Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I strongly support Amendment 29 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I recall that, when we debated this in Committee, the noble Baroness got a favourable response from the Front Bench, and it may be that on this amendment the ice is beginning to melt.

I am also struck by the contrast between the certainty that we get with Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the absence of any clarity and certainty from government Amendments 37 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is normal procedure in law if a rent increase is valid to backdate it from the date that it was due, so the Government are introducing a wholly new concept in law in their Amendment 67, which does not actually take the trick because, as I understand it, they are going to wait until the system is gummed up before they activate the process.

This is simply no way to govern. The Government ought to accept Amendment 36 with its clarity and certainty, rather than this doubtful procedure whereby there remains every incentive to appeal and only when the system becomes even more clogged will the Government intervene. That cannot be good government, and I urge the Minister to think again about Amendment 36 or the other amendment that achieves the same objective in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I just do not think that this takes the trick.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know which amendment to start with really, but I will start with the least contentious. We agree with Amendment 42 that a review is imperative and should definitely happen.

On Amendment 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, it seems absolutely right to us that, when the taxpayer funds lovely, significant improvements that will raise the value of the landlord’s asset, the tenant in the house should be protected from a rent rise at least during that tenancy. That seems only right and fair.

Amendment 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which I supported in Committee and co-signed, is a sensible amendment that several noble Lords have said they would support. I think she has explained it at length and with clarity, so I need say no more. But anything that acts as a triage system in this process should be looked at seriously.

On the controversial bits, the rent tribunal is clearly causing concern. I say to the Minister that I think there was an invitation in the last speech to look at this again—there will be Third Reading. It seems to me that a lot of work has gone into these amendments that would justify perhaps a little more time and effort than we have now. The Minister has a lot to justify in order to gain support from the House. We are minded to support the Government, but clearly we need answers on the very detailed and sensible proposals put forward today.

What worries us about Amendment 31 is that it risks allowing a tribunal to determine the level of rent increase, which could actually be unaffordable. The idea that a rent tribunal could decide that the rent should be such-and-such would fuel a market in which rents are rising exponentially, more than they have at any other time—the amendment would seem to fuel that further. We certainly do not agree with rent controls, but we believe that some brakes could be put on this; that would seem eminently sensible.

Perhaps I am looking at this through the wrong lens, but I would have thought that a tenant might expect an annual rent rise: “I am in my rented apartment and I am expecting the landlord to put up the rent in a year because I know what’s going on in the area, so I can kind of suss out how much it might be”. But, looking at it from the other way, if we assume all the things that noble Lords have said about everyone applying to the tribunal—Martin Lewis will be saying they should apply and the student unions will be on it—why would a landlord, knowing all that, impose a stupid rent rise if he knows that his tenant can then appeal against it? That should put an instinctive brake on unjustified, unrealistic rises. The system should work with those natural tensions.

We are not happy with it, but we have had conversations and thoughts about the proposal. We would ask the Government to look again at some of the detail. Perhaps with some assurances from the Dispatch Box, we could avoid a load of votes now and at Third Reading because I think that we would want the Minister to look in more detail than I personally, I admit, have done, if that is fair to say.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Wolf and Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Howard, for their amendments on rent increases and the tribunals, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Carter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, for their contributions to the debate.

Government Amendment 37 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the date from which tenants are required to pay a new rent in instances where the First-tier Tribunal has set one following a challenge to a proposed rent increase. Government Amendments 38 and 39 are consequential to that.

Our Government were elected on the clear manifesto promise to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on this commitment, not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure but to prevent rent hikes being used as a form of backdoor eviction once Section 21 notices have been abolished.

During the Bill’s passage, the House has debated at length the capacity of the justice system to enable the smooth implementation of reforms in the Bill. This is particularly the case on the subject of rent increase challenges, in relation to which noble Lords have expressed very serious concerns that strengthening tenants’ rights might lead to the First-tier Tribunal being overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges.

Set against that concern, we have heard powerful testimony from many tenant groups that private renters, many of whom are struggling to juggle family life, multiple jobs and financial challenges, are unlikely to spend what little time they have navigating the justice system unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Given the cost and effort that challenging a rent increase at tribunal would require, as well as the risk it poses to a tenant/landlord relationship, there is good reason to doubt that a significant number of tenants will bring rent increase challenges that have little prospect of success—who knows what will happen if Martin Lewis gets involved, but we will wait and see.

We also know that the majority of landlords act responsibly, and we do not expect that many will seek to serve unreasonable rent increases given that this will increase the likelihood of a tenant challenging them at tribunal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. If landlords do not impose egregious rent increases, they will not get taken to tribunal. We recognise, however, that there is inherent uncertainty as to the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, mentioned the system in Scotland; as she will know, the changes made there are very different from the ones that we are proposing.

As the House will know, we are already working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the justice system is well prepared for our reforms. In the Property Chamber, work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as reviewing resource and working practices in readiness for any increase in demand.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister helpfully clarified that fixed-term licences to sublet that are in place when the Bill is commenced will become open ended, and that all related fixed-term tenancies will become periodic. However, the Minister has not set out what type of licence to sublet will be offered to shared owners in the future, and at what cost. Can the Minister clarify—if not now, in a letter?

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the three amendments here are interesting. The noble Baroness is well aware that we share the same concerns as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, regarding shared owners. I was allowed to gatecrash their meeting. I admit that it was eye-opening for me. I was aware of the issues around shared ownership, but I was shocked at the costs incurred and the amounts of money lost, which the noble Lord has amplified superbly. I hope the noble Baroness can give us some way forward on this and other issues that seriously affect shared owners—accidental landlords who are trapped in the situations the noble Lord has accurately described and see no way out. The “What can I do?” was quite revealing. It is no surprise that we will support Amendment 59.

We know that the not-able-to-sell situation applies to thousands of shared owners—far greater numbers than, I suspect, Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, applies to. This is yet another area in the Bill where we do not know the numbers. We do not know how many homes will be affected. I have to pay credit to the noble Lord because Amendment 58 has been patiently worked on and lobbied for by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I completely understand where he is coming from but perhaps do not agree that the detriment to the relatively few landlords who find they cannot sell their property is worth the abuses that might occur if prohibition on re-letting is reduced to six months rather than 12 as in the Bill. Perhaps this is an area for some compromise.

I have a simple question, and I am sure somebody will tell me I am wrong. If I genuinely wanted to sell my property and realise my capital for whatever reason, given the amount of time to evict, I would probably not serve notice to my tenant until I had sold my property. I can serve the notice; the process of selling, conveyancing and everything else carries on; the tenant leaves at the appropriate time; the buyers exchange contracts and we say, “You can’t move in until that time”. I do not see how that would be unachievable. I am sure somebody will tell me why that would not be the case. I certainly would not evict them before I put it on the market or had some sense of the market or of how things were. As I said in Committee, a letting agent said to me, “All houses will sell, Dorothy. It just depends on the price”.

Amendment 41, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is clearly designed to act as a disincentive to landlords trying to abuse this ground, but maybe if the landlord is genuine, it is just a little too draconian. We broadly agree that the Bill has got this right, as far as we can tell.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to offer my full support to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 59 addresses a significant gap in the Bill by providing a vital exemption for shared ownership leaseholders from certain provisions within Clause 14. Shared ownership is an important tenure model that enables many people to take their first step on to the housing ladder, yet it is not without its challenges, particularly when sales fall through, as my noble friend has highlighted. Amendment 59 is a sensible and necessary provision that recognises the realities faced by shared ownership landlords. Protecting this group helps to maintain confidence in shared ownership and prevents unintended consequences that could undermine the Bill’s original intent. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is minded to test the opinion of the House, the Opposition will support him without hesitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I support the indefatigable and noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his Amendment 46. I find it plainly obvious that rent needs to be paid before occupation. I can find preciously few examples of anyone paying for goods and services after they are contracted or consumed. An obvious example is a railway ticket or an air ticket. No one goes to the cinema and pays after the performance or takes a litre of milk at Tesco and then pays after drinking it: it is just not acceptable.

Participating in the private rented sector, as either landlord or tenant, is a serious business. The landlord has made a major investment and may have a mortgage to service, among other costs. A tenant is looking for a safe and secure tenancy which incorporates decent home standards: he is well aware of the financial obligation. Without this amendment, the landlord would be laid open to the possibility of four months with no rent and a longer eviction process under Section 8, possibly taking seven months or so. The position of a landlord is a commercial business, not a public service. I urge the Minister to accept this rather obvious amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in view of the time, I will speak briefly to Amendment 43. I could simply say the first sentence: “We are strongly opposed to rent in advance because it is discriminatory”.

This amendment is being framed as a cosy option where tenants and landlords can reach a mutual agreement as to whether or not they will do this. No, I do not believe that. If allowed, it will become, as now, a requirement. In effect, it will become a bidding war by any other name, and landlords have their pick of tenants: Zoopla has just reported that there are between 20 and 25 punters for each property and at least 20 requests to view each property. Landlords can pick, it is a beauty parade, so they can choose the tenants who have the money to give them six months’ rent up front against those who just do not have those advantages. But those same people can still afford to pay the rent and would still make good tenants.

We are opposed to anything that prices out poor renters in hot rental market areas. We refute the argument being discussed by landlord groups that this is an option for niche circumstances that allows people to access housing; for example, as was said, where people might struggle with credit checks. If you are struggling with credit checks, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to pay six months’ rent in advance. In a very modest property in Watford, six months in advance is between £6,000 and £8,000. That is a lot of money.

