. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, 30% of the funding in that £39 billion funding pot will be allocated to London. But the noble Lord should look at what has happened in the last 14 years and not blame the Mayor of London for what has happened with housing in London.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from expanding the definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” by regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet my noble friend Lady Scott and me to discuss the contents of the government amendments in this group. We are grateful that she has returned to the House with what has been referred to as a “break glass” provision, finally acknowledging that the Government’s policy may indeed lead to a significant backlog in the tribunal system.
However, on these Benches we struggle to understand why the Government, having recognised the problem, have not sought to take proactive steps to prevent such a backlog in the first place. Waiting until the system is overwhelmed before acting is not good policy. It also cannot be right that rent determinations made by tribunals can result only in the rent being revised downward. This creates a clear and perverse incentive. There is no risk to bringing a case if the rent cannot go up and can only go down. Why not try your luck? You may as well. It encourages unnecessary and speculative tribunal claims.
That is why I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for their consistent work on this issue and for the thoughtful amendments they have tabled. Both noble Lords have highlighted the problem with clarity. The current system gives tenants an incentive to challenge rent, knowing that they have nothing to lose. We would therefore support Amendment 31 should my noble friend decide to press it to a vote. It would correct the imbalance by allowing for rent to be revised upwards as well as downwards, restoring fairness to the process.
Amendment 42, which stands in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct a formal review of the tribunal system responsible for rent determinations. We on these Benches recognise the potential for tribunal backlogs that the “break glass” amendment is supposed to address, but we do not believe that will be the case. Hence, we believe that a comprehensive review is necessary to help us understand the true pressure being placed on the system and how best to mitigate it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for recognising the overburdening of the tribunal system with Amendment 29, but it would add an additional filtering step rather than seek to reduce the incentive to go in the first place, especially when there is no downside to doing so, which we think would be the more appropriate way of addressing the issue.
Finally, I will say a word on Amendment 24, which concerns preventing the Secretary of State expanding the definition of a relevant low-cost tenancy by regulation. This is important because such a power, if exercised without scrutiny, could significantly broaden the Bill’s scope in unintended ways. It is vital that any change to this definition comes before Parliament not simply through ministerial discretion. From these Benches we look forward to hearing from noble Lords across the House on these issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Regarding Amendment 24, at present private registered providers of social housing can grant secure or assured tenancies. The majority of these are let at social rents. Social rents are regulated by the social housing regulator. The definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” in the Bill reflects these arrangements. If the Government or the social housing sector were to change how rent is determined or regulated, this power would enable the Secretary of State to make technical amendments to reflect this or other changing circumstances. As the power relates only to the definition of relevant low-cost tenancies, I assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State will not be able to use this power to change the legislation to affect market-rate tenancies. Based on this, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 30, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her engagement on this issue. The Government fully support efforts to improve the energy efficiency of homes in the private rented sector, particularly where tenants are proactive in accessing support through government-backed schemes. The amendment as drafted would mean that any increase in value arising from these improvements would be disregarded, even if it was funded partly by public money. Therefore, if landlords have made sizeable investments themselves in improving the energy efficiency of their properties without government grants, under this amendment they would not be able to increase rent to reflect those improvements.
The tribunal has experts, such as surveyors, who will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence on whether or not they think that the rent increase is justified. The tribunal already ignores any improvements to the property made by the tenant, to avoid inflating the rent. However, it is likely to be more challenging in practice for the tribunal to differentiate rent levels based on whether energy-efficiency upgrades were funded through specific grant schemes—particularly where the tenant was not directly responsible for the work. This may complicate the tribunal process.
We recognise that it is very important that means-tested energy-efficiency grant schemes are used to benefit tenants. That is why, for the warm homes local grant, which was launched in April, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a clear expectation that landlords should declare that they do not intend to raise rents as a direct result of the upgrades being made. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly highlighted the importance of ensuring that landlords do not profit unduly from government-funded improvements and that the value of these schemes should flow primarily to tenants, given the impact on many people living in poverty, and the threat of eviction. We have carefully considered these points and believe that the measures already being introduced strike the right balance.
In conclusion, the landlord declaration, introduced and overseen by DESNZ through the warm homes local grant, will include a commitment from landlords not to increase rents as a result of improvements made using the grant funding. I hope that this offers the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reassurance that the Government are taking this issue seriously. For those reasons, I respectfully ask her not to move her amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, has proposed two amendments to the process for challenging rents at the tribunal within the first six months of the tenancy. On Amendment 31, the ability to challenge rent in the first six months of the tenancy is a vital safety valve, ensuring that tenants cannot continue to be ripped off if they have been pressured into an unfair rent. Landlords who have agreed a fair market price have nothing to fear from this mechanism. This amendment would exacerbate the worry that tenants already face about going to a tribunal to enforce their rights. Tenants will not challenge rents if they risk being worse off following a tribunal ruling. The Bill encourages tenants to engage the tribunal when they have legitimate concerns. By reinforcing the rights of tenants to do so, we are disincentivising the minority of landlords from pressurising tenants into unfair rents at the beginning of a tenancy. The way for landlords to avoid this is to make sure that their rents are fair at the start of the tenancy.
On Amendment 32, the Government are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal during the first six months of their tenancy only where they believe that their rent is above market rates or that they have been pressured into an unjustified initial rent. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate about what adjustments to rent might be reasonable. The noble Lord asked how a tribunal determines a fair rent. To determine the market rate, the First-tier Tribunal considers a wide range of evidence, such as the price of similar properties being advertised online and evidence submitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase.
The First-tier Tribunal has experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors that result in the market rate and determining whether the rent is reflective of this. The First-tier Tribunal is best placed to do this in the new tenancy system. It is also worth noting that tribunals have had the power to adjudicate rent levels in line with the market rent since the Housing Act 1988, and since then the market rate has continued to increase. However, if the rent is challenged and the tribunal determines that a rent exceeds the open market rate, it is right that the tribunal can backdate the lower rent to the date of the tenant’s challenge and that the landlord repay the difference to the tenant. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Howard, not to press his amendments.
I turn now to Amendments 33 to 36 and 40. The Government recognise that some tenants may avoid challenging unreasonable rent increases out of fear that they will be saddled with significant amounts of backdating, which they will be unable to afford. By removing the ability of the tribunals to backdate a rent increase, tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, will be empowered to challenge what they believe to be an above market rate rent increase. This reduces the risk of an unreasonable rent increase causing a tenant financial hardship, or even being used to force someone out of their home. This is a really important measure to encourage people to challenge unreasonable rent increases.
Amendments 34 to 36 and 40 in particular may only heighten the risk of vulnerable tenants feeling unable to challenge an above market rent increase. We know that tenants and landlords are usually eager to maintain a positive relationship and will not bring the other to court or tribunal without good reason. As such, I ask the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Howard, not to press these amendments.
I turn finally to Amendment 42. The tribunal has over 30 years’ experience in making determinations of unfair rent increases, having carried out this function since the Housing Act 1988. We have full confidence in the tribunal’s ability to carry out this function in a fair way. I appreciate the need for the justice system to be ready for our reforms and for landlords and tenants to access justice in a timely way. We are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of our reforms on the tribunal and to lessen these wherever possible. This close collaboration has been ongoing for a number of years and in a great amount of detail.
