Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

70: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Repossession of homes during school holidays(1) The court may only make an order for possession of a dwelling which houses children of school age during the school holidays.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations define the period of school holidays under subsection (1) on an annual basis.”

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 70 is fundamentally to help children. We should recognise that certain changes have made it far more profitable for landlords to change long-term family-home lets to homes in multiple occupation or sometimes, depending on location, to holiday lets. Losing family homes in rural locations from both the private and social housing sectors is a real issue, particularly when one considers that median salaries tend to be considerably lower than in towns and cities.

I was inspired to put forward this amendment after a discussion with a landlord in Suffolk about various reforms being considered by this House that would likely reduce the availability of rented accommodation for families, particularly in rural areas. This landlord told me of one change that he would put into law if he had the opportunity—a practice he undertakes himself today—and that is making sure that any changes in tenancy arrangements for properties occupied by families happen only during the school summer holidays. My amendment seeks to ensure that any such eviction could happen only during a school holiday.

I understand that it is the Government’s intention to reduce evictions, particularly no-fault evictions; however, they do accept that a landlord may need to require such actions. That said, disruption of a child’s education through absolutely no fault of their own can have a real impact on their life in both the short and long term.

For what it is worth, I also think that the situation is more likely to be acute for children living in rural areas. Often, people displaced from accommodation in rural areas end up having to move considerable distances to much more urban conurbations, which would likely require a change of school, whether that be at primary or secondary age. My amendment would at least limit this potential disruption to the child’s life to be only during school holidays, giving parents and the child time to find a new school or to make alternative transport arrangements if necessary. I appreciate that we are still in Committee, so I am floating this idea to consider what we can do to help children in these challenging moments in their family’s life. I would be grateful if I could meet the Minister to discuss this issue further. With that, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which would allow the court to grant an order for possession of a property that houses school-aged children only during school holidays, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for their comments. I understand the probing nature of the amendment and the compassion that sits behind it. However, I gently point out that at the latest count, we have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation, a situation driven by the lack of attention to the housing situation paid by her Government. Therefore, while we want to do as much as we can to support families and children, I think it takes quite a lot of front to come before this Committee with this kind of proposal when we have that terrible situation of 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. I heard this morning of a three year-old who has been homeless for his entire life—astonishing.

Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment; however, I am going to talk about the practicality of delivering it. It would likely mean that, where possession has been sought, the courts would need to check whether the property contains school-age children and whether it is the school holidays or not, before scheduling a hearing. Not only would this create additional work for the courts—we have just spent quite some time debating the pressure the courts are already under—it could cause delays for landlords in obtaining possession orders. That is an issue the Opposition have taken great interest in. For example, a landlord’s case could be next in line to be heard, but, because it is the beginning of the school summer holidays, the hearing would be delayed for six weeks.

Furthermore, although provision is made within the amendment for regulations to be made annually to define the school periods, it would be an onerous task. School holidays vary across local authority areas and sectors; they can even vary within an individual area. My grandchildren live at the same address but go to different schools and have different holidays. This would likely cause confusion and added complexity for landlords who wish to seek possession of their properties.

While it is absolutely right that tenants enjoy a greater level of security in their homes, we have said that landlords must enjoy robust grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to seek to take their property back. It would not be reasonable to add additional barriers, complexities or delays to the possession process.

Our reforms give renters much greater security and stability, so they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives and communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. That is why we are introducing the many protections for tenants, such as banning Section 21 evictions, increasing notice periods and introducing a 12-month protected period at the beginning of a tenancy during which landlords cannot evict them to move into or sell the property. However, that must be balanced with the needs of landlords, who must enjoy those robust grounds we have already spoken about. Judges already have some discretion when deciding the date on which a tenant should give up possession. Even if an outright possession order is made, pursuant to a Section 21 notice or on a mandatory ground, the date for possession can be postponed for up to six weeks if a tenant can show that this would cause exceptional hardship.

As well as it being impractical, there is also a principled argument against this amendment. Being evicted will almost always be a significant upheaval for tenants—I accept that—particularly for those with children, so I understand the intent behind it. However, it would not necessarily—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, pointed out—always be easier for parents to deal with a possession order or eviction during the school holidays. During termtime, parents may have significantly fewer caring responsibilities, particularly if their children are younger. Therefore, many parents find the school holidays a time of increased responsibility and stress. Families being evicted during school holidays may also mean having to take up that school holiday with the necessities of moving, rather than doing activities with the children. So it may make it more difficult for families, not easier. It is for these reasons, both practical and principled, that I ask for this amendment to be withdrawn.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking to this amendment. I am slightly surprised to hear a Member of this House being accused of having some front, based on previous government policy. I recognise this is a political debate, but I am talking about children and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be considered in any consideration of legislation when it comes to this.

