Rough Sleeping

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grender

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for bringing this Statement to the House this afternoon. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The Government promised to “bring everybody in” during the pandemic and, despite good work done in the first wave, today we sadly have many people sleeping rough again on our streets, many very close to this building. The people sleeping on the link bridge between Waterloo station and the street, who I have mentioned before, are still there: I saw them yesterday on my way to this House. According to the Government’s own figures, there were 2,688 people sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2020. People who are homeless are three times more likely to experience a chronic health need, including respiratory conditions, putting them at higher risk of poor health outcomes, including from Covid-19.

It is tragic that in one of the richest countries in the world, in one of the richest cities in the world, we have people sleeping rough on the streets tonight. So, can the noble Lord tell the House why the response to the homelessness situation of people living on our streets was so much better and more effective in the first wave in comparison with the second wave? What happened in government that led to the response being so much worse this time around? What happened to the Everyone In policy? It created a safe space for people to access the support needed to move on from homelessness.

On the wider picture of homelessness, the situation is even worse, with people living with friends and sleeping on sofas, including up to 130,000 children in England. The Government have a manifesto commitment to end the blight of rough sleeping in England by 2024. The response by the Government to this pandemic must surely be part of the plan to deliver on that commitment, and not an obstacle that puts the policy pledge in jeopardy. What we need from the Government is a strategy in place to ensure that people experiencing homelessness can move on from homelessness or expensive temporary accommodation into secure, safe, warm, dry, long-term accommodation that enables them to start rebuilding their lives.

Local authorities should be congratulated on the work they have done, with limited funding and unclear guidance from the Government. Will the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, identify for the House the various sums of money that are mentioned? Which of those are new money and not just restatements of previous funding commitments?

Housing First is a recognised and accepted method of ending homelessness for people with multiple needs, including mental health issues and addictions. The scheme is in place in Scotland and is being piloted here in England, but the fact is that many people experiencing homelessness in England will need a Housing First offer to finally end their homelessness. There are three pilots in place, which provide around 2,000 places, but this is a long way short of the investment and commitment needed to deal with the issue finally. So when does the Minister expect a decision to be made on rolling out the scheme in England, as has already been done in Scotland, and when does he expect funding for the rough sleeping accommodation programme to ensure that a long-term housing solution is not just an aim but a reality, which is not the case today?

[Baroness Grender (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for bringing us the Statement. There is no doubt that Everyone In last spring was a significant achievement. Louise Casey, now the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, wrote in her email at the start of the pandemic, after her first week in MHCLG:

“I don’t care what’s happening; I don’t care what’s going on, you’ve got to get everybody in.”


Rough sleeping was treated as an urgent public health issue, resource was prioritised and brought forward, and central and local government worked in tandem with all the charities and the hotel sector and lined up safe accommodation. This was without question a success. But, as so many witnesses to the APPG for ending homelessness made clear, these numbers are never static. Homelessness, like a river, expands and grows. Substantial boulders are the only thing that stop it at source, and those boulders start with social and truly affordable housing.

Will the Minister explain why social housing build last year was only 5,716 homes, far below both Shelter’s annual target and the National Housing Federation’s goal of 145,000 social homes per year? Tomorrow in the Budget we are expecting to see a significant subsidy, not to social housing but to first-time buyers, who will be encouraged to borrow 20% of the purchase price. Will the Minister say where that money is likely to go? What is the possibility that it will end up in the profit margins of the large developers, many of which donate regularly to the Conservative Party? To prevent an increase in the number of people sleeping rough, rapid access to secure, long-term accommodation is vital. This period, following the achievement of Everyone In, is a unique opportunity to do just that and never return to the levels that were way too high just before this pandemic.

The target date of the manifesto commitment—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—is fast approaching, and policies need to be in place now. So surely—as the noble Lord also said—it is time to commit to a rollout of Housing First across England, instead of continuing with the pilots. The scale of current provision is 2,000 places, which falls far too short of the 16,450 places needed that were identified by the charities Crisis and Homeless Link. Can the Minister explain what is preventing the Government rolling out these successful pilots now?

It is welcome news that local authority guidance is encouraging registration of people sleeping rough with GPs, but why are the Government not following the success of some London boroughs, together with Liverpool and Oldham, which are using current JCVI guidance to vaccinate homeless people, in order to mitigate health inequalities? Some local authorities are unclear about this; will the Minister commit to clarifiying the issue? Even at the height of Everyone In some local authorities turned homeless people away. Can the Minister explain why? Does his department know why there were 2,600 people, or more, sleeping rough in October, and how many of them had no recourse to public funds?

The Statement rightly refers to research in the Lancet but not to the wider arguments used. It was clear that what was critical was the absolute refusal to resort to emergency shelters at all. So why are the Government considering using them? Large cities in the US continue to use emergency shelters, to huge detrimental effect. If social distancing is still advised next autumn, should emergency shelters not be ruled out? Can the Minister explain, in detail, in what circumstances they will be used?