We know that landlords and letting agents often use it as a barrier to reject tenants relying on universal credit or housing benefit, preventing them accepting a tenancy, which means that only those with savings or family support to draw on will comply, which those on low incomes are less likely to have. Shelter tells us that six in 10 renters have been asked for it and over 800,000 people in one of its surveys say they were not able to secure a property because of the demand for rent in advance. The Bill aims to prevent discrimination against renters on benefits. This amendment would allow it by the back door.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their amendments on rent in advance, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking.

The Government have been very clear in their view that the charging of rent in advance is unfair. I have not heard anything this evening that has changed my mind on that. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Six months’ rent is a significant amount of money. For some renters, this will be their entire savings, which were perhaps carefully built up with the ambition of being put towards a deposit on a first home. For many others, it will be an amount of savings which is simply unreachable.

I recognise that it is the noble Baroness’s intention for it to be possible to request large amounts of rent in advance only where this has been previously agreed by the tenant and landlord. However, we must consider what this means in practice. It would allow a landlord, at the pre-letting stage, to insist on a tenancy agreement which would permit them to require up to six months’ rent in advance. In hot rental markets, we could expect such clauses to become simply a fact of renting. This could leave tenants with the “choice” of stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak strongly in favour of Amendment 1. I declare my interests as I rent properties in Norwich and commercial properties in Great Yarmouth through a directorship.

We live in a free-market economy, which is underpinned by the law of contract, a codified agreement between consenting counterparties. Of course, we must have safeguards and regulatory guard-rails to ensure that one party does not hold the other over a barrel, but the freedom of contract so that mutual needs can be codified and agreed is a fundamental part of the way in which we live and is one of the reasons why we have so many learned friends in this place.

I want to give some examples, from my experience as a landlord, of the type of persons who value the ability to customise the standard contract to suit themselves by entering into a fixed term. It is not the majority, but it is a significant proportion that cannot just be wished away. They include: employees on a fixed-term employment contract engaged in a particular project; students, singly or more commonly in groups, who want to secure their ideal house in advance and are able to do so only if the current occupants are sure to vacate in the summer; the busy doctor, who gets passed around the hospitals each August; and the foreign person, who is used to the concept of fixed terms in their own country and cannot understand what business it is of the state to interfere in these private arrangements. Those tenants value contract certainty so that they can focus on their work and generate wealth for our nation.

I like this amendment because it gives an additional benefit to the tenant: not just the fixed tenancy but the fixed rent. That seems a fair compromise, not least because the landlord does not need to price uncertainty into the contract—the uncertainty of a void. As a landlord I value certainty, even at the expense of locking out rent rises, because if I know there will not be a void, I can give a better price and everybody wins. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

The Government boast a commitment to

“transform the experience of private renting”.

They are doing that all right; they are making it harder for a significant minority to meet their reasonable needs. There are so many unintended consequences—the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Truscott, mentioned some of them. For a moment I thought I was going to be on my own, but I am delighted to see that there is cross-party consensus on the importance of this amendment.

I too was thinking about the abuse in holiday hotspots, where it is common ground that we want to encourage year-round occupation of homes in these coastal areas—although not the second council tax that appears to be emerging alongside. I fear the unintended consequences of this Bill. Let us contemplate a tenancy in Cornwall, taking on in June. The proposed tenant says, “Yes, I’m going to stay for a whole year”, but in the event they leave just after the August bank holiday. The problem is that by giving two months’ notice, it is a clear abuse; and to counter that abuse, landlords will factor in the risk of the vacancy. So they will jack up rents, and the person who genuinely does want to stay for the whole year is disadvantaged. Of course, they may wish to show good faith by paying in advance, but that will be discarded as well. I just cannot see how this helps anyone.

I will talk about students in more detail later, but I am concerned that we are going to seriously disrupt the student market, not just for their convenience. Often in freshers’ week—I saw it in my own experience when I was younger—friendship groups get rammed together and pretty quickly decide they want to go into a house together, and why not? Halls do not suit anybody. The purpose of the fixed tenancy is the discipline that binds them all together. They are not related—at least not when they start; I have been in houses where that does happen—but you get a situation where one person may want to quit half way through, and it reverses the obligation. Rather than that person being forced to find another student to take his or her place, it becomes the obligation of all his former friends to undertake that core activity. The responsibility is flipped, and I do not think that is good either.

There are so many other things I could say, but this is a good amendment. It does not wreck the Bill but enhances it. It works with the grain of the way a significant minority of people, consenting adults, wish to conduct their affairs and come to a sensible contract for those it suits. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said. There are limits to where the state should interfere; it should allow free citizens to exercise the choices that they should be entitled to make. This amendment deserves our full support.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I listened almost with shock at what noble Lords were saying because I feel as if I am living in an alternate universe. They live in the cosy one—I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, talked about him and his wife as landlords, and I can absolutely believe that his tenants loved him and enjoyed living with him. But sadly, that is not reality—it is not the situation. People say the Government have no right to interfere; if a Government have no right to interfere in making a roof over people’s heads—the basic issue of having a home—part of government business, please tell me what they can interfere in. Defence of the realm, yes, but ensuring that people can have a safe, secure, affordable home certainly has to be the business of government.

This Bill is scarily radical. I am often guilty of saying that the rhetoric does not match up to the reality, but the rhetoric around this Bill—the biggest changes since whenever, radically changing the system—is correct. The system is meant to be changed because it is broken. It is very brave and very bold. His Majesty’s Official Opposition probably think it is very stupid, which they are entitled to think because that is their job. The real issue around this Bill is that we are leaping into the unknown. We do not know what the impact will be. We have been told that Armageddon will happen; we will have to see. We and the Official Opposition do agree that there should be formal reviews in the Bill where its impact can be scrutinised in Parliament in full—because it is that radical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities, but it is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. It undermines community spirit, leaving tenants feeling trapped and helpless. It strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. Too often we overlook the consequences. It is not just the cost of repairs, increased security and time-consuming administration of complaints, placing an unsustainable burden on housing associations and local authorities, but the misery and social breakdown it can cause in communities. As currently drafted, the Bill weakens the powers available to local authorities and social landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why we have sought to bring back Amendment 3 today to preserve the ability of social landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour.

Demotion is not about punishment for its own sake. It is a vital tool—a proportionate deterrent that enables landlords to uphold community stability. Whether it is loud noise, vandalism or intimidation of tenants, those engaging in persistent anti-social behaviour must know there are consequences. Without the option to demote, how are landlords expected to maintain safety and harmony in their communities? Those with experience in local government will know that when a tenant causes disruption, it is often the landlord who receives the enforcement pressure from the council. If landlords are to be held to account, they must also be empowered to act. Amendment 3 would ensure that social landlords retain this power. It is not a radical departure but a practical necessity to deal with real-world situations where one tenant’s behaviour causes misery to many others.

This is about protecting the quiet minority—the families, the elderly and the vulnerable who rely on their home being a place of safety. It is about ensuring that social landlords are not left powerless in the face of persistent disruption. I urge the Government to reflect on the value of demotion as a tool of last resort and the message it sends that anti-social behaviour has consequences and that community cohesion matters. In conclusion, if we are serious about supporting tenants and local authorities, we must ensure they have the tools to act decisively and fairly. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we say ditto to every single thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about anti-social behaviour. We all know it blights people’s lives and how difficult it is to stem it. We have arrangements where councils work with their local strategic partnerships to deal with it. Nobody is disputing that.

The reason we have come to the conclusion that demoted tenancies are not needed is really very simple. I contacted the National Housing Federation, whose members are social housing providers. It genuinely does not see a need. It is comfortable enough with the Bill and how it deals with anti-social behaviour. It wants to know that it has effective tools to deal with anti-social behaviour and is concerned about the capacity of the courts to deal with evictions based on anti-social behaviour.

My instinct straightaway was to support the amendment on demoted tenancies, but the National Housing Federation said it did not see the point of it but did want to know that it was going to get the tools to deal with things. Many providers, ones I know personally, feel that they deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, including my own council and I suspect the Minister’s. They were concerned about having those tools and the capacity of the courts to deal with that ground when they choose to use it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this amendment. It seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. I can honestly say that one of the most frustrating things I dealt with in 27 years as a councillor was anti-social behaviour. While we all agree with the need for tackling the blight of anti-social behaviour on individuals and communities as a priority, I cannot accept the amendment as a way of dealing with that. It would fundamentally go against one of the core principles of the Renters’ Rights Bill—to improve security of tenure for renters. There is also a technical reason, which I shall come to shortly.

The amendment would seemingly enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy. As I said in Committee, as drafted, the amendment would not work: the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure whereby assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict a shorthold tenant via Section 21 are abolished. There will, therefore, no longer be a tenancy with lower security to which one can demote tenants. For the amendment to work, a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies would be required.

Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many councils and housing associations already do a great job in tackling this in partnership with each other, but I accept that it can still be an issue.

The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. The Bill also amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under that discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.

For all those reasons, we feel that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 22 from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. I declare my direct interests in the private rented sector, with lettings of cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, and in direct farming and agricultural lettings in those counties. I said in Committee that a number of Bills, reviews and reports are in motion that cover the whole issue of farm and other diversification in rural areas, which the Government are keen to encourage in the light of falling profitability in farming, as subsidies are withdrawn or concentrated on environmental activities and concerns.

