Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak particularly to Amendment 251 in my name. I wholeheartedly agree with all that was said by the right reverend Prelate, and if we were able to his agree to his amendment now—the Minister could nod her head if that is about to happen—then we could bring an end both to what I am going to say and, dare I say, to some speakers on the next two amendments as well. The right reverend Prelate’s amendment would cover it all.

In the, I hope, unlikely event that that does not happen, I will speak to Amendment 251, which seeks to extend the decent homes standard to include asylum accommodation. In doing so, because I am going to speak with particular reference to the situation in London, I must again declare my interest as co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London, and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I spoke at Second Reading of the extensive evidence from London borough councils about the poor standards of asylum accommodation, particularly in London but by no means exclusively there. Many of the things that I said then and will say again today apply to too many other parts of the country. London boroughs have reported issues of low-grade temporary accommodation properties, with multiple category 1 hazards, leaving the private rented market and being procured by Home Office accommodation providers.

The Minister has received a letter from London Councils, signed by the lead spokespeople of all three parties on that body and the chief executive officer of the Chartered Institute of Housing, asking that the Government consider how the Bill can ensure inclusion of Home Office accommodation within its provisions to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees benefit from the same protections that all private and social renters receive. In her response, the Minister agreed to discuss these issues with the Home Office. I am grateful to her, as is London Councils, for arranging a meeting between officials and London Councils to discuss this in more depth. I understand that that meeting has now taken place, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister what conclusions she has drawn from those discussions and, more particularly, what action is now to be taken.

Extensive feedback from London local authorities has consistently highlighted evidence of poor standards across asylum accommodation. As we know, enforcement action is slow and all too often ineffective. There is also widespread concern, not just from London Councils and not just in London, that not including Home Office accommodation will inevitably result in a two-tier system in which a small minority of rogue landlords may be incentivised to procure poor-quality accommodation for use as asylum accommodation.

In Committee in the other place, the Government argued that extending the provisions of the Bill to asylum accommodation is unnecessary. I hope and believe that we have come a long way from that now, and that the Minister is convinced by all the evidence she has had from those working in the system that all is far from well. Clearly, there are practical difficulties of implementation to be resolved, but if there is a will then there is a way to do so. Including asylum accommodation in the provision of the Bill would be a strong incentive; not doing so would inevitably have the opposite effect. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s positive response.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to Amendment 252 in my name and those from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, for whose support I am most grateful. The right reverend Prelate’s observations, drawn from experience, were extremely valuable. I also thank my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe for her earlier support for this amendment.

This amendment simply brings the homes that caravan dwellers rent within the scope of the Bill and is surely uncontentious. It is still not generally realised that, for the Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, who keep to their traditional—and legally recognised—way of life, a caravan which is their residence is as much a residence as any other dwelling and should be eligible for the same legal protection. The owners of such caravans should respect the decent homes standard as much as for any other rented dwelling, and, in many cases, this is sorely needed.

I know of a case where a new Gypsy and Traveller site, built only four years ago, was from the day the family moved in infested by rats, frequently flooded and subject to damp, mould, slugs, trip hazards, faulty electrics, a broken boiler and sewage back-up across the site. This had terrible effects on the family’s physical and mental health. Childhood asthma returned and medical treatment was needed. I remind the Committee that Gypsies and Travellers have the worst health outcomes of any minority ethnic group, and this example shows one reason why.

All these health and safety hazards were the result of structural issues in the rented amenity block and site as a whole, for which the site owner was responsible. The family contacted the site owner in over 50 emails over the years and went through the formal complaints process. When they contacted the Housing Ombudsman, they were told that cases concerning the management of Gypsy and Traveller sites were not investigated. Does that not make it clear that there is a lack of effective protection for families living on Gypsy and Traveller sites? Why should they not have equal protection and equal status with other renters? I know my noble friend the Minister understands this and I hope she will accept the amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to which I have put my name, along with Amendment 265 from my noble friend Lord Tope. As the two previous speeches have explained, the amendments attempt to ensure that the dangers of discrimination are not unintended consequences of the Bill. As we dismantle one source of insecurity—the abolition of Section 21—we must be vigilant that new discriminatory practices do not simply rise in its place.