The Statement refers to many of the underlying reasons for rough sleeping but fails to mention the precarious position of so many in the private rented sector. Why is that? While it is welcome that the pause on evictions has been extended, that has not stopped every stage of the process. Will the Minister acknowledge that, during the winter lockdown, 500 people were evicted from their homes and that last month 445 were either in arrears or served with eviction notices? Does the Minister agree that if the landlords’ associations and charities have united to ask for assistance, in the form of grants to tenants to keep roofs over their heads, this should be a priority to prevent homelessness?

As we continue to see the economic impact on people’s incomes, it is worrying that there is no longer-term strategy from the Government to ensure that people will be able to keep a roof over their heads. We are expecting unemployment to rise by this summer. The Government have frozen housing benefits once again. Can the Minister give reassurances that the Government are looking at ways to support people to prevent homelessness, including by helping them to avoid eviction due to arrears? Finally, is there any news on the long-awaited end to the use of Section 21, which has such an impact on vulnerable tenants?

There are many paths to homelessness. I sincerely hope that this period has been a pause and we can move forward from here. However, unless some of the problems in areas which give rise to homelessness—such as the private rented sector—are anticipated and stopped in their tracks, we will continue to see rises in homelessness.

Covid-19: Housing

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grender

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a trustee of the United St Saviour’s Charity, which owns two almshouses for the benefit of Southwark residents.

I pay tribute to everyone in the public and private sectors who is working to keep us safe, delivering our essential services and ensuring that our shops are stocked with food so that together we can get through this crisis. These are the real heroes of the crisis, and they come from all over the globe. Everyone deserves to live in a home that is warm, safe and dry.

I am supportive of the Statement but with the underpinning that keeping people safe must be paramount in the thinking as we move to this next phase of fighting the pandemic. There are great risks and we do not want to do anything that risks a second spike in infections.

Of course, there is much that is not in this Statement, so my first question for the Minister is: can we expect further updates from his department on other aspects of housing in the next few days? Furthermore, can the Minister tell the House what the next phase of fighting this pandemic will look like for homeless people? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that they will not be sent back on to the streets? What discussions have taken place with the Local Government Association and Crisis on this next phase of the pandemic battle for homeless people?

In respect of viewings of properties for sale or rent, what review mechanism will the Minister deploy and how long after the physical viewings are in progress will he deploy it—one month, two months, three months? What discussions have taken place between him or his officials and the Residential Landlords Association, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the National Association of Estate Agents, Generation Rent and Shelter, among others, on the resumption of viewings and lettings and the safety both of those coming to visit and of those whose properties are being visited?

The ban on evictions has been most welcome, and the Government deserve credit for that. It was the right thing to do. However, at some point this ban will be lifted, either in June or at some future date if the ban is extended. Can the Minister tell the House what thinking is taking place in the department to avoid a large number of evictions being progressed? We cannot have this situation in future.

Where home sales or lettings go through, we will have people moving home and in many cases using the services of a professional removal company. Has there been any discussion with the British Association of Removers? In any industry, but particularly the removal industry, social distancing can be quite difficult to achieve. We need to be clear on the correct practice when people move home.

I am conscious that I have asked a number of questions. I hope that I will get full answers but accept that that might not be possible tonight. Brief comments would be helpful for all Members, but if the Minister would agree to follow up any comments he makes on the points I have made with a letter to all Members and to place it in the Library of the House, that would be very helpful.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking questions on this Statement made by the Secretary of State last Wednesday on the restarting of the construction industry. It came as a surprise to many in that sector, given that they have continued to work throughout the lockdown. In the week before the Secretary of State’s announcement, only 37% of sites remained closed. For the smaller businesses that have been closed, this is often due to supply chain issues alone.

Given how keen the Government are to get all construction back to peak levels, can the Minister reassure us that safety in that sector is as important as in any other? What steps are being taken to ensure that low-skill workers in construction are safe and social distancing? The latest ONS figures suggest that construction worker death rates from coronavirus are double those of health workers. You have only to take your daily exercise past most building sites to see a frightening absence of social distancing. When the Minister answered a question from my noble friend Lord Stunell on 14 May, he committed to provide appropriate guidance to ensure availability of PPE and testing for the construction sector. What progress has he made? Can all construction workers now get testing?

Can the Government reassure us that all types of tenure are equal? With this Government it sometimes appears that some types of tenure are more equal than others. The Housing Secretary’s Statement talks at length about the importance of a home, but the only policies available are for owner-occupiers. People who rent need to know that their home is secure and safe. They need that assurance now. Will the Government agree to extend the current change on Section 21 evictions to give renters the security they need over a long-term period in advance of the 1 June deadline? Why did the Secretary of State not use the opportunity in this Statement to do just that? Will the Minister agree to not only maintain the local housing allowance at the current 30% of market rent but consider increasing it to help those most in need?