Farmers are therefore looking carefully at their assets to see whether they can be put to a more profitable use. Obviously, this can involve farmstead cottages and buildings, rather than just stand-alone farm buildings. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is relevant in this context, together with the rural England prosperity fund, which specifically targets facilities and building conversions that help rural businesses to diversify.

This amendment would assist in enabling diversification if the necessary planning permission has been granted or there is a permitted development right. I am thoroughly aware that the Minister is keen to protect all assured tenants from eviction for whatever reason, and keen not to reduce the housing stock. However, in granting that planning permission, the authorities will already have given due consideration to the potential conversion and any loss of residential buildings through change of use. They will have agreed that the merits of the planned development outweigh the retention of the residents. I therefore hope the Minister will include this new ground 8A amendment as a sensible ground for possession, which would assist in the development of the rural economy.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will mainly speak to Amendments 4 and 21. It is fairly obvious that we will support Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.

We have a problem with Amendment 4—or we did to start with, but then I took legal advice. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asserted that we needed clarity and consistency across the Bill. I suspect we have more lawyers than any other profession in this House, and guess what: I got slightly different answers. However, the message was quite consistent: we absolutely do not need to have the same definition of family, in this case, across a whole Bill because we are dealing with very specific, different things.

My understanding is—and I am certain that the Minister will correct me if I have this slightly wrong—that the amendment to ground 1 deals with the diversity of the modern family and the kind of things that can happen, but it is about the repossession ground, so it has been drawn fairly tightly for obvious reasons. However, the definition in Clause 20 is clearly broader because it relates to the removal of the guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. It is a sympathetic amendment and a sympathetic broadening, casting the net a little bit more widely, as it seeks to protect bereaved families, whereas we necessarily want to keep the definition in ground 1 fairly tight to avoid abuse. We have resolved our position on that, so we will not support Amendment 4.

I want to hear what the Minister has to say on Amendments 22 and 23, because I believe there are grounds to do what they would do already in the Bill. I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s response to those amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Carrington, for their contributions to the debate.

Amendment 4 seeks to expand the definition of “family member” for the purpose of the moving-in ground, ground 1, to a much wider range of relations. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into a property. This amendment would allow landlords to evict their tenants in order to house nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins. It would enable the ground to be used to house the equivalent relatives of their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee. The family members we have chosen who can move in under ground 1 aim to reflect the diversity of modern families, but this is balanced with security of tenure for the existing tenant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated.

I appreciate that this draws the line short of where some might hope, but to go too far would open up tenants to evictions for a wide range of people, potentially very significant numbers of cousins, nieces and nephews, where families are large. I know that this depends on families—it would certainly be a large number in my family. This would provide more opportunities for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system. It is right that the definition used here is narrower than the definition in Clause 20, which removes guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. That is because this is a possession ground, so it results in people losing their homes; whereas Clause 20 protects bereaved families, where the net should be cast more widely.

Amendment 21 aims to introduce a new ground for possession that would permit the landlord to seek possession of their property for the purpose of housing a carer for them or a member of their family who lives with them. This is qualified by the requirement that the property is within sufficient proximity to the landlord’s residence to facilitate emergency callouts. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their considered and passionate engagement on this proposed ground in Committee and when I met Peers to discuss the proposal in the run-up to Report. I recognise the difficulties they highlighted that may be faced by landlords who wish to evict their tenant in order to house a carer. We are all aware of the importance of carers and the remarkable work they do in supporting individuals and families in difficult circumstances. These amendments clearly come from a good place, and I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns.

However, there are some practical considerations that weaken the rationale for this intervention. Adding more possession grounds increases opportunities for abuse by those unscrupulous landlords who, sadly, exist in the market. We are committed to giving renters much greater security and stability so that they can stay in their homes for longer. That is why we have developed very specific grounds. We also think that there are very few landlords who would be in the position of both needing a carer and owning a second property close to their home to accommodate that carer. I appreciate the examples that both noble Baronesses gave. Given the potential risk of abuse and the very narrow group of people who might benefit from this ground, we do not think the additional ground is warranted. Our view is that it is not fair that a tenant should lose their home, with all the disruption that entails, in order for another person to be housed in those circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about supporting people into work, but this amendment might involve another local worker being evicted to house that carer. Indeed, if the evicted tenant were also a carer, it would be likely to deprive one of the very organisations that have been contacting noble Lords of a key member of their staff, so we have to be careful that we do not cause those kinds of circumstances.

Amendment 22 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that I too visited the King’s Cross development when I was looking at the development of the central part of Stevenage. The work that has been done there is fantastic.

As I stated in Committee, in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I do not believe that the proposal in Amendment 22 is the right approach. The Government have thought carefully about where landlords should be able to take possession of their properties, particularly where it would lead to a tenant losing their home through no fault of their own.

Encouraging residential lets to be converted to other uses, at a time of such chronic pressure on housing supply, would not be right. It is for the same reason that the Bill abolishes ground 3, which enables landlords to evict long-term tenants in order to turn the dwelling into a holiday let. Where landlords wish to convert their property to non-residential use, it is right that they should do this as tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant who has done nothing wrong.

It is also worth noting—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to—that the existing redevelopment ground, ground 6, could potentially be used in some circumstances. This is the right approach, not the approach put forward in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.

I turn to Amendment 23. This well-intentioned amendment would create a new mandatory possession ground to allow landlords to evict tenants in order to redevelop their property, if they have received planning permission for the works and these works cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that landlords will already be able to evict in these circumstances. They can do this by using the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6. This also does not require the landlord to prove that they have planning permission, which may not be necessary in all circumstances. In effect, this proposed new ground would merely duplicate ground 6, but with additional constraints. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 20 in this group and declare an interest as a former landlord. Amendment 20 was tabled in Committee, but I have retabled it because I do not feel I have had an adequate answer from the Government. The amendment would continue to permit rent arrears which arise from non-payment of universal credit to be taken into account as a ground for possession. Not to do so is unworkable and unfair.

Taking unworkable first, since this is the point which must surely concern the Minister, I suggest that it is unworkable because, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know, under data protection rules, whether a tenant is in receipt of universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions is not allowed to tell them. As such, the landlord will have no idea whether rent arrears are due to a non-payment of universal credit and, unbeknownst to them, will be legally prevented from taking enforcement action. A landlord might discover that rent arrears were due to a delayed universal credit payment and therefore unenforceable only once the case reaches court, thereby piling yet further quite unnecessary pressure on the justice system. This creates significant uncertainty and risk for responsible landlords, particularly smaller landlords. Disregarding non-payment of universal credit is therefore completely unworkable. It will lead to unnecessary enforcement action, which is surely the last thing this new system needs.

Turning to why it is unfair, I ask why the landlord should be penalised if the non-payment of universal credit is the fault of the universal credit system breaking down in some way. This is especially problematic for landlords renting out just one or two properties who rely on timely payments to meet their own financial obligations. If the Government are serious about sustaining tenancies, then addressing the root causes of delayed benefit payments would be more effective. In other words, protecting tenants from administrative delays should be the job of the welfare system, not landlords. Otherwise, the upshot could well be that landlords will be much more cautious about taking on tenants on universal credit. Is that what Ministers really want?

In response to this amendment in Committee, the Minister told your Lordships on 24 April:

“It is important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue, with tenants protected from one-off financial shocks. For example, it is feasible that a tenant who lost their job and had to apply for universal credit could breach the arrears threshold while waiting for their first payment. Evicting that tenant and potentially making them homeless would not help the situation, whereas giving them chances to resolve the arrears would ensure that the tenancy could continue, benefiting both them and the landlord and ensuring that the landlord was able to claim the arrears once the payments were made”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 842.]


With great respect to the Minister, I cannot help feeling that this is slightly naive. Is it really of benefit to a landlord to ensure that the tenancy continues when a tenant has accrued three months’ worth of arrears and, in the process, may have seriously damaged the landlord’s financial position—for example, in being unable to support their family or unable to pay the mortgage and forced to take enforcement action? Why should landlords be penalised for the state’s failure to pay universal credit promptly?

Paragraph 24(d) of Schedule 1 should therefore be omitted. It is unworkable and unfair. If, however, the Minister continues to think that paragraph 24(d) is fair on landlords, can she at least give some assurance that they will have a way—notwithstanding the data protection rules—of finding out whether rent arrears are due to delays in payment of universal credit, so as to avoid clogging up the tribunal system with unenforceable claims?

I can help the noble Baroness here, because Section 16 of the Data Protection Act—a Henry VIII power, in fact—enables the Act to be amended so that the list of exemptions in Schedule 2 to that Act is expanded. It could be amended in that way by regulations to enable the landlord to know whether rent arrears are due to delays in universal credit. This would not deal with the fairness points I have made but would deal with the unworkability points. If the Minister were able to give the assurance that the tribunal system will not be clogged up with unenforceable claims, I would not press my amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, much of what we have been debating is about balance. We have heard that word a lot today, and I guess it is fairly obvious to noble Lords by now that when it comes to a balance, we come down in favour of the tenant. We believe the balance has been tilted very much the other way from time immemorial due to the complete lack of supply, the lack of social housing and the beauty parade whereby landlords can choose whom they want to let their properties to.