Requiring a guarantor is often presented as a simple piece of standard referencing—a lifeline for vulnerable tenants—but in reality it is quite the opposite. It adds a significant and often insurmountable hurdle for many prospective tenants, typically imposed in addition to demanding a deposit, the first month’s rent in advance and passing an affordability assessment. Landlords already possess simple tools to assess a tenant’s ability to pay and to mitigate potential financial risk. Tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes provide those robust safeguards. When tenants can demonstrate they can afford the rent, requiring a guarantor becomes unnecessary and serves only to narrow the pool of renters.

The demand for guarantors is an unnecessary additional hurdle that disproportionately impacts those on low incomes, those from low-income backgrounds, those without family support networks, benefit recipients, women, single-parent households, black and Bangladeshi households in particular and, most shockingly, people with disabilities. A renter with a disability is 20% more likely to be asked for a guarantor, and a black renter 66% more likely. This is not a lifeline for the vulnerable; it is more like drowning. Independent Age tells us that this is a problem for older people, too. An older renter who can perfectly afford the rent, secure in their pension income, has recounted facing questions about their income and being asked for a guarantor.

A self-employed single mother who could pay six months in advance, topped up with universal credit, was asked for a guarantor with an income of £45,000 per annum. That is £15,000 above the UK median income. And there will be people, of course, who do not know someone with that level of income.

Throughout our debates, we have heard much about arrears, sometimes as if the problem is endemic. However, government statistics state that 2% of private rented sector tenants reported being in arrears in 2023-24; even the English Housing Survey put it at around 5%. While that is still too high, it does not reflect certain assumptions that all tenants are inevitably going to be in arrears and therefore need a guarantor.

Amendment 170 seeks to bring sense and proportionality to this practice. It does not ban the use of guarantors; it simply and reasonably restricts their use to circumstances where a prospective tenant cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, so ably put it, over the most recent two-year period, only 3% of landlords have attempted to claim lost rent from a tenant’s guarantor. When landlords have attempted this route, it has proved much harder than the standard insurance products to indemnify against non-payment.

The Government have rightly listened to calls to limit excessive upfront payments. If we tackle one form of financial barrier used to exclude tenants, we must tackle the other to prevent some landlords simply switching tactics—which I think is the greatest fear of noble Lords who support this amendment. Without this amendment, there is a significant risk that limiting rent in advance could inadvertently lead to an even wider reliance on guarantor requests, thus undermining the Bill's anti-discrimination provisions.

This amendment is a sensible, proportionate step that ensures landlords can still use guarantors when genuinely needed, while protecting vulnerable renters from being unfairly shut out of the market. I hope the Government will consider and adopt this amendment or agree to discuss a possible alternative.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 265 and, in speaking briefly on it, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the way she introduced both Amendment 265 and 170, which I also support, although I did not have the opportunity to add my name to that one as well.

First of all, I declare an interest a co-president of London Councils, which is the body that represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. I am also, inevitably, a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I think the point has been very well made, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I do not want to repeat the arguments at this time of night—although I would very much like to have done so. Instead, I shall ask the Minister one thing. I hope, in a minute, she is going to say that the Government are going to take this opportunity to repeal that part of the Act and, I hope, support these amendments. If she does not, however, I say that it is widely agreed, and indeed has been agreed by a High Court judge, that the right to rent is discriminatory. Therefore, can the Minister give us any evidence that it has had any effect in actually reducing illegal migration? Has it achieved its purpose in any way? If it has not, in its 10-year life, why on earth are a Labour Government keeping it in this Bill when they have the opportunity, in this legislation, to remove something that is both ineffective and discriminatory?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Shipley might have said, and with apologies to Robert Frost:

“I have promises to keep,


And miles to go before I sleep”.