The amendment we have tabled to our rent increase measures shows that we are listening to the concerns of the sector and this House about tribunal workloads. It puts in place a safeguard in case it is needed. We will already be collecting extensive data to assess the impact of these reforms. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we have committed to monitor and evaluate our reform programme. We will use a range of sources to support this. Existing datasets will be used, and new data will be collected. We are committed to publishing the evaluation findings at the two and five-year points after the Bill’s implementation.
I will respond to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the justice impact test. The justice impact test we are undertaking with the Ministry of Justice will identify additional burdens on the justice system, but they are internal government documents and are not published. The test is ongoing and regularly reviewed to ensure that it reflects any changes to legislation as the Bill continues its journey through Parliament. We are fully focused on making sure the justice system is prepared for changes to court case load and procedures that will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to that effect, including investing additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated.
In this context and in the context of the review that I have already outlined, both in the course of discussing these amendments and earlier today, I do not think it is necessary to commit to undertake any further review. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for setting out the Government’s amendments. However, we remain disappointed that the so-called “break glass” power is reactive in nature and fails to address the underlying incentives that drive unnecessary cases. Noble Lords across the House have raised the risk of the tribunal system being overwhelmed. Although I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on mechanisms, there are no firm proposals. Therefore, on that basis, we will support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on Amendment 31 if he is minded to push it to the vote.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has raised, and we requested in Committee, the Government have failed to publish the justice impact test. I heard the Minister’s comments, but I asked her to publish it before Report given its importance and the concern across the House about the impact of the Bill on the justice system.
Amendment 42 seeks a review of the impact on the tribunal system. As we have another amendment later, reviewing the impact on the justice system in its entirety, we will not press this amendment now.
Serious concerns remain about the Secretary of State’s discretion to expand the definition of low-cost tenancies. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the breadth of the powers they are granting. That said, I will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to try to understand what the definition of rent is if we are going to control rents or somehow curtail them or attenuate the increases.
One can see the base rate just by googling property websites. It is a good idea to get a feel for the cost of a basic, low-cost, unfurnished property in the worst part of town, but that is not necessarily the market price, which is determined by a number of factors: the property may be furnished; it may be serviced accommodation; there may be porterage; there may be other benefits— I am not going to go as far as swimming pools and gyms, but I know they are available in some circumstances. Parking would be another one. All these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases, which may be determined by factors outside the landlord’s control. A property that has inclusive parking may become significantly more valuable, one could anticipate, if the local council applies permits on the streets around it.
I am tempted to support Amendment 25, but I am reluctant to do so because at the moment all these extras are rolled into the single price. The logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we will get menu pricing, rather as we see on low-cost airlines. There may be an attractive flight—£5.99 to fly to Spain or whatever—but by the time you add in the baggage, the booking fee and everything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point that the risk of the price going up over the four-year period may be somewhat attenuated, but those extras amounting to what I would call the landed price, or total cost of ownership, could vary accordingly.
Another significant point that we need to take into account is that there may be Section 20 repairs or improvements, particularly in the case of furnished accommodation where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade the fixed furnishings, such as tables and chairs and possibly soft furnishings as well. All of this complicates what is a rolled-up figure at the moment. The logical conclusion is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, so it is going be harder to compare for the potential tenant. But it is going to be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way in the circumstance of a First-tier Tribunal appeal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent—that £5.99 figure. It is very difficult.
I have a huge amount of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I cannot support it because I think the logical conclusion of it will be that we will get a fragmentation of the landed rent so that the tail wags the dog. The landlord will be so focused on restricting the base rate that those other things will get lost.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have concerns about a number of amendments in this group on the basis that they are unduly prescriptive and risk the introduction of what could be regarded as, in effect, a form of rent control.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seek to protect the tribunal from being overloaded due to the Bill. While we agree that there is significant risk of overload, we have concerns about how the arrangements would function. In particular, we do not feel able to support a system that ties rental increases to CPI. CPI is a generalised index that reflects the prices of bread, fuel, clothing and so forth, but not rental market dynamics. What happens in areas where market rents are falling but inflation is high, or where incomes are stagnant while CPI rises? This approach uses a national economic measure to benchmark against a highly localised rental market, and the result would almost certainly be a distorted rental market. That said, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the impact of the Bill on tribunals’ backlogs, which we discussed at length in Committee.
Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raises some important points. There is no doubt that rent affordability is a serious issue, and the amendment rightly draws attention to a range of important factors: the regional disparities in rental costs, the strain of high rents placed on household finances and the need to understand how effectively the First-tier Tribunal is working in practice. However, I must also sound a note of realism. We do not need another report for its own sake. We need actual change that improves the lives of renters and restores fairness to a housing system that too often feels stacked against ordinary people. If this review is to go ahead, it must not become just another document left to gather dust on the shelves of the department—it must lead to action. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline how the Government will respond to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness in her amendment, which we agree are all points which matter in this debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments relating to rent affordability and rent controls, and the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for speaking in this discussion. I have the deepest respect for the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young, and their experience, and for the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who has vast experience in this area too. I am grateful for their contributions.
I do not intend to revisit the detailed discussions we had in Committee. They were detailed and informed deliberations, and I know how strongly some noble Lords and tenant groups feel about helping those who struggle to pay high rents. I absolutely understand the pressure that rents put on the budgets of individuals and families. To come back to the points that we made earlier in the debate, obviously the solution to this is to create a lot more social and affordable housing, but I realise that is not going to happen overnight.
However, I must reiterate the Government’s concern that rent controls, as proposed, would risk reducing housing supply, discouraging investment and ultimately lowering property standards. In the case of Amendment 25, the most relevant international comparator is Ontario, an example that I also cited in Committee. I am afraid that the Ontario model, whereby rent increases are capped according to a measure of inflation, has not led to desirable outcomes. In fact, analysis suggests that the result has been higher rents for new tenants.
In respect of the experience in Scotland, a recent Nationwide Foundation report by the Indigo House Group found that rent control measures had not protected the majority of private rented sector tenants against excessive rent increases or against high advertised market rents, considering average advertised rents in the system as a whole. The measures in Scotland do not appear to have impacted rental price growth, because Scotland has consistently been one of the regions in the UK with the highest growth in asking rents. For example, according to Zoopla, in the year to January 2024, when the rent freeze was in place, Scotland was the only UK region with a double-digit annual rent growth, at 11.6%.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the three amendments here are interesting. The noble Baroness is well aware that we share the same concerns as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, regarding shared owners. I was allowed to gatecrash their meeting. I admit that it was eye-opening for me. I was aware of the issues around shared ownership, but I was shocked at the costs incurred and the amounts of money lost, which the noble Lord has amplified superbly. I hope the noble Baroness can give us some way forward on this and other issues that seriously affect shared owners—accidental landlords who are trapped in the situations the noble Lord has accurately described and see no way out. The “What can I do?” was quite revealing. It is no surprise that we will support Amendment 59.
We know that the not-able-to-sell situation applies to thousands of shared owners—far greater numbers than, I suspect, Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, applies to. This is yet another area in the Bill where we do not know the numbers. We do not know how many homes will be affected. I have to pay credit to the noble Lord because Amendment 58 has been patiently worked on and lobbied for by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I completely understand where he is coming from but perhaps do not agree that the detriment to the relatively few landlords who find they cannot sell their property is worth the abuses that might occur if prohibition on re-letting is reduced to six months rather than 12 as in the Bill. Perhaps this is an area for some compromise.