We feel that the Bill intentionally aims to give tenants more time to address their financial difficulties and therefore avoid eviction. We believe that is the right and the moral thing to do because of the additional cost to society of more homeless and evicted people and more costs to local authorities; it is a nasty, invidious vicious circle. But we do not totally have rose-coloured specs on: we seek reassurances from the Minister that landlords have robust grounds for possession, when necessary, when it comes to arrears. We all know that arrears are painful for landlords, especially if they still have a mortgage, but the good news is that most of them do not. In the situation that the noble Baroness outlined of a couple having one or two houses to rent for their pension—generally properties that were inherited from their parents that they decided to rent out—almost half of landlords do not have a mortgage, and a further 20-something per cent have only small mortgages. More than 70% of landlords are not in a dire financial situation and, as someone rather flamboyantly said, needing to feed their families. I see no evidence of that.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is something like that popular old spaghetti Western, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”.

Let us begin with the good. Chief among these aspects is the strong recognition that the status quo is no longer working. Infrastructure delivery has been sluggish, housing needs remain unmet, and many local authorities are still grappling with outdated planning frameworks and, as has been said, many do not have an up-to-date local plan.

The icing on the cake for me is the welcome return of strategic planning, and with it, empowered development corporations. These aspects were missing previously, and both are welcome and overdue. The emphasis on streamlining nationally significant infrastructure is in principle sensible if we want to tackle the climate crisis, deliver on net zero and provide energy security. We simply cannot have vital infrastructure mired in red tape for years on end.

Similarly, the focus on digitisation and data-led planning is very much a step in the right direction. If digital tools mean that more people can engage meaningfully with the process, that is a win for both democracy and delivery.

I also acknowledge the proposed reforms to compulsory purchase powers. If handled fairly and transparently, that could enable more strategic regeneration in brownfield development, which has to be preferable to the continued encroachment on our green belt.

But then we come to the bad. The Bill talks a good game about speeding up delivery but, first, we must not conflate delivery with planning permissions. As has been said, there are hundreds of thousands of units already with permission that are simply not being built. Let us have some courage and address the broken land market and the incentives that currently reward land banking. That is not about red tape but about political will.

Throughout the Bill, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords, there is a concern about capacity to deliver. Our local authorities are expected to implement much of the Bill and, as we have heard, they are already overstretched, underfunded and struggling to recruit and retain skilled planning officers. I know the Minister will tell us of the Government’s plans and funding to remedy this long-standing problem, but the gap between these plans and their achieving fruit—that is, people in post, doing the job—is one of many years. How will the Government fill that gap? There certainly is not time here to comment on the capacity within the construction industry, which is also demonstrably lacking, but the Minister may well have an update for us on that.

The Bill treads worryingly into overcentralisation. I understand the driver for that after decades of failure, but we must not fall into the trap of sidelining local voices in the name of speeding up the process. From experience, I know that the best planning outcomes emerge when communities, councillors and developers collaborate within a coherent framework, which I hope the spatial development strategies will provide. The Bill needs to be clear about the value of the public’s voice and the appropriate place for it to be heard.

It is clear, even from our debate, that Part 3 has attracted the most concern: measures which replace robust environmental safeguards with a financial levy. There are concerns that changes to the environmental assessment may risk weakening vital safeguards. We need to be certain that the new processes will uphold our biodiversity, our heritage and climate commitments. We must insist that any levy achieves significant improvement, not mere compensation.

On the ugly, as we have observed in other Bills, and increasingly so, there is a tendency to present undeveloped legislation that lacks detailed policy and grants Ministers broad delegated powers to fill in the gaps later. Most notable in this Bill is the proposed national scheme of delegation. That is a significant shift, with substantial powers given to the Secretary of State and where we are yet again asked to give the Government a blank cheque on matters of national significance and some controversy.

Disappointingly absent are provisions to strengthen community engagement, empower neighbourhood planning and bolster community land trusts—measures that empower citizens to shape their places rather than merely react to what developers propose. Indeed, I urge the Government to consider that a vision for high-quality design is a core component of the spatial development strategies, created with communities rather than handed down to them. We will support the good, amend the bad, and call out the ugly.

Social Housing

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, it would be churlish not to recognise the amount of money being put into social housing, but the Opposition will always say it is never enough so: it is never enough. The Minister will be aware that the barriers to building and delivering social housing are neither just financial nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, just around building safety; both the Section 106 route and the affordable homes programme have their problems for developers and providers. Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to overcome these barriers? In particular, are the Government considering reforming Section 106? Can she tell us when we will know what percentage of the affordable homes programme will be used for social housing, rather than so-called affordable housing, which is very unaffordable for many?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the second part of the noble Baroness’s question, we are working on how we will deliver the split between affordable and social housing. Of course, both are important to the sector, and we will come forward with further information on that. On the Section 106 issues and the other barriers in the housing system, I was very pleased that the changes to the NPPF were made this year, because they will help. We have a new homes accelerator in the department, where developers or local authorities can come forward to help remove the barriers that are getting in the way. I will come back to the noble Baroness on her question about Section 106.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

223: Clause 76, page 110, line 18, at end insert—
“(d) entries in respect of all landlord notices served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, to be registered within 7 days of service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require entries to the database to include notices served under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 within 7 days of registration.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I reassure noble Lords, with regard to time, that the amendments in this group, in my name and those of other noble Lords —and there are a quite a lot of them—all work together and function as a pack. Therefore, my description of these amendments working together will actually be quite brief. The amendments look to strengthen the link between compliance with the private rented sector database and the lawful use of eviction powers. I appreciate that I am pushing the envelope a little bit and I will be genuinely interested in the Minister’s response.

These amendments are rooted in a very simple principle. If we expect landlords to meet minimum legal obligations—and we do, and we hope for more compliance: that is what the whole Bill is about—such as registering on the new database, which, following our previous discussions, is going to be the whizziest, wonderful game-changer, there really must be meaningful consequences when they do not. Currently, the Bill does not explicitly tie database compliance to a landlord’s ability to issue a Section 8 notice. These amendments aim to correct that, or at least to open up a discussion about it.

Amendment 223 would require landlords to register any Section 8 eviction notice on the database within seven days of issuing it. This would support greater transparency, help local landlords and tenants track patterns of use and ensure that there is a reliable record of how and when eviction powers are being exercised. Can the Minister say how we gather that data accurately, if not through this? It is important data and without it we lose very valuable oversight.

Amendments 235, 238, 239 and 240 would prevent a Section 8 eviction notice being considered valid if the landlord has failed to comply with Clause 83(3) of the Bill—namely, the obligation to register themselves and their dwelling on the database. These are not minor or excessive requirements; they are fundamental baseline requirements for responsible landlords. It is entirely reasonable to say that, if these duties are not met, a landlord should not be able to proceed with eviction.

Amendment 236 provides necessary clarification, ensuring that this requirement applies to the entirety of subsection (3) and not just selected parts. Taken together, this group helps to make the database a functioning gatekeeper for landlord compliance. It reinforces the idea that legal powers, especially those as significant as eviction, should be available only to those who follow the rules. That in turn builds confidence in the system and protects tenants from being displaced by landlords who are themselves acting unlawfully. I hope the Minister will look carefully at these proposals. They are proportionate and targeted and go to the heart of what this reform is meant to achieve: a fairer and more accountable rental sector. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for opening this group. The issues of database fees and possession restrictions are of real significance, and this group is therefore of considerable importance. Before turning to the wider contributions made today, I will speak to the amendments in this group that I have tabled. Amendment 228C seeks to probe the circumstances under which a landlord may be charged a fee under the regulations made under Clause 80. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on this point. Under what conditions do the Government foresee such charges being applied?

Amendment 228E, also in my name, would prevent the costs of enforcement action against non-compliant landlords being charged to those who have complied with the requirements of this chapter. This part of the Bill seems entirely unfair on law-abiding landlords. We want to understand why landlords who are compliant must bear the costs of enforcement taken against those landlords who fail to comply with the law. Could the Minister explain why compliant landlords must bear the costs of enforcement targeted at those who fail to meet their legal obligations?

Amendment 228F seeks to remove subsection (4)(d), which includes the costs of enforcement action imposed by the Bill in relation to the private rented sector. Our original understanding was that these fees were intended to relate to the database, but this paragraph seems to be a classic case of Ministers seeking additional and wider-ranging powers as a belt-and-braces approach. This is not an acceptable way forward. We understand completely that the database must be funded and we accept that a fee is reasonable, but we need to make sure that the fees charged under this clause remain reasonable. We know that this will increase the costs of business for landlords, so we need to ensure that the costs are both reasonable and proportionate. We are concerned that this wide definition of “relevant costs” may result in unreasonably high costs.

Perhaps I can press the Minister to give the Committee some sense of what the fees will be like, and how increases will be managed. Ultimately, we must bear in mind that it is usually the tenants who bear these costs through their rents in the future. Overall, what are the predicted costs of setting up and running the database, and what are the costs likely to be to the landlord?

Many landlords are small-scale and independent; they are not corporate landlords, with legal teams and financial reserves. They are ordinary individuals, often renting out one or two properties as a way to supplement their pension or to provide long-term family support. For the database to function as intended, it must be financially accessible.

On Amendment 228G, clear communication of the changes of fees is essential. It builds trust and helps people plan their finances, but it also avoids any confusion or frustration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down— I am probably breaking the rules, but I do so for very good reason—I want to state to the Committee that that she was quite right on Amendment 237, and I was quite wrong.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I absolutely accept that my amendments were pushing at the boundaries. However, at their heart is protecting tenants from being evicted by a landlord who is acting unlawfully, almost as a matter of principle.