Is the Minister aware of Shelter projections that there will be a £55 million a month gap in rent without additional government support because universal credit is too low to cover average local rents? Does the Minister accept that the greatest danger for people on low incomes is that their rent arrears will accrue, driving them into a level of debt from which it would be hard to recover? Will the Government perhaps learn from other European nations and offer low-interest loans to help tenants through this unprecedented period?

The problems of leaseholders with extortionate ground rents have not suddenly disappeared with the lockdown. What progress is there in tackling this? Where are the shelved plans for greater protections for property guardians who are struggling to socially distance in often inadequate accommodation?

The achievement of getting as many rough sleepers as possible sheltered during this period is very significant. Anyone who has had the privilege of working with Dame Louise Casey will know how able she is at making the impossible possible, but this was also achieved thanks to monumental efforts by local authorities. Those same local authorities now need support to build social housing in sufficient numbers. Will the Minister listen to the LGA when it asks the Government to allow councils at least five years to spend right-to-buy receipts? Will they also allow councils to keep 100% of receipts?

Will the Government increase investment in Housing First projects to ensure that we do not return to the shameful levels of rough sleeping before the pandemic? Will the Government also support local authorities in their attempts to house people who have no recourse to public funds? This global problem requires a global response. Last week, the Secretary of State left responsibility for this issue firmly in the hands of local authorities. He charged them to act with humanity and compassion. Does the Minister agree that the Government should do the same?

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grender

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, we have jumped around these groups of amendments today. There appears to be an issue with the printing of the Whip’s sheet.

I wish to address my remarks largely to Amendments 50 to 58. Generally, I am happy with what I have heard from the Government today on most amendments, particularly those in this group. The exception is Amendment 57, to which I will address most of my remarks.

Members of this House discuss amendments to Bills all the time, but most are never voted on: they are probing and have been tabled to get answers from the Government. We go backwards and forwards as we seek to improve the legislation. My Amendment 58 is very much in that vein. The Government have put down Amendment 57, which I fully accept deals with damages and makes it clear that if there are any issues, the terms can be clarified in the future. Somehow, damages are being turned into prohibited payments, and I do not want to do that either, so I am with the Government on this issue.

However, on looking at Amendment 57, we were concerned about the heading, “Payment of damages”. We went to the Public Bill Office and talked to colleagues. We are concerned that, as written, it could be deduced—obviously, it is open to argument—that the reasonableness and fairness of such a payment cannot be questioned. It is not so much about going to court, but what happens when people are drawing up agreements and so on. We should remember that we are dealing with tenants and landlords, and the relationship between the two is not always one of equals.

For that reason, I have proposed, as an amendment to Amendment 57, my Amendment 58, which would simply remove the three words of the heading: “Payment of damages”. The provision would be retained but the heading would go. Removing the heading would, in effect, add the provision to the previous group, where a protection is provided: actions have to be reasonable, and reference is made to “evidence”. That is all my amendment is intended to do. I do not know if this is the right way to do it, but it has certainly enabled us to have this discussion today.

I tried to get an assurance from the Government that they would come back at Third Reading and discuss this issue further. It may be that people cleverer than me can come back with a better amendment. All I am trying to do is ensure that tenants are treated fairly and properly. I was happy to come back to this issue at Third Reading, and gave an assurance that we would not vote on it. I have the text message to prove it on my phone; I do not know what else I can say. To then be told that I did not give such an assurance—that is just not the case. I am really upset about this.

All I want to do is get this right. I do not want the Bill to become law and in a year’s time, we find the Government saying, “Oh, we made a mistake. We will change it when parliamentary time allows. We should have this on the rogue landlords’ database. We did not listen to you last time, Lord Kennedy, but of course you are right. When parliamentary time allows, of course we will put it right”. My intention is to get this right today. I have given that commitment and I have the text message, so I cannot see what the problem is in coming back at Third Reading in a few weeks’ time and getting it right. We are not going to vote on it, but I think the position should be clarified.

[Baroness Grender]

My Lords, I will come on to damages in a moment, but first perhaps I may take us back to the celebratory moment on this group of amendments: the fact that there has been a significant change on default. This has been welcomed loudly and clearly by those who lobby most for tenants. This is an extremely significant change which this House has introduced through a government amendment to which I have added my name. It specifies what a default fee is: it is now going to be for a key or a security device or for late payment on interest for rent.

I know that we are trying to sort out the damages issue, but I want to thank the Minister and in particular his Bill team. I am sure that they will read this tomorrow in the Official Report. I also thank Rhea Newman and Poppy Terry at Shelter, Hannah Slater and Dan Wilson Craw at Generation Rent and Caroline Aliwell at Citizens Advice. We have all been working extremely hard behind the scenes with many meetings, for which I thank the Minister and the Bill team, to get to a very good place with regard to default. Our original intention was to get it out of the Bill altogether, but the fact that the wording has been greatly tightened and is now so specific is a very big leap forward. It goes back to the original intention that many of us had when we wanted to propose this Bill in the first place.