I have a simple question, and I am sure somebody will tell me I am wrong. If I genuinely wanted to sell my property and realise my capital for whatever reason, given the amount of time to evict, I would probably not serve notice to my tenant until I had sold my property. I can serve the notice; the process of selling, conveyancing and everything else carries on; the tenant leaves at the appropriate time; the buyers exchange contracts and we say, “You can’t move in until that time”. I do not see how that would be unachievable. I am sure somebody will tell me why that would not be the case. I certainly would not evict them before I put it on the market or had some sense of the market or of how things were. As I said in Committee, a letting agent said to me, “All houses will sell, Dorothy. It just depends on the price”.
Amendment 41, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is clearly designed to act as a disincentive to landlords trying to abuse this ground, but maybe if the landlord is genuine, it is just a little too draconian. We broadly agree that the Bill has got this right, as far as we can tell.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to offer my full support to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 59 addresses a significant gap in the Bill by providing a vital exemption for shared ownership leaseholders from certain provisions within Clause 14. Shared ownership is an important tenure model that enables many people to take their first step on to the housing ladder, yet it is not without its challenges, particularly when sales fall through, as my noble friend has highlighted. Amendment 59 is a sensible and necessary provision that recognises the realities faced by shared ownership landlords. Protecting this group helps to maintain confidence in shared ownership and prevents unintended consequences that could undermine the Bill’s original intent. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is minded to test the opinion of the House, the Opposition will support him without hesitation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments and their engagement on these issues. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
On Amendment 58, we want to strengthen tenant security and prevent abuse of ground 1A. A 12-month no re-let period will act as a deterrent to unscrupulous landlords who want to evict tenants so that they can let to a new tenant for more rent or because the tenants are asking for repairs that the landlord does not want to do. We understand this is a strict measure, and it is meant to be. It is intended to ensure that only landlords who genuinely wish to sell their property will wish to use that ground and to deter from using it landlords looking to evict a tenant in order to re-let at a higher rent or to a different tenant. Not only will landlords have to forgo rental income for 12 months after using ground 1A but should they be found to be misusing the ground, they could be fined up to £40,000. It is right that we have these strong tenant protections in place.
This amendment would also bring significant complexity to the system, and I struggle to see how it would work in practice. It would allow the courts to require evidence that the dwelling had been on the open market for six months and that no suitable offers had been received, but it is unclear how the courts would become involved. Additionally, it could place undue burdens on courts which may have to follow up on any ground 1A evictions to check whether the landlord had tried to sell for six months and whether they had received any suitable offers. The court would also have to determine what a suitable offer was, which would be another undue burden. The no re-let rule is a clear and simple rule that would not benefit from further complexity. I believe this amendment would open the no re-let period to abuse, reducing tenant security and contradicting the aims of this Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated, if a landlord is genuinely planning to sell a property, they can market it to gauge interest before upending the tenant’s life by evicting them. This would be more effective for all parties than evicting as soon as they decide to sell and only then putting it on the market and waiting for suitable offers. For all these reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, not to press this amendment.
On Amendment 41, I understand from our helpful discussions that my noble friend Lord Hacking’s intent here is to remove the period during which a landlord cannot re-let the property after using grounds 1 and 1A and instead prevent the rent being increased in the new tenancy. While this amendment addresses one of the goals of the no re-let period by making it unprofitable for landlords to abuse the moving and selling grounds, it does not address the other key reason to prevent abuse. Even if an unscrupulous landlord could not profit from abusing the grounds, they could still, under my noble friend’s proposals, use these grounds with no intention of moving in or selling to pursue retaliatory evictions. This means abusing the grounds to get rid of a tenant who had done nothing wrong but whom, for example, the landlord simply did not like or who they considered raised too many issues with the property.
These abuses of the system are exactly what the 12-month no re-let period aims to prevent. In the current system, under Section 21, we hear all too often of tenants afraid to ask for repairs because the landlord has made it clear that they will evict them if they do. Under my noble friend’s proposal, this could still happen. The opening up of the grounds to abuse must be resisted. The 12-month no re-let period is a strong disincentive for landlords to abuse the grounds, and I believe that it strikes the right balance. As such, I ask my noble friend not to push his amendment to a Division.
I turn now to Amendment 59. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his engagement on this issue and for introducing me to the Shared Owners’ Network. These clauses implement critical protections for tenants. If a landlord has used the selling or moving-in ground, they will not be able to re-let or market a property for 12 months. That period starts from the date of possession proceedings, as specified in their Section 8 notice to the tenant. These clauses also include other important prohibited landlord behaviours.
The Government are aware that some shared owners with building safety issues are facing very difficult circumstances through no fault of their own. The Shared Owners’ Network has provided invaluable insight into this issue. We are continuing to engage with it to determine how best to support these shared owners. We will have a dialogue with the registered providers as well. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion in that regard. To respond to another of his comments, I will clarify the licence points to him in writing.
However, I do not agree that, by helping in one area, other blameless tenants should have reduced security of tenure or be exposed to the risk of wrongful eviction just because of who their landlord is. We have to get the balance right somehow, to support those who find themselves in this awful position but not at the expense of other tenants. We will continue to work on that. All assured tenants must benefit from the new system.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press this amendment.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to demote tenancies for anti-social behaviour.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities, but it is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. It undermines community spirit, leaving tenants feeling trapped and helpless. It strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. Too often we overlook the consequences. It is not just the cost of repairs, increased security and time-consuming administration of complaints, placing an unsustainable burden on housing associations and local authorities, but the misery and social breakdown it can cause in communities. As currently drafted, the Bill weakens the powers available to local authorities and social landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why we have sought to bring back Amendment 3 today to preserve the ability of social landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour.
Demotion is not about punishment for its own sake. It is a vital tool—a proportionate deterrent that enables landlords to uphold community stability. Whether it is loud noise, vandalism or intimidation of tenants, those engaging in persistent anti-social behaviour must know there are consequences. Without the option to demote, how are landlords expected to maintain safety and harmony in their communities? Those with experience in local government will know that when a tenant causes disruption, it is often the landlord who receives the enforcement pressure from the council. If landlords are to be held to account, they must also be empowered to act. Amendment 3 would ensure that social landlords retain this power. It is not a radical departure but a practical necessity to deal with real-world situations where one tenant’s behaviour causes misery to many others.
This is about protecting the quiet minority—the families, the elderly and the vulnerable who rely on their home being a place of safety. It is about ensuring that social landlords are not left powerless in the face of persistent disruption. I urge the Government to reflect on the value of demotion as a tool of last resort and the message it sends that anti-social behaviour has consequences and that community cohesion matters. In conclusion, if we are serious about supporting tenants and local authorities, we must ensure they have the tools to act decisively and fairly. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, we say ditto to every single thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about anti-social behaviour. We all know it blights people’s lives and how difficult it is to stem it. We have arrangements where councils work with their local strategic partnerships to deal with it. Nobody is disputing that.
The reason we have come to the conclusion that demoted tenancies are not needed is really very simple. I contacted the National Housing Federation, whose members are social housing providers. It genuinely does not see a need. It is comfortable enough with the Bill and how it deals with anti-social behaviour. It wants to know that it has effective tools to deal with anti-social behaviour and is concerned about the capacity of the courts to deal with evictions based on anti-social behaviour.
