Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Truscott and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the erudite speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I remind the Committee of my interest as a long-standing landlord and former tenant in the private rented sector.

Why do the Government insist that they know best when a majority of both tenants and landlords want fixed tenancies? That is a fact. The Minister quoted surveys earlier, but opinions have been sought and that is the case for both tenants and landlords. The Minister has never really explained why the Government think they know more and better than the people primarily affected. Is it a case of groupthink? I support Amendments 9 and 13, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The Government should not, in my view, interfere in an agreement between two or more consenting adults.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, to which I have added my name. I will make some general observations. This amendment is helpful because it encourages a mutually agreed arrangement, where appropriate, between landlord and tenant, in order to avoid disruption, delay or litigation where they might otherwise arise, to the mutual benefit of both parties.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, is right to say that the wider philosophical argument is that the abolition of fixed terms will provide greater security for tenants and retain flexibility, but it is a surprising one, because a number of key issues undermine it. The abolition of a contract of a particular type in this way is an obvious infringement on the freedom of parties to agree such terms as they wish. On principle, it should be implemented only on the most cogent and urgent grounds, and no such grounds exist across the whole private rented sector.

There are also some situations in which tenants as well as landlords clearly benefit from fixed-term tenancies. Examples are student lets, lets related to fixed-term job postings or projects, and moving to be within a particular school’s catchment area. It obviously does not help tenants in these situations to be prohibited from obtaining the security of a fixed-term let. And landlords who are inflexible in their approach to the term of a tenancy and who are prepared to offer only a fixed term will do so at their own cost, as they will find that there is a smaller pool of potential tenants than for landlords who are flexible in their approach. This market-driven discouragement to fixed-term tenancies already exists and will continue to do so.

The stated aim in this legislation of enabling tenants to leave poor-quality properties is poorly thought through. The first point to make in this regard is that it will usually be apparent to a tenant before moving in whether a property is of poor quality. If a tenant moves in full knowledge of that want of quality, the fairness of allowing them to move out mid-term is not obvious. It may be true that, sadly, tenants often do not have a choice, but if it is, leaving mid-term is unlikely to be an option, for the same reason. It is better to find ways to coerce landlords into making living conditions better. However, such cases can be legislated for by the simple expedient of implying into a lease a warranty that a property is fit for habitation—a test already enshrined in statute in the Defective Premises Act 1972. If a tenant can show that that warranty has been breached, he or she may terminate immediately and leave, free of future liabilities.

In any case, parties can and already often do agree break clauses in fixed-term tenancies. There is no reason why they should not continue to do this, particularly if changes in circumstances, such as a job not working out, can be anticipated. This is also fairer to the landlord, since it alerts the landlord to a possible change in circumstances in advance.

Secondly, although circumstances sometimes change unexpectedly, that is true for both sides and giving tenants free rein in this regard while landlords have none is inherently unfair. In practice, if circumstances change unexpectedly—for example, a tenant loses their job or an income-earning partner ceases to be able to work or passes away unexpectedly—few landlords would be likely to insist on a tenant seeing out their term. It is not in their interest to have a tenant who cannot pay the rent. Most will be prepared to negotiate an early exit in such circumstances and instal a tenant who can. The rare residue of cases where a tenant has suffered a change of circumstances and wishes to leave but a landlord is unwilling to allow them to do so can be met by legislation stopping far short of an outright ban on fixed-term tenancies where hitherto there has been mutual agreement between the parties.

Finally, there is a point to be made about the concept of seeking to protect the rights of tenants in residential tenancies without regard to the wider context of how the legislation impacts on the pool of properties available for tenants. The abolition of fixed-term tenancies means that many landlords in the PRS will prefer not to let at all rather than be limited to letting on a periodic tenancy. Preparing a tenancy for a let involves a considerable amount of time and effort. If tenants can simply come and go on a whim, that time and effort will go unrewarded and fewer people will undertake it. That will reduce the size of the sector and so drive down tenant choice—to the detriment, rather than the benefit, of tenants. Tenant protections are worth obtaining only if the sector remains attractive to both landlords and tenants, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said earlier. The proposed abolition of fixed-term tenancies fails to achieve that balance, particularly if there was agreement previously.