My promise was to support Amendment 265. I knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would be as thorough as ever. When she started to say the word “efficacy”, I thought it was going to turn into “ethics”—but maybe that as well.

I simply want to record my support. However, given today’s White Paper, I do so without much expectation, as has been the case so often in the past on this issue. Nevertheless, my enthusiasm for the amendment is entirely disproportionate to the time I have taken— I promised it would be within a minute, and it is.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I am another vice-president of the Local Government Association. More particularly, because of what I want to say tonight, I am co-president of London Councils, the body which represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. I was also a London borough councillor for 40 years and leader of that council for 13 years. Not surprisingly, therefore, I am going to speak about the situation in London, although I recognise that many of the points I raise apply in most, if not all, cities and towns throughout the country.

London is home to an estimated 2.7 million private renters. Rented properties now account for 31% of homes in the capital. I am told that the closest regional average is just over 19%. Home ownership, therefore, is unaffordable for many London residents, and there are extremely long waiting lists for social housing. As a result, having access to safe, secure and affordable private rental property is vital for very many people living in London. London Councils welcomes many of the measures in the Bill and supports the Government’s aim to deliver a fairer, more secure and better quality private rented sector. In particular, it strongly supports the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions, which really cannot come soon enough.

The Bill proposes a range of significant new regulatory and enforcement responsibilities for local authorities. These include responsibility for enforcing the decent homes standard in the private rented sector and a duty on local housing authorities to enforce landlord legislation in their area, which, of course, means every one of the 32 London borough councils.

According to the English Housing Survey for 2022-23, London had 134,000 non-decent private homes, accounting for 12% of the market. Raising these to the decent homes standard will need significant investment, and will be costly and resource-intensive for boroughs to enforce. London boroughs forecast a funding shortfall in 2025-26 of £500 million. I am not going to ask the Minister to commit to the full funding, because I have been doing that for the last 40 years and I know the answer I will get, but will she commit to working with local authorities to produce a full new burdens assessment in relation to the Bill so that we have a real and realistic idea of the actual resource needs to implement it?

I want to turn to Home Office accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers. In the other place, the Government argued that it was not necessary to bring that within the scope of the Bill because such accommodation is already regulated to what they describe as a “high standard” by the asylum and support contracts, enforced by the Home Office. Evidence from London borough local authorities—I am sure that local authorities in other parts of the country would bear this out too—consistently demonstrates that the view expressed by the Government in the other place is simply not the reality. Extensive feedback from London authorities provides widespread evidence of poor standards across asylum accommodation. Enforcement action is often slow when contract breaches and other issues are identified, and I am told that a number of barriers remain in implementing effective enforcement action. The sub-contracting model of the Home Office providers results in a lack of accountability and misalignment between Home Office and local authority standards. London local authorities report that responses are slow, and that residents spend hours at a time waiting to get through via the helpline. In some instances, there is evidence that complaints are not properly recorded.

The exclusion of Home Office accommodation from the provisions of this Bill will inevitably result in a two-tier system, which will be particularly serious in London. Extending the provisions of the Bill would assist in creating uniform standards and give statutory bodies greater powers to take effective enforcement action. London Councils is therefore seeking to extend the provisions under Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard to include Home Office-contracted accommodation, including initial, contingency and dispersal accommodation. It asks that the powers of the proposed ombudsman be extended to include asylum seekers. Having an independent ombudsman would give people seeking asylum greater agency and trust in the asylum system.

London Councils is raising very important issues, drawn not from expectation but from actual experience, and no doubt the same is true in many other towns and cities in the country. I ask the Minister not simply to dismiss them as unnecessary but rather to take them away and give careful consideration to how best they can be met within the provisions of this Bill.