My instinct straightaway was to support the amendment on demoted tenancies, but the National Housing Federation said it did not see the point of it but did want to know that it was going to get the tools to deal with things. Many providers, ones I know personally, feel that they deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, including my own council and I suspect the Minister’s. They were concerned about having those tools and the capacity of the courts to deal with that ground when they choose to use it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this amendment. It seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. I can honestly say that one of the most frustrating things I dealt with in 27 years as a councillor was anti-social behaviour. While we all agree with the need for tackling the blight of anti-social behaviour on individuals and communities as a priority, I cannot accept the amendment as a way of dealing with that. It would fundamentally go against one of the core principles of the Renters’ Rights Bill—to improve security of tenure for renters. There is also a technical reason, which I shall come to shortly.
The amendment would seemingly enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy. As I said in Committee, as drafted, the amendment would not work: the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure whereby assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict a shorthold tenant via Section 21 are abolished. There will, therefore, no longer be a tenancy with lower security to which one can demote tenants. For the amendment to work, a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies would be required.
Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many councils and housing associations already do a great job in tackling this in partnership with each other, but I accept that it can still be an issue.
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. The Bill also amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under that 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.
For all those reasons, we feel that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments, and I am grateful for the wide recognition of anti-social behaviour and the problems it causes. While we will not press the amendment today, I hope the Government have truly heard the problems that this causes. Evicting someone and going to court is very draconian, and this proposal would provide the opportunity of an interim step without the need for eviction. That is a useful tool, but I recognise the Minister’s comments. I hope that the Government will reflect and consider how the Bill can more robustly support those affected by persistent anti-social behaviour. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“(a) the landlord;(b) the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(c) a person who is—(i) a child,(ii) a grandchild,(iii) a parent,(iv) a grandparent,(v) a sibling,(vi) a niece or nephew,(vii) an aunt or uncle, or(viii) a cousin,of the landlord or of the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(d) a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a person falling within paragraph (c).For the purposes of this Schedule—(a) one person (C) is the “co-habitee” of another person (P) if P lives with C as if they were married or in a civil partnership;(b) a “niece or nephew” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of a sibling of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a sibling of P;(c) an “aunt or uncle” of a person (P) is a sibling of a parent of P;(d) a “cousin” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of an aunt or uncle of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of an aunt or uncle of P;(e) “sibling” includes a sibling of the half-blood and a step-sibling.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in clause 20 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we return to the issue of equalising definitions across the Bill, not just for consistency but for fairness, and ensuring that the definition of “family” is the same when it comes to guarantors and grounds for possession. It is not about expanding the law, but about clarity and equity. We want to place on record and state clearly that we believe the Government are making a mistake in resisting this change.
Amendment 21 is sensible and necessary; possession, for the purpose of housing a carer, is an issue of growing importance. Many families are already making plans for future care needs. With social care under increasing pressure, we believe that this amendment is timely and proportionate. We must allow older or less able people to stay in their own home if that is what they choose. Having a carer close by or even in the annexe next door would enable them to do so. I hope that the Minister understands the value of this ground.
Finally, Amendments 22 and 23, the first in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester and the second in my own name, speak to the need for a clearer message around redevelopment, not only for commercial purposes but for private regeneration as well. Really good regeneration in urban areas requires a certain scale. When a large site is available, something truly transformational can be achieved, as we have seen with the King’s Cross redevelopment. But large sites like King’s Cross are the exception: they just do not exist. Many forward-thinking investors and developers seek to build up a site of sufficient scale through piecemeal acquisition over many years, continuing to let the housing and commercial properties in the meantime.
We believe that we should support and encourage those seeking to do these high-quality regeneration projects. Are the Government seriously suggesting that the tenancy should be terminated on change of ownership and the home left vacant, potentially for many years, thereby not only reducing the rental housing stock but undermining the viability of such large-scale regeneration projects and blighting the neighbourhood? Would it not be far better to allow property owners to continue to rent their homes until such time as the property is needed for redevelopment? I beg to move.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 21 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support. This amendment makes a very small change to the Bill, but it could make a significant difference to the lives of individuals who need long-term full-time care due to their age or disability.
I also thank the Minister for her time in meeting with us to discuss the amendment. We have listened, but still feel strongly that our amendment is important to those who need care. We do not see that it would create a loophole, which was one of the Government’s concerns, or that it treats tenants unfairly when trying to ensure that they have security of tenure and are not moved on unnecessarily from a home that they enjoy and are settled in.
For a loophole to be abused, there must be opportunities in the wording or function of the clause for this happen. We believe we have addressed this, as the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s residence—for example, an annexe or a flat within the same block, or in the same street or village—so that daily and emergency care can be provided to the person who needs care.
Due to the proximity, the tenant would be aware of where the landlord lives. If there were a caring requirement for the landlord or a member of their family and notice was given on the grounds of the need for a carer, they could investigate, ask neighbours or visit the landlord for confirmation. If they were not satisfied that the requirement was met, they could use the provisions in the Bill to challenge the notice.
One of the principles of the Bill is to provide more security of tenure. This amendment would change the Bill in only a very small way as it would apply only to a small number of properties, but for a very important and valued reason for a family.
We have spoken to several national care organisations, which support our amendment. There are many benefits if a long-term carer lives close by, and these were pointed out to me by the National Care Association.
Continuity of care is so important. Carers have private lives, and this separate property would give the carer the opportunity to live their own life in their own space, thereby improving retention and their own mental and physical health. It would also give private space to the family in their own home, which can only help with all the family’s health needs.
During Covid, a lot of live-in carers suffered from loneliness when living in the same property as the person they were caring for. Allowing them their own housing would be a big advantage. Caring is a professional and skilled job, and therefore, when care is provided, it should be done by the most appropriate skilled person. Surely, this could be a professional carer.
If the individual being cared for has a family member living with them who could be the carer, would it not be more appropriate if that individual went out to work and did an appropriate job with the skills they have, rather than doing the job of the carer, when a professional carer might provide better care? Is not one of the Government’s primary objectives to get people into work? Surely, this must involve doing roles that they are most productive in.
Many people of different ages require full-time care, and this can be for many reasons and can come unexpectedly due to age, significant health reasons or sometimes, sadly, an accident. If there is a need for long-term care then surely, if you have a property in proximity, you should be able to gain possession. Is it not reasonable and fair to extend the grounds to allow a professional carer to live at the property, rather than a reluctant family member providing care services?
In terms of care, surely keeping an individual in their own home rather than in a care home or another institution, would benefit not only them but society in general. This amendment achieves this without adding pressure on the already stretched social care sector. We acknowledge that some tenants will suffer disruption by having to leave their property. This is the same as if the landlord wishes to sell the property or move a family member in, but this is for a very specific reason and most tenants would understand why notice has been given.
The amendment is all about family and landlords gaining possession for the use of a property for the family. That is what ground 8 lists. All we seek is to extend the provision for what is an essential service for a family in a time of need. We hope that the Government consider this amendment and make this small change for the benefit of those in care. If they are reluctant to do so, I may need to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Carrington, for their contributions to the debate.
Amendment 4 seeks to expand the definition of “family member” for the purpose of the moving-in ground, ground 1, to a much wider range of relations. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into a property. This amendment would allow landlords to evict their tenants in order to house nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins. It would enable the ground to be used to house the equivalent relatives of their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee. The family members we have chosen who can move in under ground 1 aim to reflect the diversity of modern families, but this is balanced with security of tenure for the existing tenant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated.