Before we go back to the controversial issue of whether a loophole has now been introduced as regards damages, I would like to take a moment to remind us of what has now gone and was going to be charged by landlords, some of whose tenants are on an extremely low income or even no income. One of my favourites is £45 for the procurement of a dustpan and brush. Another is £500 for a reference and credit check, £200 to remove a new set of saucepans that had been left for the next tenant—a lovely example—and £100 for cobweb removal. Those are some examples of things that will no longer be a threat as a result of a loophole, thanks to the extremely welcome change of default.

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grender

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 23rd November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am certainly not talking about exemplary damages, but what if a landlord has been prosecuted and has to pay some compensation? Those are not exemplary damages.

[Baroness Grender]

What we were looking at when I tabled the amendment in Committee was compensation for expenses but, in addition, some kind of incentive, especially for people who are not on high incomes, to take the case forward. However, I am sure we will explore this further.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grender

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 29 and 30 and in support of Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I thank the Minister for all the meetings with him and his officials and for the meeting today on guidance. I look forward to continuing to meet to make sure that we do what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, described and make sure that the Bill is beautifully polished before it receives Royal Assent.

Amendment 27 would cap the change of sharer charge to £50 and Amendment 29 would avoid exorbitant charges to end a tenancy. Amendment 30 would avoid what I hope is an unintended consequence, which is that paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows landlords to insist on all the rent for the remainder of the fixed term. It aims to make the provision a little more tenant friendly by limiting the tenant’s liability for the rent to the point at which the property is relet.

Regarding a change of tenant, if a sharer moves out, it is normally their and the remaining housemates’ responsibility to find a replacement. The alternatives are for the remaining housemates to pay rent on an empty bedroom or for them all to move out, with the associated costs. Currently the fees associated with changing a tenant are comparable to those of starting a new tenancy. Indeed, Generation Rent recorded an average of £248 in its research. This reflects the limited options available to tenants rather than the actual costs involved. As the tenants tend to do all the marketing though sites such as Gumtree and SpareRoom, the landlord’s costs are limited to the referencing process. Even then, the existing tenants have an incentive to find a new housemate who will pass the referencing process and whom they can rely on to pay a regular rent.

If there is to be a fee, it should reflect the landlord’s or the agent’s reduced cost in that circumstance. The Bill as drafted says that the charge is capped at £50, but it still allows landlords to charge more than that—so it is not really a cap but more of a floor. The possibility remains that landlords would charge as much as they could. A true cap would not permit fees above a specified sum.

I turn to Amendments 29 and 30. People will always need to move unexpectedly in circumstances where their personal or professional life changes. The Government have recognised this through their proposed longer-tenancies model, which we welcome, giving tenants the flexibility to exit the tenancy without penalty before the fixed period ends. However, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows landlords to insist on all the rent for the rest of the fixed term, which is unnecessary if they are able to relet the property, has the potential to create financial hardship for tenants and could even see some people trapped in difficult relationships. The amendments would limit the tenant’s liability for the rent until the point when the property was relet, which should take place within a reasonable timeframe. I very much appreciate that there is a little more clarity in terms of the draft guidance at the moment, but that is of course draft guidance and I am seeking to probe what can be in the Bill regarding this issue.

Regarding costs at the end of a tenancy, no one makes the decision to move lightly. To end your tenancy early would mean that you face significant changes in your personal or professional life. The Bill should therefore limit the cost of this where possible. As it currently stands, my understanding is that it would appear to make a tenant leaving a tenancy liable for the rent for the remainder of the fixed term, plus the costs of remarketing the property. A tenant moving out could pay all of this and the landlord could still get a new tenant within a month of the tenancy. The landlord therefore could possibly receive several months of double rent through sheer luck. To make it more of a level playing field and limit the departing tenant’s liability, the Bill should apply a reasonableness test. As soon as the property has a new tenant, the former tenant’s liability should end, and the landlord should have an obligation to deal reasonably with any request to leave. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to the proceedings, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This group of amendments covers Schedule 1 to the Bill, specifically around issues of changing or terminating the tenancy agreement. Amendment 28 is in my name and I have also put my name to Amendments 29 and 30, while I support the intention behind Amendment 27 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill. Amendment 27 would cap the amount that could be charged for a change in tenancy to £50, and that seems very reasonable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, otherwise the £50 becomes a floor rather than a ceiling. The problem with the clause as worded is that it leaves the way open for a large amount to be charged. I think that that is unfair and not reasonable.

My Amendment 28 seeks to ensure that in a situation where the only change is that of a tenant, a charge cannot be made. I hope that the Government will agree that there is no loss of rental income if you are just replacing one name with another, and to allow a charge to be made in that situation seems very unfair.