However, I accept that the Minister is confident that the Bill as it stands should drive compliance and that, therefore, my amendments will be unnecessary. My answer to that is that only time will tell. That leads us to group 13, where we will talk about reviews and why we need them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who articulated some concerns and felt that maybe we could open a dialogue on this issue. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 223 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

226: Clause 77, page 111, line 9, at end insert—
“(e) create provisions for financial penalties for non-compliance with the requirements for a database entry, including, but not limited to, provision for a rent repayment order where a person has failed to ensure that a required entry is up-to-date and active.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include rent repayments orders for non-registration of the database created under this Act.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am working overtime tonight. In moving my Amendment 226 I will speak to my Amendment 257 and support a number of important amendments in this group, including those from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, whose contributions I look forward to.

As colleagues will know, rent repayment orders remain one of the few enforcement mechanisms that are available directly to tenants. That is the key. They are not just about recompense; they are about ensuring that landlords meet their legal obligations and that tenants are protected when they do not, and recompense is made. Amendment 226 seeks to ensure that rent repayment orders can be applied where a landlord has failed to register on the private sector database established by the Bill. If we are serious about transparency and raising standards, non-compliance with the system we are creating must carry real consequences. I am starting to feel like a broken record, but noble Lords will get the message. Otherwise, the credibility of the database and the wider enforcement regime is seriously undermined.

Amendment 257 seeks to extend rent repayment orders further to cover cases where landlords have failed to join a redress scheme or maintain active entries on the new database. This amendment relates strongly to amendments in the previous group and on the enforceability of the database. If we want a rental system that is responsive, accountable and fair, we must ensure that tenants have clear recourse when landlords do not engage with these fundamental duties.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for Amendment 244A, which adjusts the standard proof in some cases to the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. This change is both proportionate and pragmatic. We know that gathering evidence can be an enormous burden for tenants. This amendment helps to address that imbalance while preserving important legal safeguards in more serious cases.

I also welcome the suite of government amendments in this group, which bring clarity to how rent repayment amounts are calculated and to which offences fall within scope. These amendments, particularly those aligning the repayment period with a two-year window, provide much-needed consistency and support effective enforcement. The inclusion of new categories of offence and consequential changes to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are helpful and align with the overall intent of the Bill. However, I gently emphasise that, while the government amendments are welcome, they will be significantly strengthened by the additions proposed in my amendments. There is little point in creating systems to register landlords and offer redress if we do not give tribunals the power to act when landlords ignore them. Rent repayment orders are not a silver bullet, but they are an important tool to renters. We should not pass up the opportunity to make them more robust, more comprehensive and more effective in practice. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because I agreed with every word she said in her excellent opening speech. I will speak to Amendment 244A in my name. This amendment would apply the civil standard of proof for rent repayment orders pursued only on the basis of a Protection from Eviction Act offence. By changing the evidential standard for these rent repayment orders from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “balance of probabilities”, Amendment 244A will provide parity with the normal work of the tribunal and provide encouragement to tenants and those who assist them to claim redress, which was Parliament’s intention by including Protection from Eviction Act offences among the things that rent repayment orders could be claimed for. In short, the current requirement of a criminal standard of proof thwarts that intention.

Rent repayment orders are brought in the first-tier property tribunal, and the first-tier property tribunal is not a criminal court. A rent repayment order is not a criminal prosecution. The first-tier property tribunal does not follow criminal procedural rules or result in a criminal sentence or criminal record if a defendant is convicted. However, the tribunals require a criminal standard of proof. In addition, rent repayment orders are often brought by self-represented applicants seeking to reclaim rent they have paid to their landlord as compensation, and legal aid is not available for rent repayment order claims. For these reasons alone, it is therefore inappropriate that rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences should apply the criminal standard of proof.

Moreover, a civil claim in a civil court for a legal eviction or harassment applies the civil standard. This is despite the fact that civil claims typically attract much higher penalties in the form of civil damages, rather than just the chance to apply for repayment of rent paid. It is therefore logical and consistent to apply the civil standard of proof to Protection from Eviction Act rent repayment orders in line with the rest of the civil law, and this is what Amendment 244A does.

Why does getting rid of this illogical anomaly matter? First, the nature of Protection from Eviction Act offences means they are often impossible to prove to the criminal standard. Often, landlords change the locks on tenants and dispose of their possessions when renters are not at home. Illegal evictions and harassment occur in the privacy of a renter’s home, often without witnesses. The criminal burden places an extra, often insurmountable, burden on lay applicants to prove their case at tribunal. It also has a chilling effect of preventing claims being brought in the first place, as the evidence available for these offences is unlikely to meet the standard. Under the standard, therefore, renters cannot apply for rent repayment orders as they cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, even where it is clear that an offence has occurred that only the landlord would be motivated to commit. This weakens enforcement and access to justice, and undermines the whole purpose of the rent repayment order legislation.

Secondly, the incredibly low number of rent repayment orders for Protection from Eviction Act offences demonstrates that the system is not working. Safer Renting and the University of York have done research which estimates that over the two-year period from 2021 to 2022, there were at least 16,000 illegal evictions—a figure which is almost certainly an undercount.

Meanwhile, data gathered by the organisation Marks Out Of Tenancy shows that, over the same time period, there were just 31 rent repayment orders on the Protection from Eviction Act ground that were successful. Despite the large number of illegal evictions recorded by individuals and organisations assisting them, people are not applying for rent repayment orders as a source of redress. The higher criminal standard results in tenants and those assisting them considering an application not worth pursuing.

Thirdly and finally, with the forthcoming abolition of Section 21, criminal and unscrupulous landlords, who are the minority of landlords, might take a calculated risk that they can save money by unlawfully evicting or harassing their tenants, as they know how hard it is for tenants to enforce against them in the First-tier Tribunal. Rent repayment orders are realistically the only option for renters to enforce their rights without legal representation. It therefore has never been more important to strengthen the rent repayment order regime for Protection from Eviction Act offences so that renters can enforce their rights and gain access to justice for these life-changing offences.

These offences are some of the most egregious a landlord can commit—illegal eviction, attempted illegal eviction and harassment. The physical, mental and financial impact of these offences on renters and their families cannot be overstated. I look forward to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s reply. I am sure she will want to reflect on the wider debate today. I hope she will agree to meet with me and Safer Renting—experts in this field—to discuss the aim of Amendment 244 before Report to see what can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments relating to rent repayment orders. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.

I will begin by responding to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 226 seeks to extend penalties for non-compliance with private rented sector database requirements. The Bill already includes a clear, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties against those who flout the rules. For initial or less serious non-compliance, local authorities can impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said she was beginning to sound like a stuck record; now I feel like that as well. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, to a first failure by a landlord to register.

For serious or repeat non-compliance, local authorities can prosecute or, alternatively, issue a civil penalty of up to £40,000. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect. We will, through the Bill, significantly strengthen rent repayment orders because we believe they are a powerful mechanism for tenant-led enforcement.

In relation to the database, rent repayment orders are available where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator. They are also available where a landlord continues to fail to register or provide the required information to the database following a first penalty. These, though, are criminal offences, and it would not be appropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the database requirements. Rent repayment orders are intended to act as a punitive sanction against landlords who commit criminal offences. Extending them to conduct that does not amount to an offence would undermine this.

Similarly, Amendment 257 would make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman and initial failure to be registered with the PRS database. My view is, as before, that it may be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to these non-criminal breaches. The new ombudsman and database are fundamental parts of our reforms, and of a better private rented sector with greater accountability. It is vital that they are robustly enforced.

We think the routes of enforcement currently in the Bill represent an effective and proportionate approach. We will monitor the use and effectiveness of rent repayment orders under the new, strengthened regime and consider whether further changes are necessary. Therefore I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws her amendment.

Amendment 244A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeks to lower the standard of proof to which the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied before making a rent repayment order against a landlord for an offence of illegal eviction or harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She set out very clearly and concisely why she was putting that forward with a very convincing argument.

I am clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences and that offenders need to be robustly punished. I accept that this happens too rarely at the moment. We are seeking to address this through the Bill by extending civil penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, to illegal eviction and harassment offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

My noble friend pointed out that the First-tier Tribunal is not a criminal court and asked why the criminal standard of proof should apply. The rent repayment order regime is predicated on an offence having been committed, and it is an established principle in law that offences are taken to have been committed when proved beyond reasonable doubt. Creating a lower standard of proof for the same offences for a finding of guilt in the tribunal compared with the criminal courts would be confusing, inconsistent and could be subject to a successful challenge.

We are also placing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce against specified landlord legislation, which includes illegal eviction and harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and we are looking hard at how best we can support them do so effectively. This Government are determined to bear down harder on illegal eviction and harassment. We are concerned, though, about what impact this amendment could have on the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole.

Rent repayment orders are predicated on an offence being committed. As I said, they apply exclusively to criminal offences, and the penalty can be a very significant one. The changes that we are making through the Bill both double the maximum penalty to two years’ rent and extend the circumstances in which the tribunal must award that amount. I recognise that illegal eviction may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that is not a principled reason for a civil standard of proof to apply to obtaining a rent repayment order in respect of a serious criminal offence.