I appreciate that this draws the line short of where some might hope, but to go too far would open up tenants to evictions for a wide range of people, potentially very significant numbers of cousins, nieces and nephews, where families are large. I know that this depends on families—it would certainly be a large number in my family. This would provide more opportunities for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system. It is right that the definition used here is narrower than the definition in Clause 20, which removes guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. That is because this is a possession ground, so it results in people losing their homes; whereas Clause 20 protects bereaved families, where the net should be cast more widely.
Amendment 21 aims to introduce a new ground for possession that would permit the landlord to seek possession of their property for the purpose of housing a carer for them or a member of their family who lives with them. This is qualified by the requirement that the property is within sufficient proximity to the landlord’s residence to facilitate emergency callouts. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their considered and passionate engagement on this proposed ground in Committee and when I met Peers to discuss the proposal in the run-up to Report. I recognise the difficulties they highlighted that may be faced by landlords who wish to evict their tenant in order to house a carer. We are all aware of the importance of carers and the remarkable work they do in supporting individuals and families in difficult circumstances. These amendments clearly come from a good place, and I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns.
However, there are some practical considerations that weaken the rationale for this intervention. Adding more possession grounds increases opportunities for abuse by those unscrupulous landlords who, sadly, exist in the market. We are committed to giving renters much greater security and stability so that they can stay in their homes for longer. That is why we have developed very specific grounds. We also think that there are very few landlords who would be in the position of both needing a carer and owning a second property close to their home to accommodate that carer. I appreciate the examples that both noble Baronesses gave. Given the potential risk of abuse and the very narrow group of people who might benefit from this ground, we do not think the additional ground is warranted. Our view is that it is not fair that a tenant should lose their home, with all the disruption that entails, in order for another person to be housed in those circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about supporting people into work, but this amendment might involve another local worker being evicted to house that carer. Indeed, if the evicted tenant were also a carer, it would be likely to deprive one of the very organisations that have been contacting noble Lords of a key member of their staff, so we have to be careful that we do not cause those kinds of circumstances.
Amendment 22 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that I too visited the King’s Cross development when I was looking at the development of the central part of Stevenage. The work that has been done there is fantastic.
As I stated in Committee, in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I do not believe that the proposal in Amendment 22 is the right approach. The Government have thought carefully about where landlords should be able to take possession of their properties, particularly where it would lead to a tenant losing their home through no fault of their own.
Encouraging residential lets to be converted to other uses, at a time of such chronic pressure on housing supply, would not be right. It is for the same reason that the Bill abolishes ground 3, which enables landlords to evict long-term tenants in order to turn the dwelling into a holiday let. Where landlords wish to convert their property to non-residential use, it is right that they should do this as tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant who has done nothing wrong.
It is also worth noting—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to—that the existing redevelopment ground, ground 6, could potentially be used in some circumstances. This is the right approach, not the approach put forward in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.
I turn to Amendment 23. This well-intentioned amendment would create a new mandatory possession ground to allow landlords to evict tenants in order to redevelop their property, if they have received planning permission for the works and these works cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that landlords will already be able to evict in these circumstances. They can do this by using the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6. This also does not require the landlord to prove that they have planning permission, which may not be necessary in all circumstances. In effect, this proposed new ground would merely duplicate ground 6, but with additional constraints. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can she be categorical that anybody seeking to redevelop their property would be able to terminate a tenancy to do so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
You can use the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6, when you are redeveloping property.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Turning to my first amendment, I recognise that the Minister has given some serious consideration to the definition of family and is satisfied with the Government’s position. We respectfully disagree, but I will not press Amendment 4 and will therefore withdraw it.
We have had an excellent debate on Amendment 21. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing it and the many noble Lords who raised issues on it. They have spoken with clarity and conviction. We believe that allowing a property to be used to house a carer in a time of need not only is reasonable but can be vital to the well-being and living standards of the property owner, and on these Benches we are pleased to support this amendment.
Finally, turning to the issue of redevelopment and regeneration, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his contribution. Revitalising areas is key to improving living standards and supporting the long-term well-being and development of communities, delivering the growth that this Government have said is their number one priority. It is also crucial to delivering the homes that are so vital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the Minister said earlier in the debate. I appreciate the Minister’s comment that this may already be covered, but we are not satisfied that it is. The Minister’s comments were not conclusive when I sought clarification. I will therefore test the opinion of the House on Amendment 23.
Lord Jamieson
“Possession for redevelopment and regeneration of private rented homes
24A After Ground 8 insert—“Ground 8A
The following conditions are met—(a) the private landlord intends to redevelop the dwelling-house for the purpose of regeneration, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied; (b) the private landlord has complied with all relevant tenancy obligations up to the date of possession;(c) the private landlord has given six months’ notice; (d) a planning application has been made.In this Ground—“Redevelopment” means—(a) demolition or reconstruction of all or a substantial part of the dwelling-house, or(b) substantial works to the dwelling-house or any building of which it forms part;“Regeneration” means the process of improving an area through coordinated measures that either—(a) secure the redevelopment, refurbishment, or enhancement of land, buildings, or infrastructure,(b) promote economic growth, including through the creation of employment opportunities and support for local enterprise, or(c) advance social wellbeing by improving housing, public services, community facilities, and the overall quality of life for residents;“Private landlord” means a landlord who is not a registered provider of social housing.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new group for possession where a landlord has made a planning application, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we should be supporting regeneration, enabling more housing and employment, and the renting of property in the meantime. While I appreciate the comment from the Minister, I am not reassured. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Jamieson ExcerptsWednesday 25th June 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
It is widely recognised that we need a simpler, more consistent and faster planning system that delivers higher-quality outcomes at lower costs. As others have raised, there has been a failure to deliver infrastructure, housing and commercial premises, particularly in London, Oxford and Cambridge, as well as a failure to deliver good environmental outcomes. The last Government made some good progress, with over 1 million new homes in five years and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—I ask whether this Government will seek to build on that rather than replace it.
Developers are equally frustrated, particularly with their inability to plan and invest for the long term due to the uncertainty of their most critical raw material: building land. We support many of the Government’s ambitions and there are some positive measures in the Bill, such as taking on board the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Banner on judicial review and reviewing the consultation process. However, it falls well short in many other areas, as many other noble Lords have pointed out earlier in this debate: the Bill takes a rather simplistic, overly centralised and blunt government-knows-best approach, rather than seeking to address the details, complexity and overlapping issues needed to improve the system, one that I believe the public would be more supportive of.
I have some questions. Strategic and local plans should be the fundamental base upon which to build development. However, the Government’s proposals are top-down. They are telling authorities what they need to achieve, with the threat of government intervention if they do not do it. Where are the tools to support authorities to achieve great outcomes for their areas and to make it easier to deliver these plans? If you give someone an impossible task, do not be surprised if they fail. Who determines the balance of achieving things such as environmental, infrastructure, affordable, commercial and housing numbers while seeking to meet the requirements of all those statutory bodies? How will these proposals make it easier to deliver a plan?
Local democratic accountability is crucial. Local residents should have a voice, as many have pointed out. There may be times when local councillors, under pressure from their electorate, are too willing to call something in, but there are far more times when it is important to have this option, particularly where developers seek to push the envelope. There are already measures in place to address this, and these need to be bolstered, not completely removed.