Amendment 29 would require the landlord to react reasonably to any request for an early exit, including when taking steps to relet the property. If they do not do so, this payment would be a prohibited payment, for all the reasons that we have heard in this short debate. Amendment 30 seeks to provide better clarification than is provided by the schedule as presently worded.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grender

Monday 5th November 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grender]

I thank the Minister, especially for agreeing to take a look at multiple holdings. I look forward to working with him and his team on the guidance. There is some guidance, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will be very relieved to hear that there is a suggestion in it that a tenant might produce a typo, but no suggestion that any landlord would do so. I am using a small example of something I have spotted already in the drafting. I very much appreciate that the guidance is a draft at the moment, and therefore I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to sit down and work through the guidance to make sure that there is parity between tenants and landlords. There seem to be one or two disparities that I have already picked up from my brief reading of it over the weekend. That, in a way, is why I still want to pursue—and I am very happy to discuss with officials and the Minister—the possibility of getting some regulations to introduce transparency in holding deposits. I look forward to those discussions, but it may be that we will need to pursue this further on Report, depending on those discussions. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On the guidance, I accept the noble Lord’s point that it is a question of judgment and that he can point to other legislation where guidance is provided for in regulations. But does he accept that if it is guidance rather than regulations, that guidance is weaker because it does not have statutory back-up? That is the point I am making. The Bill addresses tenants’ fees, which we all agree are a problem. If the Government continue with the choice they are making at the moment, what they are offering people is weaker than if it was put in regulations. My other point is that if something does not happen on deposit fees—perhaps in regulations—this will be totally ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think the Minister will find that, in other areas, people can be fined and be required to pay compensation as well, so I do not see the logic. Clearly, if it is an issue of amounts, that can be looked at. We are not going to agree on this, clearly. The principle that you can be fined and be required to pay compensation clearly is the case elsewhere. It is very unfair that the tenant—the victim, the person who has been out of pocket, ripped off and treated badly—should be thankful just to get their money back. It does not seem to be a very good place. Clearly, we are not going to agree on that at this stage.

[Baroness Grender]

I thank the Minister for his response, kind of. I gave four examples where, in industry, the Government do this already. It happens. I believe there is some merit in exploring it a bit further. If it is about the drafting, and one rules out the other, I am happy to look at how it is applied to the four existing examples where people are compensated and organisations are fined that I gave to the Committee. I would be very happy to look at that and work with officials before Report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

On my Amendment 8, if somebody has gone to a tribunal and the landlord has won then fair enough, they should be protected, but I am trying to get to an example where someone has enforced their rights. This poor tenant cannot get compensation but they get their money back, then the next day a Section 21 notice is served on them. That is the issue I want to deal with. It is really unfair for the tenants in these situations—proved right in a court of law, then given a notice to leave the next day. Without this, that could still happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Clearly, this must be a result of my poor drafting, as that was not my intention, which I hope I have explained. I am worried about the people who have been proved right in a court of law. I thank the Minister for his comments, but I hope that this can be looked at, as there is an issue. Someone who has enforced their rights should have some protection, even for a limited period—they should not be able to be evicted the next day through a notice being served. I thank the Minister for his offer.

[Baroness Grender]

I thank the Minister for his olive branch, which I happily and heartily accept. I look forward to at least trying to work in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

In moving Amendment 13 I shall speak also to Amendment 14, which is tabled in my name. Both amendments seek to highlight what is often, unfortunately, a recurring theme: the time it can take to make progress on important issues.

Under Clause 28, it will be a whole year after the Act comes into force before landlords will be subject to the consequences of the law if they make a tenant pay a prohibited payment. To be clear, that is not a year after the Act becomes law because Section 1 will not come into force until the Secretary of State decides by regulation when it should do so. We actually have no idea when it will come into force, if ever. It will certainly be some time after the Bill is enacted, and that is totally unacceptable. That is why I tabled Amendment 14, as it would bring the Act into force on the day it becomes law. Can the Minister please tell the Grand Committee when he thinks this legislation will come into force if he is not minded to agree to my amendment?

I remind the Minister and the Committee that it will be nearly two and a half years since the Government announced their intention to ban fees. Shelter has highlighted that that means spring next year at the earliest, and perhaps later. It will have taken longer to design and implement the ban on letting agent fees than the Government have taken to negotiate the Brexit deal. We will still have to wait with bated breath to see whether we end up with the final 5%, but that puts in context how long we have been waiting for this, and we still will not get there.

The delay in implementing the ban does not come without a price. We have already seen examples of some agents hiking fees in anticipation of the ban and, as a result, many tenants are currently facing even higher up-front costs than before the ban was announced. This waiting period is causing people real problems. The average letting fee among those who have paid fees appears to have risen significantly over the past two years. A survey of private renters shows that the average letting fee is £246, which is a significant rise compared with the average of £182 just a couple of years ago. The Government must recognise the price that people who rent are paying while waiting for these policies to be put into practice, and they must ensure that the Act comes into force on the day it is passed, as my amendment seeks.

