Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Janke Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

My noble friend the Minister does not have to address any of that, because this Government have quite rightly said that the test should be the open market test. I hope only that she will be pleased with the extra protection that I am seeking with this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, as colleagues have already said, the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to abolish no-fault evictions. We support the measures in this Bill, particularly the provisions by which tenants can challenge rent increases. We support amendments in this group that seek to establish a fairer basis for rent increases and would prevent excessive and unpredictable increases, the severe impact of which may cause eviction and homelessness. We also support the amendments in this group that will reduce the need for tribunals to hear challenges from tenants. We feel that there is a fundamental problem with the concept of market rents, which are currently calculated by looking at a range of advertisements. This does not provide an accurate assessment of the actual rents that people are paying.

One-third of private renters are already paying half or more of their income on rent, well above the commonly accepted affordability threshold of 30%. Measures to stabilise rents within tenancies are essential to ensure that the Bill delivers the secure, stable system it promises, as well as empowering tenants to challenge unfair rent increases that result in unwanted moves.

For many renters, though, a rent increase is as good as an eviction notice. Without an established index that outlines what a fair increase looks like, the First-tier Tribunal will remain effective in supporting renters.

Rent increases must not become the new no-fault eviction. Over 300,000 renters moved last year because of a rent increase they could not afford; that is more than 900 renters a day. Market rent is an artificially high indicator for judging what an appropriate rent should be. The database proposed in the Bill, once established, would be able to capture what rents are actually being paid. This could then establish benchmarking for an appropriate rent, rather than having the traditional understanding of market rent.

Amendment 77 in my name reflects Liberal Democrat policy, which would limit any in-tenancy increase in rent to a percentage of the Bank of England base rate. This is different from inflation and other indicators that are often used. Landlords do face increasing costs from time to time, but the increases they face and want to pass on to tenants are generally more likely to be related to the cost of interest on their borrowing. Therefore, that is the appropriate measure for landlords to look to and should be considered appropriate for a rental increase. It is also often much less than the much more volatile changes in the market rent that are related to inflation.

We would relate rent increases to much more realistic, modest and accurate reflection of what landlords’ expenses are and use the Bank of England base rate as an appropriate limit on the amount of rent increase and any in-tenancy rent increase. That is the rationale behind this amendment.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 79 and the related Amendments 84 and 85 in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill. I believe these amendments would overcome an inherent defect in the Bill, both for renters and landlords, making this a rare opportunity for amendments with appeal across the piece.

The amendments seek to protect tenants from unpredictable and unaffordable in-tenancy rent increases, but they also have distinct benefits for landlords. Together, the amendments would establish a fair basis for in-tenancy rent increases for a fixed period. As with the earlier amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the amendment would restrict rent increases to an index of inflation: in this case, either the consumer price index or an earnings index. However, in these amendments, the indexation is limited to four years, countering the concern that rents will be controlled. After four years, a market rent—if necessary decided by the First-tier Tribunal—would be allowed.

These amendments address the central issue of renters’ security, which lies at the heart of the Bill. Tenants need to know that their rented property is their home and they cannot be forced to move out by a massive rent increase. As the Housing Minister in the other place, Matthew Pennycook, said at the Bill’s Report stage in the Commons:

“Once section 21 evictions are done away with, unscrupulous landlords will no doubt attempt to evict tenants who assert their rights by means of extortionate rent rises”.—[Official Report, 14/1/25; col. 259.]


The Renters’ Reform Coalition and Shelter have campaigned assiduously for in-tenancy rent increases not to become a means of eviction by price.

The Bill’s remedy is to place a requirement on tenants to take their case to the First-tier Tribunal to set a market rent that cannot be exceeded. I argue that this whole First-tier Tribunal arrangement is a highly unsatisfactory mechanism for settling on appropriate rent levels. For a start, the outcome of tribunal hearings is unpredictable and sometimes arbitrary. Deciding on a market rent is an art, not a science. Sometimes the tribunal has accepted a case made on the basis of the asking rents advertised on Rightmove and Zoopla. Sometimes, however, the tribunal has explicitly dismissed the use of these asking rents, since there is no knowing what relationship actual rents have to the initial asking rent. Moreover, it is common practice for in-tenancy rent increases to be at lower levels than the open market rents for new tenants because landlords sensibly wish to keep their existing tenants.