Environmental delivery plans are an interesting concept, but are the Government seriously giving this responsibility to an unaccountable quango that has no responsibility to deliver within a wider context, with tax-raising and CPO powers, and one that marks its own homework? Why not, for instance, through the strategic or local plans, work with a variety of providers? Why have the sensible proposals from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act on CPO and development corporations not already been taken forward?
While there are some positives on delivering infrastructure, will these really move the dial? Will they stop the delays and costs that we have seen for critical infrastructure, such as the Lower Thames Crossing? Will they improve biodiversity? Will they create a better environment? Why does the Bill encourage more development on greenfield and green belts? Why have this Government not continued with a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development? What is the Bill doing to make processes simpler and provide consistency; for instance, setting national policy frameworks and standardising templates and processes?
While I can agree with many of the aims of the Bill, and there are some positive measures, overall, it is a missed opportunity. It could have built on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It could have supported councils and planning to move faster and be more consistent. It could have addressed many of the unintended consequences of the habitats directive and other nature and environmental legislation that is overlapping and in conflict. It could have done more to address the consequences of JRs. It could have turbocharged brownfield and urban generation. It could have addressed the roles of the many other public and quasi-public bodies needed to deliver. It could have a standardised process and paperwork, driving consistency. It could have set clearer priorities and ranking against which development is judged. As I said, it is a lost opportunity.
I hope the Government will engage positively on the Bill as it makes its way through the House of Lords, working with Peers across the House and the many good suggestions I have heard to address the issues in it and make it something that will deliver for our country and our communities.
Planning: Energy Efficiency and Fire Safety
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are working very closely with leaseholder bodies to understand their issues. I understand the difficulties, and we are making sure that those responsible for the buildings are held to account and that they support leaseholders to get the work done. I am still talking to leaseholders, and we will bring forward more action on their general conditions in the leasehold Bill later this year. I know that this is a very difficult issue for them, and we continue to work with them on it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. The building safety regulator has a critical role to play to ensure fire safety, particularly for high-rise buildings. However, it does not currently have the capacity to deliver its role, creating huge delays to many housing projects. Can the Minister give the House a date when the substantial delays of the building safety regulator will be addressed?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not know if the noble Lord was in the Chamber when I spoke about this last week, but we are aware of the building safety regulator’s difficulties. We have put in additional funding and are working with the regulator to improve performance, particularly on the gateway issues. It is very important that we get this balance right. We want our buildings to be safe, and the building safety regulator must be able to do its job properly. We also want to move things on for the development industry so that developers can get through the gateways as quickly as they can; both things are important. I will not give the noble Lord an exact date—I do not suppose he would have expected me to—but we are working with the building safety regulator to move this on as quickly as possible.
Political Parties and Elections Act 2009
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Let me assure my noble friend that the Government remain steadfast in addressing the threat posed by disinformation and foreign interference in our democratic processes. Safeguarding the UK against such threats is and will always be an utmost priority.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concerns that excessive regulation and red tape can lead to unintended adverse consequences, as we have seen with the politically exposed persons regulations? With that in mind, can he tell the House what is the status of the review of the PEP regulations by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Government, following legislation passed by this House?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.
Planning Reforms: Energy and Housing Costs
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have heard my noble friend speak on this issue many times, and he is quite right to point to the restrictions that the value of land places on the system. Of course, we are always looking at new methods of making sure that the houses we need are viable and will deliver the quantity of housing needed, and we continue to explore all avenues to deliver that properly. I hope my noble friend will look at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill: there is progress in there, and I hope he likes what he sees.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. The benefits to growth and innovation of densifying our cities are well recognised, yet the UK has some of the lowest-density cities in the G7, and this Government are now seeking to facilitate building on the green belt rather than driving densification and regeneration of our cities. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will move forward with the previous Conservative Government’s strong presumption in favour of brownfield development?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry, but the noble Lord is quite wrong in his assumption. We are prioritising building on brownfield sites. I know he has a particular bugbear about London; I was with the Mayor of London just last week and was very pleased to see his review of the use of the green belt in London as part of the work on the London Plan. I was interested to hear that, of the half a million hectares of green belt in London, just 13% is made up of parks and accessible green space. The mayor is making progress on this, and so are we. Brownfield will always be our first choice, but we are looking at grey-belt and green-belt development as well.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the discussion on the seventh group of amendments, which addresses important changes to the rent repayment orders. These amendments seek to strengthen the mechanism by which tenants and local authorities can hold landlords accountable when they breach laws and ensure that rent repayment orders are both fair and effective.
The proposals tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raise significant points that warrant our attention. Among them, we see the suggestion to register RROs on a public database, which would make the existence of these orders transparent, allowing tenants and others to be aware of landlords with a history of non-compliance. This could serve as a powerful deterrent against landlords who might otherwise continue to disregard their responsibilities.
In addition, we see proposals to change the amount to be repaid in an RRO, as well as to extend the ability of tribunals to issue RROs in the case of non-registration on the public database. We need to ensure that the consequences for landlords are proportionate to the harm caused and that tenants receive a fair outcome. Although it is appropriate to have rent repayment orders where a tenant has been impacted or suffered a loss, as outlined so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, where a landlord has inadvertently breached a regulation and received a fine, but no harm has been done to a tenant, should they also receive a rent repayment order?
These Benches accept that rent repayment orders are an important tool for holding landlords to account and we welcome the intention to make these processes more accessible and transparent for tenants. However, we note that there are complex issues surrounding the practicalities of RROs, as I mentioned earlier, particularly in relation to the standard of proof and their scope.
Therefore, I ask the Government to respond to the following points. How do they propose to ensure that these amendments, particularly those relating to the registration of RROs, do not place unnecessary burdens on tribunals or create unintended consequences for landlords, who may not be aware of the rules? How do the Government intend to address the issue of non-registration on the database and the potential impact on landlords who fail to comply?
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. These are important questions and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments relating to rent repayment orders. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.
I will begin by responding to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 226 seeks to extend penalties for non-compliance with private rented sector database requirements. The Bill already includes a clear, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties against those who flout the rules. For initial or less serious non-compliance, local authorities can impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said she was beginning to sound like a stuck record; now I feel like that as well. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, to a first failure by a landlord to register.
For serious or repeat non-compliance, local authorities can prosecute or, alternatively, issue a civil penalty of up to £40,000. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect. We will, through the Bill, significantly strengthen rent repayment orders because we believe they are a powerful mechanism for tenant-led enforcement.
In relation to the database, rent repayment orders are available where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator. They are also available where a landlord continues to fail to register or provide the required information to the database following a first penalty. These, though, are criminal offences, and it would not be appropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the database requirements. Rent repayment orders are intended to act as a punitive sanction against landlords who commit criminal offences. Extending them to conduct that does not amount to an offence would undermine this.
Similarly, Amendment 257 would make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman and initial failure to be registered with the PRS database. My view is, as before, that it may be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to these non-criminal breaches. The new ombudsman and database are fundamental parts of our reforms, and of a better private rented sector with greater accountability. It is vital that they are robustly enforced.
We think the routes of enforcement currently in the Bill represent an effective and proportionate approach. We will monitor the use and effectiveness of rent repayment orders under the new, strengthened regime and consider whether further changes are necessary. Therefore I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws her amendment.
Amendment 244A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeks to lower the standard of proof to which the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied before making a rent repayment order against a landlord for an offence of illegal eviction or harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She set out very clearly and concisely why she was putting that forward with a very convincing argument.