The letting industry has known for many years that this ban would be coming and it has had sufficient time to adapt its business models. This delay is very disappointing and I hope that the Minister and his department will be able to respond positively. We need a fixed date and to get this legislation implemented as soon as is reasonably possible. We have waited far too long. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender]

My Lords, I support these amendments. I have already raised my considerable concern about the timings. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, the Government announced this measure in the autumn of 2016, at the same time as my Private Member’s Bill was progressing through the House, and I was absolutely delighted at their announcement. However, it feels as though it is taking a very long time. I know that the Ministers concerned are not responsible for that—they have worked very hard to push this through.

When the Government first started consulting on this issue, they rightly changed their mind and agreed to take a look at it. The consultation showed that the poorest tenants are being ripped off time and again, and that will not stop. If anything, it will get worse in the intervening period before this legislation is introduced. I am hugely in support of the legislation being introduced as quickly as possible. Generation Rent was talking to me about this only this morning. It is receiving evidence that letting agents are becoming more assertive over their administration fees to make up for what they believe to be a shortfall.

As I said at Second Reading, other organisations are playing a significant role in this matter. OpenRent, which I will mention in later arguments, started in 2012 and is now the largest letting agent in England and Wales. It has made a profitable model on the basis of never charging fees to tenants. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for an industry to be ahead of the legislation. However, with the exceptions that I have described, this particular industry is not ahead of the legislation, although it has been warned again and again. There has been working group after working group on this issue.

I was absolutely delighted that the Government decided, very wisely, in the Autumn Budget Statement of 2016 to flex their muscles and get on with this, but we need to do it. I would find any further delay, or suggestion of it, in the Bill extremely worrying, which is why I support the amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in the debate. They have made their impatience over the date of commencement absolutely clear. We agree that we want this legislation to come into force as soon as possible, not least to protect the tenants referred to by noble Lords.

However, we need to strike a fair balance between protecting tenants and allowing landlords and letting agents time to become compliant with the legislation. The ban is not about unfairly penalising landlords and letting agents or driving them out of business. We have said that implementation will not be before April 2019; we intend it to be as soon as possible after that. Of course, at the moment we do not know when it might get Royal Assent. I understand that but we believe that there needs to be a reasonable gap between it reaching the statute book and it being implemented.

Turning to Amendment 13, the transitional provisions in Clause 28 provide that for the period of a year, the ban will not apply to tenancies whose terms were agreed prior to commencement. Similar transitional provisions are made for agents’ agreements with tenants. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to reduce the period in which a landlord or agent could accept a payment prohibited by Clause 1 from one year to six months. We have already sought to give tenants greater clarity and protection with respect to the commencement date. Crucially, we have revised our position from that in the draft Bill, where there was no end date by which fees could be charged in pre-commencement tenancies. There has been a considerable shift towards protecting those who have already signed their contracts.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, recognised that a transition period is necessary—his amendment proposes a slightly shorter one—because although most fees are charged at the outset of a tenancy, some landlords and agents will have agreed that tenants should pay other fees, such as a check-out inventory fee, at a later stage. Tenants will have signed contracts accordingly; we need to allow time for landlords and agents to renegotiate them to ensure that the legislation does not have a significant retrospective effect.

Our view is that 12 months is fair for the transition period. Data from the English Housing Survey shows that 45% of tenants had an initial tenancy of 12 months and 36% had one of six months. Reducing the period in which a landlord or agent could accept a payment prohibited by Clause 1 would mean that more landlords and agents with pre-commencement tenancies would be at risk of not being able to renegotiate their contracts and would not receive fees that the tenant had previously agreed to pay. Again, we do not believe that this would be fair.

We recognise the importance of having a clear point where the fees ban applies to all tenancies. As drafted, the transitional provisions mean that all tenants will receive the benefits of the fees ban one year after it comes into force; as I said earlier, initially there was no such arrangement. Unlike the proposed amendment, the provisions ensure that agents and landlords will not be significantly impacted on financially and will have the opportunity to review their contracts during the transitional year. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment against the background of that explanation.

Renters’ Rights Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grender

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 18th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for moving these amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his brief contribution. If approved, these amendments would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring landlords and/or their agents to ensure that electrical safety standards are met in their rental properties. I am conscious that many noble Lords, rightly, feel strongly about electrical safety—I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his campaigning role on this—and that it has raised considerable debate. I also know that Shelter has campaigned on this; I pay tribute to its role.

Yet again, the Government are taking a measured and pragmatic approach. As noble Lords have appreciated, we have taken an enabling power in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that allows us to introduce requirements on regular electrical safety checks in rented properties at a future date. It has also been stated, correctly, that we have established an electrical safety working group and are working with experts from across the sector to fully assess whether regulations are needed and, if so, to determine the detailed options for regulation. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to say, “These are the regulations that we will bring forward” or to give a date when we will bring them forward, because we are awaiting the report. The working group has met twice, is due to meet again in the coming weeks, and it is due to present its reports to Ministers by the end of this calendar year.

Six months is an appropriate period in this regard; it is entirely right that on something of this nature we look to a working group to report in a six-month period, and that is what we are doing. The Government will then need to consider it and will of course do so—it is an important issue. I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking about when regulations will come forward if they come forward. I will not say “in due course”, “timely” or “coming shortly”. However, the Government take this issue seriously, and I can understand the spirit in which these important amendments have been tabled. I can provide the reassurance that the Government regard this as important and will carefully consider the report of the safety group.