The severity of the penalties that, quite properly, apply in the rent repayment order regime mean that there would be serious questions about procedural fairness should the criminal standard of proof not be required. The criminal standard of proof will of course be required when a local authority issues a civil penalty for illegal eviction or harassment under new Section 1A of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. All the other rent repayment offences would remain to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Making rent repayment orders for illegal eviction and harassment subject to the civil standard of proof would create an anomaly and be a departure from a well-established position, which we consider would be hard to justify. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and Safer Renting but, for now, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.

I will end with a brief—I promise—explanation of the Government’s amendments in this area. This Government view rent repayment orders as a critical part of ensuring higher standards and better compliance in the private rented sector; that is why we have significantly expanded them through the Bill. Government Amendments 244 to 248 aim to ensure that they work as intended in their application to the offence of breaching the restricted period after relying on the moving and selling grounds of possession, and the amended licensing offences are described correctly.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions.

We all agree, I think, that it is really disappointing that rent repayment orders—such a valuable tool—are so rarely used. Let us hope that the changes outlined by the Minister work and that the whole renting culture changes, with tenants’ empowerment. As we have gone through this process, we are beginning to see all the impacts of the Bill and how they should all work together to produce that change; perhaps an increase in the number of RROs will be an indication that things are improving.

I follow the logic of the Minister’s arguments, as on my previous amendments, but I hope that we have given her food for thought. I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 226 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

I shall confine myself to two sentences, because the exposition from my noble friend covered the ground so admirably. I can only imagine the nightmarish, Kafkaesque scene whereby a family is being turned out of their home and call the police, who, if an officer turns out at all, take the side of the landlord, who is committing a criminal offence. What seems badly needed is the clear statutory guidance proposed by this amendment, coupled with the instruction that prevention of cruel and illegal evictions by landlords has to be grounds for both co-ordination and intervention by the relevant police force and the local housing authority working together. I support this amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I want to scratch lots of bits out, since the noble Lord, Lord Best, was so succinct.

Amendment 258 is in the name of Lord Cromwell and has notable signatories, and the noble Lord sold this amendment well. In short, this is an amendment that should not be needed, if the police and local authorities did their jobs correctly, as per the law, as outlined in the Protection from Eviction Act. This amendment is rightly seeking to reinforce what should be happening but we know is not. The already mentioned organisation, Safer Renting, monitored data from its clients over a given period, which revealed that, when the clients were going through an illegal eviction, and while it was in progress they called the police for assistance, worryingly in only 9% of cases did the police actually go to the property and assist the tenants. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, in 91% of cases they either failed to turn up, or turned up and sided with the landlord.

Interestingly, so concerned was Safer Renting about these statistics that it decided to do something about it. To its credit, in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and the GLA, it developed a training course for officers. Approximately 8,000 officers took the training but, sadly, this did not mean it recorded any significant improvement when talking to its clients, which begs a lot more questions that are probably not answerable here.

As has already been said by several noble Lords, it is imperative that the police understand the harassment before and during an illegal eviction—or, indeed, what constitutes criminal offences—and, most importantly, that they co-operate with the local authorities charged with the role of prosecuting these rogues and criminal landlords. Shockingly, that is not always happening. Safer Rentings’ illegal eviction count for England and Wales in 2022-23 showed 8,748 illegal evictions—that is one every 67 minutes.

It is not necessary for the police to prosecute these offences unless they witness criminal actions taking place alongside the eviction, but it is crucial for them to understand the law both to refer them to the local authority and to co-operate with the authority’s investigations. We support this amendment, but we hope the Minister will reassure us that it is not needed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, aims to provide greater clarity for local housing authorities and police forces in responding to cases of illegal eviction. Illegal eviction is a serious offence; it is not simply a housing matter but often a brazen abuse of power that leaves some of our most vulnerable renters without recourse. That said, we have reservations about the practicalities of this proposal, but I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, having asked the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, his views on it.

In essence, the amendment would place a statutory duty on police and councils to notify each other when a complaint of illegal eviction is received, to co-operate in investigating the offence and to take reasonable steps to assist the tenant. The intent here is understandable —tenants report illegal evictions and are, as we know, bounced between bodies, with the police saying it is a civil matter and councils struggling with limited capacity. Although the intent behind the amendment is undeniably well-meaning, we just have to pause and ask whether it might inadvertently entrench confusion within the statutory framework rather than resolving it.

Without clear definitions, the proposal to impose duties on local housing authorities and police forces to co-operate and assist opens the door to operational ambiguity. What exactly constitutes “reasonable steps to assist”, and what measurable outcomes are expected from this co-operation? Without these clarifications, there is a real risk of creating more confusion for the very tenants we want to protect.

We also want to be very careful about the practical burdens. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, both councils and police forces are grappling the whole time with existing resource shortages. This amendment adds new responsibilities without addressing the underlying issue of capacity. Should we not first evaluate whether these agencies are equipped to handle their current workload before we impose further duties? What assessments have been made of the additional resource implications of this?

There is great merit in the principle behind the amendment—namely, the need for clearer co-operation and more decisive enforcement—but there are significant questions about whether, as drafted, it achieves that aim in a proportional, workable manner.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I ask the Minister: is the guidance clear enough, particularly to police forces, that it is an illegal act and it is against the law? Is there enough guidance? Are they being told exactly what they have to do? Do local authorities have clear guidance about looking after the tenant, which is their responsibility if they have been evicted and they are homeless at the time? Can this not be done in a different way by insisting that the Home Office work with MHCLG to try to embed the guidance that is already there and insist that both organisations deliver what they should be delivering at the moment?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

263: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Review on impacts of the Act on private rented sector(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the impact of this Act on the private rented sector.(2) The review must, in particular, assess the impact of the Act on—(a) the supply of housing in the private rented sector,(b) rent levels and affordability,(c) the security of tenure for tenants,(d) the regulatory and financial burden on landlords, and(e) any other factors the Secretary of State considers relevant. (3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) representatives of tenants and landlords,(b) local housing authorities, and(c) any other persons or bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament no later than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.(5) The report must include—(a) the findings of the review, and(b) any recommendations for legislative or policy changes the Secretary of State considers necessary.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, and regulatory burdens, within two years of its enactment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 263 is in my name, and was kindly signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. My noble friends Lady Janke and Lady Grender will speak to their own amendments in this group, and we will all aim to be brief due to the lateness of the hour.

All through every day of this Committee, there has been a series of common threads, regardless of the groupings. One such thread is the uncertainty of the impact on the supply of homes to the private rented sector. We have had claims and counterclaims, but the reality is that no one knows exactly what will happen yet, because this is a genuinely radical Bill. A sub-theme, if I may call it that, has been the plea throughout the Bill’s passage for various aspects of it to be reviewed. My amendment tries to pull these concerns together and seeks to provide an honest, full and all-embracing review to be presented to Parliament no later than two years after the passing of the Act.

Two years seemed like a long enough time to gather data and see trends, but not too long to make changes, if it were apparent that changes needed to be made. The proposals in the Bill are so far-reaching, the legalities complex and the regulations as yet largely unknown and awaiting guidance or agreement through secondary legislation. But the impact of them could, we hope, be extremely positive and change the rental market for the better—or it could be a total disaster. We have certainly had plenty of hyperbole and tub-thumping rhetoric to that effect. Maybe it will simply be somewhere in between: the curate’s egg.

This amendment tries to cover all the important key indicators. As the explanatory statement says, it

“requires the Secretary of State to review and report on the impact of the Act on the private rented sector, including housing supply, rent levels, tenant security, and regulatory burdens, within two years”

of the Bill’s enactment. It also helpfully suggests who might be consulted upon, but—also helpfully—it includes the option for whomsoever is deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State.

I do not think it would be helpful at this time of night to expand on why each of these things is extremely important, but we know that they are, and that is why they are listed in the amendment. For that reason, we would like to see this, or something very similar, on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will write to noble Lords confirming the policy on publication of research. I think it is a matter of publication and then for Members to call it forward if they wish to scrutinise it further.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that. I am glaring at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, because she filched one of the things I was going to say, but she is absolutely right—great minds think alike. Although we are coming at the Bill from completely different positions, we are agreed on this issue. Her summary of my Amendment 263 actually said it all as to why we feel we need something in the Bill.

If the Government are confident about the way they will monitor and evaluate, why not put something in the Bill? As for an arbitrary date, surely, after two years—bearing in mind that you can come back whenever you like within that period—you will have some indication of the trend. That is what is bothering us: the uncertainty and radical nature of the Bill, which we hope will be successful.

We reserve our right to come back to this issue, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 263 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, we now move on to Clause 65. I have tabled a number of amendments in this group: Amendments 207, 210, 214, 215 and 216. All of them are directed at tidying up the terms of the Bill, but they are also rather complicated, so I must ask for the patience of the Committee as I go through them one by one, so that I get the argument right relating to each of them.

Amendment 207 takes us straight to Chapter 2 on page 99 of the Bill and landlord redress schemes. Clause 65(1) says that the Secretary of State

“may make regulations requiring a residential landlord to be a member of a landlord redress scheme”.

The difference of opinion that I have in moving this amendment is that that should not be in terms of “may” but “must”, because it is an essential feature of landlord redress schemes that all residential landlords join in.

Amendment 210 goes further into this section of the Bill. The requirement that I seek here is that there should be only one landlord redress scheme. I think that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to that. I would like it to be rather stronger and make it an obligation to have only one redress scheme.