I am clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences and that offenders need to be robustly punished. I accept that this happens too rarely at the moment. We are seeking to address this through the Bill by extending civil penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, to illegal eviction and harassment offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
My noble friend pointed out that the First-tier Tribunal is not a criminal court and asked why the criminal standard of proof should apply. The rent repayment order regime is predicated on an offence having been committed, and it is an established principle in law that offences are taken to have been committed when proved beyond reasonable doubt. Creating a lower standard of proof for the same offences for a finding of guilt in the tribunal compared with the criminal courts would be confusing, inconsistent and could be subject to a successful challenge.
We are also placing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce against specified landlord legislation, which includes illegal eviction and harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and we are looking hard at how best we can support them do so effectively. This Government are determined to bear down harder on illegal eviction and harassment. We are concerned, though, about what impact this amendment could have on the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole.
Rent repayment orders are predicated on an offence being committed. As I said, they apply exclusively to criminal offences, and the penalty can be a very significant one. The changes that we are making through the Bill both double the maximum penalty to two years’ rent and extend the circumstances in which the tribunal must award that amount. I recognise that illegal eviction may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that is not a principled reason for a civil standard of proof to apply to obtaining a rent repayment order in respect of a serious criminal offence.
The severity of the penalties that, quite properly, apply in the rent repayment order regime mean that there would be serious questions about procedural fairness should the criminal standard of proof not be required. The criminal standard of proof will of course be required when a local authority issues a civil penalty for illegal eviction or harassment under new Section 1A of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. All the other rent repayment offences would remain to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Making rent repayment orders for illegal eviction and harassment subject to the civil standard of proof would create an anomaly and be a departure from a well-established position, which we consider would be hard to justify. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and Safer Renting but, for now, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.
I will end with a brief—I promise—explanation of the Government’s amendments in this area. This Government view rent repayment orders as a critical part of ensuring higher standards and better compliance in the private rented sector; that is why we have significantly expanded them through the Bill. Government Amendments 244 to 248 aim to ensure that they work as intended in their application to the offence of breaching the restricted period after relying on the moving and selling grounds of possession, and the amended licensing offences are described correctly.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments in this important debate concerning property licensing. This discussion touches on a particular practical part of the regulatory framework: how local authorities manage and enforce licensing regimes for rental properties and meet appropriate standards of safety and quality.
The amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, address both the effectiveness of the licensing schemes and the administrative burdens that they impose on landlords, local authorities and tenants alike. Amendments 253 and 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, speak to the role of selective licensing in improving housing conditions and propose to extend the maximum duration of these schemes.
We already have selective licensing. UK government guidance is clear that local authorities can use this process to tackle poor housing conditions, as well as other issues. These are worthy proposals. We will listen carefully to these concerns and work with noble Lords across the House both to get the balance right and to ensure that the Bill plays its part in driving up the quality of housing, particularly in the areas where local authorities can clearly demonstrate poor housing conditions or evidence of anti-social behaviour.
However, we must also ask: are licensing schemes always the right lever for improving housing quality? In the right circumstances, licensing can help drive up standards, but, if it is poorly targeted or applied too broadly, it risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy and placing costs on good landlords while doing little to deter the worst offenders. We must guard against the risk of licensing becoming a tick-box exercise rather than a tool for real enforcement.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing Amendments 267 to 269, tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. They are pragmatic and draw on my noble friend’s extensive experience in both government and housing policy. They propose more proportionate licensing fees in large blocks, simplified procedures for name changes and facilitated bulk applications. All are practical measures designed to reduce red tape and bring common sense to what can sometimes be a cumbersome process.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we all want to see energy efficiency, better homes for tenants and reduced fuel poverty but, as we discussed earlier this evening, this needs to be done in an affordable and pragmatic way that does not force older, rural and heritage homes out of the rental market. Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to extend the powers of local housing authorities to use available data to enforce and exercise their functions under the Energy Act 2011. As the noble Baroness has established, that Act provided obligations on landlords to meet certain energy efficiency requirements for their properties before they are able to let their properties to tenants.
Clause 134 already enables local housing authorities to use the information they possess to enforce housing offences and other functions under a wider range of legislation than was previously permitted in the Housing Act 2004. This amendment would therefore extend the already expanded remit of Clause 134 to the domain of energy efficiency. We understand the intentions of the noble Baroness in this amendment and will be interested to hear the response from the Minister.
However, I question the necessity of the amendment. The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, made under the Energy Act 2011, already provide for the energy efficiency regulations to be enforced by local authorities in the case of domestic private rental properties and by trading standards in the case of non-domestic private rental properties. Those enforcement authorities are empowered by the 2011 Act to impose monetary penalties of up to £5,000 for any landlord who breaches the energy efficiency regulations. Given the powers that already exist and the highly significant changes to energy performance certificates that the Government plan to implement, this amendment appears unnecessary.
A review of energy efficiency improvements required and the methods for funding these improvements would be more appropriate, which is why we support Amendment 274 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, supported by my noble friend Lady Penn. This amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap for using private finance initiatives to provide the funding for any required improvements to energy efficiency for the private rental sector. This is a sensible and measured approach to the issue at hand, as opposed to any prescriptive requirements. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman, for their amendments relating to minimum energy efficiency standards, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who I think described herself as the Green night owl—the noble Baroness Lady Grender and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for contributing to the debate.
I turn first to Amendment 259 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would allow information given to local authorities by tenancy deposit scheme administrators to be used by local authorities for a purpose connected with their functions under the Energy Act 2011, including enforcement against breaches of minimum energy efficiency standards under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. I reassure the Committee that local authorities are already equipped to enforce the private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standard of an EPC rating of E.
In February, a consultation was published to amend regulations and raise energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, addressing fuel poverty and carbon emissions. The consultation proposes that local authorities will be empowered to issue fines of up to £30,000 for non-compliance with the new minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. To respond to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are exploring support for enforcement in collaboration with stakeholders, including local authorities.
Local authorities often identify non-compliance during other property engagements and can take appropriate action. A local authority may issue a compliance notice to a landlord suspected of breaching the energy standard. If the landlord fails to comply, the authority has the power to issue a penalty notice. Of course, I recognise the value that data plays in aiding enforcement, which is why we have widened access to information for other enforcement purposes through the Bill. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 274, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map for scaling up private finance initiatives to support the funding of energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes within six months of the passage of the Bill. I strongly support improvements to energy efficiency in privately rented homes. The Government have pledged to take action to stand with tenants and deliver the safety and security of warmer, cheaper homes. In February, we published our consultation on improving energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales. The consultation closed on 2 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to publish a government response later this year.
I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, as we recognise the important role that private finance will play in supporting the private rented sector to meet the proposed energy-efficiency standards. We are currently considering the consultation feedback and options to further support landlords to make the necessary improvements to their property. I believe that the amendment is not necessary as the information on support, including private finance to fund energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes, will be available shortly.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I wrote in my notes that this was “hopefully” the last day in Committee on the Bill, but I have now inserted “possibly”. Regrettably, it is my last day, because of an important appointment tomorrow that I cannot cancel.
It is appropriate for me to thank profusely all those who have helped me personally, and probably helped all of us, with their excellent briefings, as well as giving help with amendments—and, in my case, frantic email exchanges when I have not quite understood things. I refer to all those in the Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Local Government Association, the National Residential Landlords Association and Suzanne, the Independent Landlord, to name but a few.