However, as I said, it would be premature to commit to legislation, and particularly the scope of any legislation, before the working group has concluded its research and before we have had a chance to look at it and consider what is appropriate in the light of that research.

[Baroness Grender]

My Lords, again it will not surprise the House to hear that I am minded to accept Amendments 2 and 3. This is a Government leaning on the rented sector for support, like leaning on a walking stick that has woodworm, damp and dry rot. We need to improve the rented sector to meet the needs of people over at least the next decade, if not two. Shelter’s research states that one-third of privately rented homes in England do not meet the Government’s decent homes standard, while almost one-fifth pose serious health and safety hazards. The lack of compulsory electrical checks plays a significant part in that.

As I conclude on the final part of this amendment, I would like to pay tribute to Electrical Safety First, which has been campaigning, along with my noble friend Lord Tope, to bring about these changes. More widely, I would like to thank Debrief and its petition, Generation Rent, Shelter, Crisis and Citizens Advice, all of which supported the Bill. I would also like to thank Hull City Council, which yesterday passed a motion at full council supporting the Bill. The motion was proposed by Liberal Democrat Councillor Charles Quinn and supported by Labour councillors. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear that Conservative Councillors John Fareham and John Abbott also voted in favour in Hull, because all three parties think that renters now need a fairer deal and that getting rid of up-front costs will help.

I want to take the opportunity to say that I am pleased that the earlier clause on rogue landlords received the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. That information should be publicly available in the same way that, for instance, employers who flout the national minimum wage are made public. I see no reason why information on rogue landlords cannot similarly be made public.

In conclusion, and in the knowledge that there possibly will not be a Report stage for the Bill, I want to say that we on these Benches will not let any of the issues in the Bill rest here. My colleague Tom Brake in the Commons will take up as many of them as he can. If a White Paper is to be forthcoming, we will try to ensure that all four of the substantive clauses are continued through other legislation. In particular, we will continue to pursue, with some passion and vigour, the issue of up-front costs to tenants, which is hurting tenants every day.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, decides what he will do with his amendment, I want to say that I worry that the Minister’s use of the word “measured” is another euphemism for “in due course”. Will the Minister please take back to the department the strength of feeling here? Although six months may seem a relatively short time, this issue has been around for a very long time. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we really have to sort out the electrical safety check to prevent deaths. The Government have the power and we need to resolve this sooner rather than later.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Grender

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, it was with much surprise that I heard that the Government had not agreed to an amendment in the other place which would have ensured that residential letting must be fit for human habitation. However, I am hopeful that your Lordships will be able to persuade the Government of the error of their ways as we progress through Committee and Report. Even at this early stage, I can say that we feel so strongly about this that we will divide the House at the appropriate time if the Government do not move from their present position.

The move to pass such an amendment in the other place was defeated, as I said earlier. The Communities Minister in the other place, Mr Marcus Jones MP, said that the Government believed that homes should be fit for human habitation but did not want to pass a new law that would explicitly require that. That is just nonsense. Unhealthy and unsafe housing needs to be tackled. The private rented sector is growing rapidly and tenants need protection to ensure that their home is fit to live in. Damp, mould, excessive cold, overcrowding and lack of proper space, fire hazards and other hazards regarding electrical and other safety can all have major consequences for people, even death.

Local authorities clearly have a role in protecting tenants in the private rented sector when landlords fail to maintain or provide properties that are safe and healthy to live in. However, local authorities are under considerable financial constraints, and this is never going to be enough. My amendment therefore seeks to provide tenants with the means to take action themselves, and would place a specific duty on landlords to ensure that the property they let is fit for human habitation and will remain so during the course of the tenancy. For me, that is a perfectly reasonable duty to place on landlords.

Amendment 22, in the names of my noble friends Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and in my name, would introduce mandatory electrical safety checks into the private rented sector. Again, Members in the other place were unable to persuade the Government on this issue, but we hope again to have more success in your Lordships’ House. In fact, your Lordships’ House may be surprised that such checks, unlike those for gas safety, are not already mandatory, given the danger of electrocution as well as fires caused by faulty electrical installations. Indeed, according to the charity Electrical Safety First, which works to prevent electrical accidents, around 70 deaths per year involve electricity, compared to 18 from gas. That is over one a week. Yet, regrettably, the opportunity afforded by the Bill has not so far been used to protect tenants from electrical hazards.

Safety standards in the private sector depend on the age of the property, its location and, importantly, the competence—or willingness—of the landlord to undertake checks and repairs on electrical installations. We welcomed the measures introduced by the Government last year on carbon monoxide and smoke detectors. However, it is hard to explain why no consideration has been given to electrical safety which, sadly, is the cause of more deaths and injuries. Gas, carbon monoxide and smoke detectors all help make rented properties safe, but as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said in this House on 7 September 2015, electricity must be included if we are to provide private tenants with proper protection.