We then move to Amendments 214, 215 and 216. Amendment 214 gives sympathy to those who are digitally inept, which certainly includes me. In that amendment, I seek a requirement to enable those who are unfamiliar with computers and other electronic devices to be able to enter the redress scheme and not be digitally excluded.

Amendment 215 is the most complicated of all my amendments. It would make it a condition of approval of a designated redress scheme that the Secretary of State should apply the test of what is considered appropriate and proportionate in support of tenants experiencing house-related problems. It is a matter of drafting, perhaps, but a matter of some importance.

Amendment 216 is very sensible and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to help me here. I suggest that we should be quite sure that the duty of the Secretary of State is to designate one landlord redress scheme in the private sector, and no more than one.

I hope that I have covered all the amendments sufficiently and accurately. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I wrote in my notes that this was “hopefully” the last day in Committee on the Bill, but I have now inserted “possibly”. Regrettably, it is my last day, because of an important appointment tomorrow that I cannot cancel.

It is appropriate for me to thank profusely all those who have helped me personally, and probably helped all of us, with their excellent briefings, as well as giving help with amendments—and, in my case, frantic email exchanges when I have not quite understood things. I refer to all those in the Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Local Government Association, the National Residential Landlords Association and Suzanne, the Independent Landlord, to name but a few.

This is a very important part of the Bill, and we largely support the first two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, regarding having just the one scheme and changing “may” to “must”. However, I will speak to my Amendment 218, which is a simple probing amendment for what is a very complex issue. The Bill makes continuing or repeat breaches of the landlord redress scheme an offence, but not joining the scheme in the first place is merely a breach. That means that landlords can still be fined by the local authority for not joining but tenants cannot claim a rent repayment order as it is not an offence.

There is clearly an imbalance here; my amendment simply seeks to probe the Government’s reasoning for not making failure to join the scheme an offence in the first place, rather than waiting for landlords continually not to adhere to the new requirement. We want this failure to become an offence from the get-go because we believe that non-compliance with the redress scheme will have serious regulatory consequences, significantly impacting tenants’ ability to hold their landlord to account. That is the key matter on issues such as disrepair and the standard of the home. The rent repayment order gives tenants compensation for substandard accommodation and can incentivise them to report things in the first place. Interestingly, Generation Rent’s polling found that nearly one in three renters has had maintenance issues in their home, which they have reported, but their landlord has not dealt with—a simple but very telling snapshot.

In the Republic of Ireland, failure of a landlord to register a tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board—the Irish equivalent to what we are proposing—is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of €40,000, with €250 payable each day of non-registration. Perhaps they take a rather different approach.

We are concerned that, as councils are already overstretched and currently have very little resource for proactive enforcement, an undetermined number of landlords could avoid joining the redress scheme initially as they will think being discovered by the council is low risk. The risk of being reported by their tenants—who would not be eligible for a rent repayment order, so there is no incentive for them—is also very low. Both aspects are not what we want. Therefore, we feel that this imbalance does not treat seriously enough the impact that non-compliance in these matters will have in undermining and frustrating one of the fundamental tenets of the new regulatory regime. I hope that the noble Baroness will allay our concerns.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing this group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

The landlord redress scheme is a vital function of the Bill, and the onus is on all of us to ensure that the legislation is as effective and robust as it needs to be. I hope that the Minister will take the time to reflect on the constructive suggestions made by noble Lords and take them back to the department for further consideration. The fact that the Minister has tabled amendments is, I suggest, a recognition that the Bill is not perfect, even in the eyes of those charged with defending it.

Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I shall speak to those amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 208 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress via a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. This would avoid duplication, unnecessary regulatory burden and the potential confusion between effectively being a member of two different schemes. This is vital, because clarity and efficiency in regulation are essential for compliance and enforcement.

Amendment 210A probes the Government’s proposed duration of the membership period for the redress scheme. This period is to be set by regulations, but as things stand there is no indication, or even a hint, of what that timeframe might be. Could the Minister provide some clarity on this point? Stakeholders need certainty to plan and prepare appropriately.

Amendment 210B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations establishing the landlord redress scheme within six months of the passage of the Bill. A clear, time-bound commitment is essential if the Government are serious about delivering this long-promised reform. Without a defined timeline, there is a risk that implementation will drift or be indefinitely delayed, to the detriment of all stakeholders—especially tenants. Could the Minister say what, in her view, constitutes meaningful progress and what timescale the department is working to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name.

Amendment 220 neatly ensures that the Bill is clear about who the PRS database is for. I understand the Government’s need to consider privacy, but in doing so the Government need to remember why the PRS database is needed. It is about increased transparency, empowering renters so that they can make informed decisions about where they live and properly exercise their rights. Yes, support for landlords and, yes, a tool for local authorities to raise standards—these are the intentions of the database and always have been since we started to lobby for this Bill many years ago. Amendment 220 is a simple way for this to be made clear in the Bill.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept this amendment. I also ask her to confirm that the Government’s priorities for the private rented sector database remain renter empowerment, support for landlords so that they are aware of their obligations, and providing an effective toolkit for local authorities to drive up standards.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 220 and 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my Amendments 243 and 243A, all of which seek to strengthen and clarify the role of the new private rented sector database.

I also support Amendment 219, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. In so much of this Bill we lack a timeframe. Between us, we have tabled several amendments asking for clarification on timeframes. It is not just us seeking these timings but everyone who is impacted by the Bill.

This is an area of great potential. I confess to getting quite excited about it when I first realised that it was a real tool in the Bill. A well-designed database could be genuinely transformative, supporting better enforcement, empowering tenants and giving responsible landlords the tools that they need to navigate the system more effectively. The noble Lord and I have very similar thoughts on that. However, to achieve that, it must be more than just a repository of basic information, which is where I fear we are going. It must be useful, accessible and enforceable.

Amendment 220 seeks to make it clear that the database is a tool not just for local authorities but for public good. It should serve the interests of tenants, responsible landlords and good letting agents alike. In its current form, the Bill seems to emphasise enforcement utility but underplays the wider potential of the database as a source of transparency and information for all parties in the rental market. If we want this database to help drive up standards and support informed decision-making, we must set out that intention clearly.

Amendment 225 introduces two further practical improvements. First, it allows letting agents to upload information on behalf of landlords, a sensible provision given the role that many agents already play in managing compliance. Secondly, it proposes that the database should offer a portal to help landlords determine whether their properties require licensing under the local authority schemes and to apply for those licences where necessary. Too often, licensing rules can vary from one area to another and be hard to navigate, particularly for smaller landlords. A centralised, user-friendly tool would significantly improve compliance.

My Amendment 243 probes a critical issue: enforcement. The Bill states that landlords must be registered on the database along with each of their dwellings, but it is currently unclear what consequences there are for non-compliance. This amendment proposes that failure to register should be an offence, and we seek clarity from the Government on how these provisions will be enforced in practice. Without credible enforcement mechanisms, even the best-designed database risks being ignored by the very landlords it is intended to regulate.

Finally, Amendment 243A would give the Secretary of State the power to include links to useful resources on the database, such as the “My Housing Issue” gateway. Such signposts may seem minor, but they can make a real difference, especially for tenants who need guidance on their rights or for landlords seeking to meet their obligations. The database should not exist in a vacuum; it should connect users to help, advice and relevant legal frameworks.

These amendments may differ in focus, but they are united by a common aim: to ensure that the private rented sector database lives up to its promise and potential. It must be more than a tick-box exercise; it must be practical, enforceable and truly useful to the people it is meant to serve. I hope the Minister will give these proposals careful consideration, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I will make just a couple of comments on the two amendments tabled by my noble colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Best. I start with Amendment 220 and the point made in support of it by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, because what is proposed here is clearly, in effect, a public register. I was not absolutely sure that I understood whether that was delimited in certain ways by the reference to “other interested stakeholders”, whoever or whatever they might be in any given circumstance, but a public register is what we are dealing with.

If I may, I link this across to the next group of amendments, because it is appropriate to mention here that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has Amendment 222, which has an extensive list of requirements. I simply say that some of what she sets out there might need a rethink as to whether it is appropriate for that degree of detailed information to be on a public register, bearing in mind who else may have access to it and for what purposes.

I have a question on Amendment 225. I absolutely agree with the functionality point, and I add to that by saying that there must absolutely be an email communications option in any database of this sort. Given the state of the normal, regular postal service, having an email option and being able to flag up an alert system of some sort would be absolutely essential for any landlord, their agent or, for that matter, any renter using the database.

My question is to do with the way the database is applicable to local authority schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, confirmed what I believed to be the case: namely, that local authority schemes might vary considerably. If we have a national database, I simply ask how that deals with strictly local things on a per local authority basis. The rules of the game must obviously apply nationally, but the property concerned, the landlord and the renter in particular may be local. I simply flag up how that will function or whether there will be a subsidiary local authority subset on a per local authority basis.

If we have approach, and given the amount of data that the noble Baroness’s later amendment suggests, then, in terms of the amendments previously spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I suggest that we are looking at quite a considerable lead-in period in practical terms to get this database in place. If it is to be of use, it needs to start off as some sort of cut-down version in order to enable the essential information to be there, even if it is then expanded. I therefore see this being achievable by some sort of rollout over time. Trying to put it in place from day one would be a recipe for something approaching chaos.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the Minister. I was remiss not to thank her before the previous group for the time she gave up to meet my noble friend Lady Grender and me to discuss the database. I know that she is always very willing to meet noble Lords and that she gives up a lot of her time. I hope she will accept my thanks now.