There are other drawbacks to the Bill’s use of the tribunal route to determine a reasonable rent increase. First, this mechanism depends upon the renter actually taking their in-tenancy rent increase to the tribunal. This can be a daunting requirement for the renter. As Generation Rent has pointed out, very few tenants have any knowledge of the FTT. Even where renters are fully cognisant of their legal rights, many will be reluctant to go down this road, as doing so is likely to mean falling out with the landlord and negatively affecting the relationship. Taking their case to the tribunal will often involve hassle and expense, particularly if they are to present their case in person. It may require travelling a considerable distance and taking time off work, and the process itself may be intimidating. The whole business is fraught with uncertainty and anxiety.

Secondly, assuming the process is followed, the market rent determined by the tribunal may still mean that the renter faces an alarming increase. A recent Zoopla report shows market rents for new lets are 27% higher—£270 per month—than three years ago, which is an increase well above earnings growth. Many commentators are suggesting that shortages may push market rents much higher in the years to come.

The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, mentioned the guideline of an affordable rent being 30% of take-home pay, but this is only a guideline and not a requirement of any kind on landlords. Sadly, a lot of tenants are paying over 40% of income on rent as the Affordable Housing Commission, which I had the pleasure of chairing, has shown. At that level of income-to-rent ratio, there is always the danger of arrears, let alone hardship to the renter.

From the landlord’s perspective, I suggest that the proposed regime based on appeals to the First-tier Tribunal is highly unsatisfactory. Those representing landlords have argued that large numbers of tenants could be tempted, as we have heard today, to take proposed rent increases to the FTT in the knowledge that they, the renters, have nothing to lose. They cannot be asked to pay more than the level the landlord proposes and they might be successful in arguing that the rent should be less. In any case, the process would save them money by delaying any increase until after the tribunal hearing, as we have heard, which could be months ahead.

A number of your Lordships have made the point that the number of cases referred to the tribunal could clog up the system and delay any decision being taken, at an ongoing cost to the landlord. Another way of looking at this, among the many that have been suggested, is that even if 99% of tenants accepted their landlord’s proposed rent increase, that would leave 50,000 cases still going to appeal. There is no way the FTT could deal with these numbers.

This overwhelming of the system seems more likely if rumours are true that specialist firms are planning to offer a no-win no-fee service, paid for by sharing the rental savings, to handle cases at tribunal hearings on behalf of renters. So, for both landlord and tenant, the dependency on securing a decision from the First-tier Tribunal—theoretically every year for every tenancy—is fraught with danger and potentially undermines the whole Bill.

I know the Government are rightly worried that introducing any form of rent control would have a significant detrimental impact, as history and international comparisons suggest. These Amendments 79, 84 and 85 do not undermine the overriding market principle; instead, they introduce a mechanism that removes the hazards of appeals to the First-tier Tribunal and provides the certainty of indexation for in-tenancy rent increases. After four years of occupation, the rent can be reset at the market level, determined by appeal to the FTT if necessary. Since most renters move within a five-year period, the amendment would ensure that rents are predictable throughout the great majority of tenancies.

The amendment adopts the same rent stabilisation proposition and indexing of increases devised by the Renters’ Reform Coalition, but the amendment limits this inflation indexing to a four-year period. There may be exceptional circumstances in which indexing a rent, rather than going for a market rent, could cause hardship or financial difficulty for the landlord. A case might be where the landlord spends substantial sums on upgrading the property and needs compensation from higher rents, or has borrowed heavily—probably with a buy-to-let mortgage—and needs to increase rents by a bigger margin to satisfy the lender’s requirements, driven in part by the rules of the Prudential Regulation Authority. To cover these relatively rare cases, an additional amendment could place the obligation on the landlord to go to the tribunal, rather than the tenant, to seek a setting of a market rent, instead of applying the usual indexation.