This is a very important part of the Bill, and we largely support the first two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, regarding having just the one scheme and changing “may” to “must”. However, I will speak to my Amendment 218, which is a simple probing amendment for what is a very complex issue. The Bill makes continuing or repeat breaches of the landlord redress scheme an offence, but not joining the scheme in the first place is merely a breach. That means that landlords can still be fined by the local authority for not joining but tenants cannot claim a rent repayment order as it is not an offence.
There is clearly an imbalance here; my amendment simply seeks to probe the Government’s reasoning for not making failure to join the scheme an offence in the first place, rather than waiting for landlords continually not to adhere to the new requirement. We want this failure to become an offence from the get-go because we believe that non-compliance with the redress scheme will have serious regulatory consequences, significantly impacting tenants’ ability to hold their landlord to account. That is the key matter on issues such as disrepair and the standard of the home. The rent repayment order gives tenants compensation for substandard accommodation and can incentivise them to report things in the first place. Interestingly, Generation Rent’s polling found that nearly one in three renters has had maintenance issues in their home, which they have reported, but their landlord has not dealt with—a simple but very telling snapshot.
In the Republic of Ireland, failure of a landlord to register a tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board—the Irish equivalent to what we are proposing—is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of €40,000, with €250 payable each day of non-registration. Perhaps they take a rather different approach.
We are concerned that, as councils are already overstretched and currently have very little resource for proactive enforcement, an undetermined number of landlords could avoid joining the redress scheme initially as they will think being discovered by the council is low risk. The risk of being reported by their tenants—who would not be eligible for a rent repayment order, so there is no incentive for them—is also very low. Both aspects are not what we want. Therefore, we feel that this imbalance does not treat seriously enough the impact that non-compliance in these matters will have in undermining and frustrating one of the fundamental tenets of the new regulatory regime. I hope that the noble Baroness will allay our concerns.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing this group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.
The landlord redress scheme is a vital function of the Bill, and the onus is on all of us to ensure that the legislation is as effective and robust as it needs to be. I hope that the Minister will take the time to reflect on the constructive suggestions made by noble Lords and take them back to the department for further consideration. The fact that the Minister has tabled amendments is, I suggest, a recognition that the Bill is not perfect, even in the eyes of those charged with defending it.
Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I shall speak to those amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 208 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress via a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. This would avoid duplication, unnecessary regulatory burden and the potential confusion between effectively being a member of two different schemes. This is vital, because clarity and efficiency in regulation are essential for compliance and enforcement.
Amendment 210A probes the Government’s proposed duration of the membership period for the redress scheme. This period is to be set by regulations, but as things stand there is no indication, or even a hint, of what that timeframe might be. Could the Minister provide some clarity on this point? Stakeholders need certainty to plan and prepare appropriately.
Amendment 210B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations establishing the landlord redress scheme within six months of the passage of the Bill. A clear, time-bound commitment is essential if the Government are serious about delivering this long-promised reform. Without a defined timeline, there is a risk that implementation will drift or be indefinitely delayed, to the detriment of all stakeholders—especially tenants. Could the Minister say what, in her view, constitutes meaningful progress and what timescale the department is working to?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I am entirely supportive of pretty well every amendment that has been put down on this—this blizzard of amendments about a database across four groups. I agree that there should be penalties for not participating in it. It has to be something that is not a nice-to-have add-on: it has to be core to everything. However, I will just give two notes of caution, the first of which goes back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If you are going to start recording disputes on the system, there could be many, many reasons why a dispute runs for a long time. It would not necessarily be the fault of evil landlords. It could be illness on the part of the tenant; it could be a multitude of things. You have to be very careful there.
The second point is to be careful what you wish for. No one has suggested this so far, but is this database going to be searchable by tenant? Because a landlord looking at a tenant might search the database and find that every previous tenancy has ended in a dispute. Is that going to be a fair use of this database? Because it is a logical suggestion, looking at this from a landlord’s point of view, to look out for rogue tenants as well as rogue landlords.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for opening this group. The question of what data is recorded on the database is an important one and the Government need to give the sector greater clarity on their plans. Noble Lords need only look at some of the briefings provided by lettings agencies to landlords over the past few months to grasp the level of uncertainty around this Bill. For the benefit of both renters and landlords, we need greater clarity as soon as possible. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said earlier from these Benches, we believe the Government should be more ambitious. We are broadly content with the direction of travel on greater transparency, but taking this forward through regulations is leaving landlords and tenants in the dark.
We support the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the Government on the inclusion of gas and electrical safety checks within the PRS database. Amendments 221, 224 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, all touch on this issue. The database makes use of official UPRNs and covers the full end-to-end process of property compliance, including the urgent need to mandate digital property safety certificates. This will certainly increase transparency for landlords and tenants. Including gas safety certificates and electrical installation reports would assist tenants who wish to confirm that their property is safe.
That said, we have some concerns about Amendment 227, which appears to place the burden of registering digital gas and electricity certificates on the certificate provider rather than the landlord. We do not think that responsibility should be placed on the providers without a proper impact assessment and a fuller understanding of how this would work in practical terms. Perhaps the Minister can commit to considering this proposal from the noble Lord between now and Report.
Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes expanding the types of information or documents that are required for registration on the PRS database. I commend the noble Baroness on her thoughtful drafting. This amendment highlights further the uncertainty and lack of clarity that have arisen from the Government’s decision to place broadly drafted regulation-making powers rather than detailed provisions in the Bill to enable their plans.
Finally, on Amendments 229 and 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, it has already been noted that UPRNs are a universal means of identifying properties. They will be central to this system. The database should be as easy as possible to use for both renters and landlords. We accept that the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned and we will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to them.
We have a separate concern. The Government do not have a strong track record on delivering large-scale IT projects. I make no political comment here. We share the concerns that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, earlier, on the time that it will take to roll out this database. Can the Minister assure us that this project will be delivered—and delivered on time?
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these well-intentioned and constructive amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, for their amendments regarding which data should be recorded on the database. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for their comments.
Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to expand Clause 76 and mandate the information that landlord and dwelling entries on the database must contain. I thank the noble Baroness for her very thoughtful amendment and for meeting with me to discuss the database in greater detail before Committee. We certainly both appreciate the potential of the database.
I reassure her that we expect to collect much of the information that is set out in Amendment 222 on the database. Detailed regulations about the making of landlord and dwelling entries in the database will be made under Clause 78(1) in due course. Our approach to data collection takes account of the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, to ensure that it remains proportionate. However, I stress that it is vital that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological innovation and changes in the sector. Although I very much understand the points made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, we do not think that, to accomplish this aim, the content of landlord and dwelling database entries should be mandated in the Bill. Rather, this detail should be set out in secondary legislation to ensure that the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances.
Regarding points about when the database will be ready, we aim for the service to be operational as soon as possible following the passage of primary and secondary legislation. We are taking forward the digital development of the private rented sector database in line with the government service standard. We will conduct extensive testing of the new service ahead of implementation and continue to engage the sector on our proposals. We very much welcome the ongoing involvement of all those who have been helping us.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted the importance of why we must take our time on development, design and testing. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the difficulty of IT systems. I have had them in past lives, so I know that this can be a tricky issue. However, we have been in government for only nine months, yet the noble Lord accused us of having a track record—or did he mean all Governments? I hope that he did.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Okay, fair point. We need to make sure that we do the development and the testing of the system carefully. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.