Renters’ Rights Bill

Antonia Bance Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

It is an honour to stand here today. I have worked on these issues for more than 15 years. A decade ago, I ran the “Evict Rogue Landlords” campaign at Shelter. I spent a decade on the board of the Nationwide Foundation, funding renter groups and campaigners such as the Renter’s Reform Coalition, and a happy year on the board of Generation Rent, which was ended only by my election.

There is so much to welcome in this Bill, but I am so sad that the Opposition Benches are so empty and that Conservative Members have wasted so much time. I thought that the shadow Secretary of State’s speech was curious, trampling on previous Conservative promises on section 21, citing stats sourced from landlord lobbyists about landlords leaving the sector, and rewriting history about why the previous Tory Bill failed. It was quite a performance.

Representing Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley, I stand to speak for those renters who use housing benefit to pay their rent. I am so glad that the Bill will end the disgraceful “no DSS” policy. In the long term, the answer for most of my constituents who rent privately is a social home, and I would like to see the proportion of private rented properties in my constituency reduce as we build the social rented homes that we have promised.

There is so much that is so good in this Bill. I think my second favourite measure is the application of the decent homes standard to private renting. Over the past 15 years, I have met renter after renter living with damp dripping down the walls, infestations, faulty electrics, and landlords who just do not care—they do not fix it, but still take the rent every month—with temporary accommodation landlords often the worst. Bringing in Awaab’s law and decent homes, and supporting councils to enforce the law will make the change and make every home safe.

I wish to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). At Shelter, a decade ago, I worked with the Lullaby Trust to make sure that babies were safe in temporary accommodation and I am sad, angry and shocked to hear of the deaths of 55 babies in temporary accommodation in the years since. But, without doubt, my favourite measure in the Bill is the end of section 21. For once and for all, we will end the ability of landlords to throw people out of their homes “just ’cos”. For 40 years, the cards have been stacked in favour of the landlords. Today, we bring forward plans to rebalance the rules, so landlords can run their businesses, shouldering the appropriate level of risk, and renters know their home is theirs for as long they want it.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly salient point about families losing their homes under section 21. Like other Members, I am sure, I have an inbox full of such cases—for example, a family with two children were chucked out of their home with no other options. Does she agree that this Bill, brought in within the Government’s first 100 days, will give the basic security of a family home to my constituents and others up and down the country?

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I do agree. I have met many of his constituents in Southampton Itchen while campaigning with him over the years. I have seen the conditions that many of them and families in my own constituency live in, and I look forward to the security that the Bill will give them.

I am so pleased and proud that we will bring this Bill forward straight away—no delay, no hold-ups. Loads of renters out there are saving for their next unwanted house move; it takes, on average, £1,700 to move house. They are worried that they may lose their homes and be forced out of the area where their kids go to school. I say to those renters today, “We’ve got your backs. You will be able to stay in your homes—this will be law inside the year. Take heart!” If the landlord tries to raise the rent so high as to amount to a de facto eviction, renters will finally have recourse: they can go to a tribunal and stop a rent rise above market rates.

I gently say to the Minister that it would be good to understand how the tribunal will find out what market rates are; as we all know, looking at Rightmove will not help—that covers only new lets, not all lets in an area. But that detail is for later stages. What matters is this: no more no-fault evictions; security and predictability for renting families; rights rebalanced between renters and landlords; safe homes; and proper action on rogue landlords. This has been a long time coming, and I am so proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

In Scotland, where similar regulations have been implemented, there has been an exodus from the market of smaller private landlords in particular, and those properties have fallen into other kinds of tenure. If the supply of homes remained the same and it had a zero-sum impact on the market, there would of course be no requirement for a Renters’ Rights Bill at all, because everybody would find a home on one kind of tenure or another, but we know, because of the increasing proportion of people in the United Kingdom looking to the private rented sector to access the kind of home they need, that this will be incredibly important.

[Antonia Bance]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is precisely those small individual landlords who struggle to keep up with decent renting regulation, even as minimal as it is now? They make up the majority of the rogue landlords that many of us have heard about in our constituency surgeries. Frankly, it is often a good thing that small landlords who are unable to provide decent properties and keep up with legislation get out of the market in favour of those who can.