There has also been a kind of city and urban perspective on where children go to school; there has not been a realisation of quite how far some children in the countryside have to travel. If you are moved from, say, the middle of coastal Suffolk to Lowestoft, there is no way you could continue going to your school without considerable upheaval to your parents’ lives, and indeed at great expense.

I am conscious of the limitations being put on landlords. I had hoped to be able to speak to the Minister in more detail, but I have heard what she said and will consider potentially speaking to her noble friends in the Department for Education. I beg to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My apologies, I neglected to say that I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness.

Permitted Development Rights (Extension) Bill [HL]

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my attention was attracted to this Bill on the basis of a friend who bought a home and has been doing it up with his wife. They were planning a loft conversion, and to have sufficient height to be able to stand up properly in the loft, they wanted to put a few extra layers of bricks—possibly less than the height of the Woolsack. Yet it seemed that extensive planning permission was needed, a number of surveys, and so on and so forth—such that a lot of the associated costs would have ended up being more than doing the construction to enable a greater use of their home.

Therefore, I was intrigued by the Bill from my noble friend Lord Lucas, especially when I saw the schedule to which he refers. It seems very sensible, in particular in recognising that Clause 3 gives sufficient protection to neighbours from perhaps undesirable impacts that can happen with permitted development rights, such as the blocking of light.

However, I was somewhat concerned when I started reading Clause 2. What seemed to be quite a permissive Bill suddenly started giving powers to councils to be able to add lots of conditions to what were supposed to be permitted development rights. I understand that the sentiment is to see how we can improve the quality of our housing stock in terms of energy and other environmental aspects. However, it seemed to somewhat counter the proposal of having permitted development rights. I declare an interest as the owner of a house that is grade 2 listed. I was concerned that Clause 1 would not apply to listed homes. There has been a significant increase in the number of homes declared as listed. Also, 38% of our home stock was built pre 1945 and 20% pre 1919. That is over 5 million homes in England alone.

One of the things that concern me, although I completely understand that we cannot change the basis of a house that has been listed, is aspects that cannot be seen, where we might want to make it easier to add a bit of utility space in one way or another. Indeed, as my noble friend points out in paragraph 1(h)(i) and (iii) of the Schedule, given that we need to try to make it as easy as possible to convert to things such as air source heat pumps or electric vehicle charging, we should try to make these permitted development rights for listed buildings as well, rather than put a barrier in the way.

I know that the Government have just put out a consultation on EPC C for all homes for rent. When I was Secretary State for Defra I was successful in limiting some of the proposals put out in our Government’s time. Although of course I support improvement in energy performance for all our homes, which will lead to cheaper energy bills and the like, my concern is that the cost of changing EPC ratings in so many rural areas would mean a reduction in the amount of housing stock available right around the country. I could see that where I live in Suffolk and in other parts of the country, where this came up as a big concern. I hope it is something of which the Government will be mindful when they consider these different rights or restrictions.

Clause 4 is on floods. Building greater flood resilience into houses is a good thing. I gently point out to noble Lords that zones 2 and 3 apply only to fluvial flooding. Actually, the major risk nowadays to most houses, particularly in towns, is from surface water flooding, which is not connected to the flood zones referred to in the Bill. Again, there already are conditions to stop things such as the hard pavementing of drives and similar to stop the run-off. That would need some greater focus.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for explaining the inclusion of public transport in Clause 4. I was somewhat curious about that, but I think he was, in effect, advocating the development of 15-minute cities, and this is a way to try to achieve that. He is right that we need to stimulate economic activity.

If my noble friend were to take his Bill forward, I would go even further and consider seeing what we could do to have a permitted development right for any building—it does not matter whether it is listed—to make it much easier for houses to be adapted for the benefit of people with disability, or for older people, so that they could stay in their home. My mother passed away a few months ago and, when we were considering some potential changes to her house, I was quite struck by the number of extraordinary planning applications that we would have to go through. In the end, it did not seem worth the hassle. I am mindful that, when we look at permitted development rights, we need to make sure we have things that really open up opportunities for people to live in their homes for as long as possible.

In terms of other consideration of permitted development rights, I encourage my noble friend to go further—although his speech focused particularly on urban development—to explore what could be done to help rural communities and our farmers. There is such a ripe opportunity to develop things such as small reservoirs, which would enhance not only food production but our natural environment.

It sounds as if my noble friend will not take this Bill forward, but I hope that when we get the opportunity to look at planning and infrastructure we think strategically and holistically. Too often, building regulations end up getting into minutiae that seem counterproductive once they are put into effect. I would have supported the Bill going through its Second Reading, but I look forward to future debates on this important matter.