The Government’s rather unsatisfactory response then was that there is a legal duty on landlords to keep tenants’ electrical installations safe. This simply will not do—it is not enough. Not only does it mean that electrics in a rented property go unchecked for many years but it only guarantees prosecutions of landlords after the event, whereas we want to prevent electrocution or fires in the first place. Regrettably, while landlords in England must ensure that electrical installations are kept in safe working order, there is no legal requirement on them to check the installations regularly. Furthermore, there is no requirement to demonstrate to tenants that the electrics are safe. This is not acceptable, and is contrary to the Government’s autumn Statement on safety in the private rented sector and to their supposed desire to see a “bigger, better and safer” sector.

Furthermore, it is against what the public want. Of those responding to the DCLG’s own consultation, 84% believed that mandatory electrical checks in the private rented sector were needed. However, there has not been any action from the Government so far. The Local Government Association supports mandatory checks to reduce the risk of electrical fires. Electrical Safety First’s call for mandatory checks is also supported by the Chief Fire Officers Association, Shelter, Crisis, the London Fire Brigade, and British Gas, to say nothing of tenants.

A third of private-sector tenants stay in their home for less than a year, with eight out of 10 being in their current home for less than five years, so not only do an increasing proportion of our citizens live in the private rented sector, but it is a sector with a high turnover and an average tenancy of only about three years. Therefore, checks by landlords for electrical safety are essential. We know that privately rented homes are at a higher risk of fire. There has been no reduction in private rented sector fires since 2010 of those investigated by the London Fire Brigade. Indeed, of these 748 had an electrical source of ignition in the past five years, while only 97 fires had a gas source of ignition.

Why are the Government not taking this more seriously if they want a safer private rented sector? It seems that there is no strategy or response. I concur with Electrical Safety First that tenants would be better protected with mandatory five-yearly checks of electrical installations and supplied appliances. We know that annual gas checks work. Now is the time to implement mandatory electrical checks to discover faults before they cause accidents or fires. Our amendment would improve standards and not be burdensome to landlords.

Electrical Safety First estimates this would cost landlords about £3 per month over a five-year period. Of course, the amendment is about saving lives and damage to tenants’ property, but it also would protect the landlords’ assets. Checks could spot problems before they pose a serious risk through electrocution or fires.

We are pleased that the department has been undertaking research into the merits of introducing these checks, but it is now time for action. I hope the Minister will undertake to bring forward proposals while we have the Bill in front of us.

The final amendment in this group is Amendment 30, which seeks to ensure that people living in properties under a guardianship contract have some rights and protections. It is fair to say that these guardianship schemes are increasing in popularity. The guardian pays a licence fee to occupy a part of a building, secure it and prevent damage. Most of the buildings are not housing, and the guardian is not a tenant, which means he has few legal rights. My amendment seeks to redress the balance, which I think is only fair and reasonable. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we are also supporting Amendment 20, and I would like to speak in support of Amendment 22 and electrical checks on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tope.

At Second Reading, the Minister said, in response to this very point:

“Local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality unsafe accommodation, and we expect them to use them”.—[Official Report, 26/1/16; col. 1270.]

In the Committee stage in the Commons, the Minister of State, Brandon Lewis, said:

“Local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality unsafe accommodation, and we expect them to use those powers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/15; col. 707.]

I would like to stress to the Minister and to the Government that this is slightly the wrong end of the stick of the point that this amendment is trying to make. The amendment is trying to beef up existing legislation to ensure that tenants have greater rights. It is less about local authority involvement and much more about liberating the consumer—the tenant—to take action and get repairs delivered. It is not even about the issue of compensation afterwards. It is about where they live right now and having the legal weight behind them to take action and get the repair in the place where they are a tenant. I cannot stress that enough. Therefore, I simply suggest that, if the Minister comes back and says that local authorities have enough power, that does not answer the question I am trying to raise.

This is not new legislation. It is not extra red tape. It is simply about enabling tenants, as I made clear at Second Reading. It revives an outdated law. It is about rights for consumers—something I suggest that this Government should be eager to embrace. Overstretched local authorities could encourage tenants to challenge conditions themselves and free their resources to focus on the very worst conditions. It would therefore act as a deterrent to landlords letting out properties in poor conditions.

The key point is that the clause does not impose new requirements on landlords; it is not a further regulatory burden. The standards set out are effectively the same as those in the Housing Act 2004 via the housing health and safety rating system, the HHSRS. There were 51,916 complaints about housing conditions to the relevant councils in 2013-14 but only 14,000 inspections of PRS properties. In other words, yes, the local authorities have the power, but they do not have the resources, so when complaints are made to them, very few inspections are made as a result, and there is even less enforcement. The prosecutions resulting from that in that one figure average one per council per year. With 4.4 million households in the private rented sector, surely we can provide some better basis for them to go to court and get their landlord to make repairs.