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member raises a good point about rogue landlords. Let us reflect on some of the complaints that we have heard. Ant infestations, widespread evidence of mould causing health problems, the dilapidation of communal areas, a prohibition on tenants seeking to rent while on benefits and a failure to comply with licensing laws—just some of the complaints made by the tenants of the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), but they are widely represented across the market. They are the reason we need to get enforcement action against rogue landlords such as that Member right.

On enforcement, the Secretary of State said in opening the debate that she is keen to ensure that there is an effective fining regime so that those who breach the rules can be held to account. We in the Opposition have a genuine concern about getting that right. There are a number of different areas of local authority activity in which enforcement is essentially a net cost to the council tax payer, because even when costs are won and fines levied, they are nothing like the cost of carrying out investigations, building the evidence base and taking the required enforcement action. If we are to ensure that rogue landlords acting in breach of existing laws are held to account by local authorities using those powers, we need to ensure, during the passage of the Bill, that the resources that are expected to arrive through the method of enforcement and fining are sufficient to make the process self-sustaining, or that the Government have alternative measures in mind to ensure that local authorities can access those resources by other means.

That is a long-standing issue and has been a factor for Governments of all parties. It was certainly a challenge in my 24 years in local government, under Labour and Conservative Governments. We need to ensure, in the interests of our tenants, that we get this right as far as we can.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Antonia Bance Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

There are always opportunities for abuse, but we cannot be closing off a provision that would be really valuable to many families around the country because there is a risk of abuse. If we were to do that, there would be loads of areas where Government would not legislate. We do not disregard an opportunity just because of the potential for abuse; we manage that potential for abuse.

I will move on a bit more quickly as I want to ensure that all Labour Back Benchers get their opportunity to speak. [Interruption.] It is their legislation.

Lords amendment 58 in the name of Lord Cromwell would reduce the ban on re-letting from 12 months to six months. That is a wholly pragmatic point. There is the idea in the Bill that a landlord would have to wait for 12 months, but if it is clear after six months that, despite genuine efforts—there is provision to ensure that efforts are genuine—there is no chance of selling, it is entirely reasonable that a landlord should seek to re-let. That is not as quickly as Members on the Labour Benches would do so; nevertheless, it is an entirely fair provision.

The largest Government defeat in the other place came on amendment 59 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, which is about the exemption for shared owners from the 12-month ban on re-letting. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he recognised that this area created challenges, but I urge the Government not to dig in their heels on the issue. The cohort of people envisaged by the amendment are often those most in need of flexibility—people who are not of significant financial means—and limiting their options when it comes to, perhaps, a distressed asset would be entirely wrong. I have no doubt that he recognises that. I urge him to move quickly to a resolution on this matter to reassure the Chamber and the other place that those people will not be disadvantaged by the Bill.

The Lords amendments are well thought through. They attempt to take this mishmash of a Bill and knock it into some credible shape, providing protection for tenants and a bit of reassurance for landlords so that they can continue to provide a supply of private-rented accommodation to help people get on the housing ladder and to live in homes they love and value in communities that they cherish. If the Government choose to blindly ignore those amendments, I have no doubt that the Bill will have the effect of reducing the number of landlords, reducing the number of homes and increasing rents, which is the opposite of what any of us in the Chamber should want. That is why the Opposition will support the amendments.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Once again, I stand here proud to speak in favour of this groundbreaking legislation that finally brings some balance back between the landlord’s right to profit from an asset and the renter’s right to a home. I oppose in particular Lords amendments 26, 27 and 18 proposed by the landlord lobby in the other place. Amendments 26 and 27 would increase the evidence bar for all civil penalty offences to the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities. That would gut the ban on discrimination against housing benefit recipients, the ban on refusing to let to families and the ban on bidding wars. Those measures would be almost unenforceable if the amendment stood.

Discrimination is notoriously hard to prove, and we all know that early interactions between a renter and a prospective landlord are often not in writing, so proving beyond reasonable doubt that a prospective renter was prevented from letting a property because they might be a benefits claimant or have kids would be extremely challenging; it is the same for proving bidding wars. Councils already struggle to pursue civil penalty cases because of the staff time and resource involved in gathering evidence to support those cases. Introducing that new, higher bar of evidence for already challenging cases would make them almost unenforceable. It would also be out of line with other legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, which require only the civil standard of proof. If we do not oppose those Lords amendments, such unlawful practices will continue unchecked, and renters will continue to face homelessness as a result.