The amendments in this group continue to relate to strengthening the content, utility and functionality of the new private rented sector database. As has already been highlighted, the database could be a powerful driver of higher standards, tenant protection and, importantly, support for responsible landlords. But to fulfil that role, it must be built on comprehensive, reliable and adaptable foundations—something these amendments aim to deliver.

Amendment 222 is in my name, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, whom I thank. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his positive comments. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord both made some pertinent comments that I hope will add to the debate. Yes, the amendment sets out a broader and more ambitious vision for what information could be captured in the database from the onset. If this system is to be genuinely useful, it needs to go beyond the basics and include key documentation that reflects the safety, security and condition of the property. Renters deserve to know that the home they are moving into is safe, compliant and fairly let.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that I do not intend to go into great detail on this today, because time is of the essence. To sum it up, the point is to expose infringing, dodgy landlords. A good landlord has nothing to fear, but if things such as banning orders are on the site, this might incentivise landlords to not get themselves into that position in the first place. In Watford we have had issues with a landlord who is a prolific property owner. It would be very useful, and quite powerful, if people could see the number of offences under the name of a landlord. I accept the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If there was any hope of any elements of my catch-all list being taken up, I would happily argue each one with him on a case-by-case basis.

Amendments 221 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would ensure that the database includes records of gas and electrical safety checks, and that, crucially, it can become a digital home for all these certificates. We already require these documents to be produced, so incorporating them into the national system should be a logical next step. Amendment 227 would even allow accredited safety certificate providers to upload directly, removing administrative burdens from landlords and improving data accuracy. This would modernise and streamline an essential part of the compliance process.

Amendment 228 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender focuses on tenancy disputes—specifically rent levels and resolution outcomes. In the absence of reliable rent data, we lack the evidence base needed to track affordability—something that has come up before in the Bill—or understand the impact of policy changes. Including dispute outcomes would help tenants navigate the system more confidently and enable more informed decision-making by both renters and landlords. It also provides an accountability mechanism to ensure that the system is working as it should.

Amendment 224, also from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and which I support, is linked to these proposals and would reinforce the requirement for the database to include the right types of detail to make it genuinely functional for enforcement and policy use. I am sure we would all be willing to contribute to a general discussion on what that might be.

Amendment 229 introduces a small but important clarification to ensure that the database links records not only to landlords but to specific dwellings. This might seem technical, but it speaks to a broader point. The system must allow us to track the full history of a property and not just its owner, although the owner is clearly vital, especially the owner we have mentioned many times: the invisible, absent, non-contactable landlord. This is vital in cases where properties change hands but the issues persist. With reference to the local case that I referred to earlier, often it was just a family member’s name that had changed, so I think the more we can track down these infringing and rogue landlords, the better.

This brings me to Amendment 230, which would require the use of the UPRNs: unique property reference numbers. That is a new acronym for me. These identifiers already exist and are widely used in local government and in the property sector. Using them in the database would help standardise records, reduce duplication and enable effective data sharing across agencies—something that they, and all of us, think needs to be improved. It is a ready-made tool that would help knit together fragmented information across the sector and, as we have heard, it has proved effective.

These amendments work together to build a more useful, transparent and future-proof database that supports not only enforcement but renter safety, data integrity and informed policy-making for the future. Each of these proposals is practical, proportionate and grounded in existing obligations. What they offer is not duplication but integration. I hope the Government will recognise the value of taking a more ambitious approach to what the database can deliver and I am heartened by the comments that the noble Baroness has already made today.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am entirely supportive of pretty well every amendment that has been put down on this—this blizzard of amendments about a database across four groups. I agree that there should be penalties for not participating in it. It has to be something that is not a nice-to-have add-on: it has to be core to everything. However, I will just give two notes of caution, the first of which goes back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If you are going to start recording disputes on the system, there could be many, many reasons why a dispute runs for a long time. It would not necessarily be the fault of evil landlords. It could be illness on the part of the tenant; it could be a multitude of things. You have to be very careful there.

The second point is to be careful what you wish for. No one has suggested this so far, but is this database going to be searchable by tenant? Because a landlord looking at a tenant might search the database and find that every previous tenancy has ended in a dispute. Is that going to be a fair use of this database? Because it is a logical suggestion, looking at this from a landlord’s point of view, to look out for rogue tenants as well as rogue landlords.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, first, I echo from our Benches the sincere condolences to Lord Etherton’s husband, Andrew, and their family. They really do have our most sincere condolences.

I also echo the concerns that were delivered in a rather measured way by my noble friend Lord Shipley regarding the way that things have gone along. I have also communicated that to the Minister.

We come to another key plank in the Bill, perhaps one less explored or spoken of but, in our view, massively important, that of enforcement. It is important to remind ourselves of the current state of affairs in the enforcement world, albeit very briefly, as this is not Second Reading. The reality is, as the noble Lord has just mentioned, that after decades of cutbacks, councils have gradually been reducing the number of staff in the areas of housing enforcement, decent homes and tenant matters. It is arguable that, as a result of this, they have failed over that same time to carry out proper proactive enforcement work, inevitably leading to more substandard housing, as, let us be blunt, the rogue landlords know they can likely get away with it.

The big change is, of course, Clause 107. It is an important section in the Bill and, in short, it very boldly states:

“It is the duty of every local housing authority to enforce the landlord legislation in its area”.


That is a very powerful change—it is not optional nor desirable, it is mandatory. The landlord legislation wraps up, of course, other requirements from other Acts, such as the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and various housing Acts. It is a real step change from the current situation and it cannot happen too soon.

However, our concern is whether local authorities are tooled up for this. Are they ready and will they have the right resources? This is not a blame game; it is the reality. The Bill, as we discussed in a previous group, allows for two main activities to fund their enforcement activities—civil penalty notices, as previously discussed, and rent repayment orders, which we will get to sometime later. The importance of these funding streams is why we opposed any reductions in the previous group and why we have amendments in the next.

The amendments in this section centre around the burden of proof that local authorities can apply when taking civil action. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we need to understand the rationale for using the criminal standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” as opposed to the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”, and vice versa—all the more so given the increased powers that are being granted under the Bill. It needs to be stated that there are many and they are quite complex. I confessed earlier that I am no lawyer, but even I could see that some of our officers might need to get their heads around some of these changes.

Given that I have argued previously that local authorities will need this money to fund enforcement activities, Amendments 145 and 152 seek to lower the burden of proof to

“on the balance of probabilities”,

thus making it easier for local authorities to impose civil penalties, whereas Amendments 197 and 200 seek the opposite.

I also note that in the Renters (Reform) Bill, Clause 15 had the higher proof. I look forward to hearing the reasoning as to why there has been a change. In short, these are legitimate questions. Consistency and clarity are essential and I look forward to the Minister’s replies, particularly on the notion of recklessness and the culpable mind in Amendments 242 and 148.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, may I say how sorry I am to have to deal with Lord Etherton’s amendments after his sad passing? I did not have a long time to get to know him, but during my time in this House, I truly appreciated both his engagement and his wisdom on this Bill and his courtesy and kindness. I know that he will be greatly missed by the House and I add to what other noble Lords have said in sending my condolences to his husband and his close friends and family. I understand that his wonderful legal brain will be a sad loss to this House, and we will all miss him. I am very sorry that he is not here today to complete the work that he started on the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, may his memory be a blessing to all those who knew him.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking on behalf of Lord Etherton in this debate on the amendments on financial penalties, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments on these. I will make the declaration up front that I am not a lawyer either, so I rely on others for legal advice on this part of the Bill.

Starting with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Amendment 145 would replace the criminal standard of proof with the civil standard of proof for breaches of the tenancy requirements which are not criminal offences. These breaches can, by virtue of continuing or being repeated, form part of a criminal offence. We consider that it is necessary, therefore, for the criminal standard of proof to apply.

Amendment 152 would reduce the standard of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities”, where local authorities are imposing civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution for tenancy offences. Where civil penalties are imposed as an alternative to criminal prosecution, it is necessary for the same criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”, to apply. That is already the case, for example, for civil penalties imposed as an alternative to prosecution for offences under the Housing Act 2004, such as failure to comply with an improvement notice. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

I now turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Etherton, and spoken to on his behalf today by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Amendments 197 and 200 would, conversely, require local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than civil, standard of proof when imposing civil penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches.

The standard of proof is lower than that which applies to the imposition of financial penalties for breaches of other requirements introduced by the Bill. This is because, unlike those other breaches, rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches cannot lead to a criminal offence if the conduct is repeated or continued. As such, rental discrimination and rental bidding cannot result in the landlord being prosecuted or given a £40,000 civil penalty, and are subject only to the lower £7,000 penalty. We therefore think it appropriate that local authorities need to prove these breaches to the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of resources, and I will answer that with two points. One is that the Government have committed to assess the financial impact of this on local authorities, and have committed to new burdens funding. Secondly, those fines will be available for local authority use for this purpose, or other purposes, if they wish to use them in that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about appeals. Local authorities can consider evidence and decide whether, for example, the individual concerned was aware that the information they provided might be false or misleading, and if so, whether it was reasonable for them to submit it, or if they took an unjustified risk in doing so; that is the point about recklessness.

The legislation also provides safeguards. In the case of prosecution it would be for the court, not the local authority, to decide whether the accused had been reckless. In the case of a financial penalty, the landlord has the right to make representations before a penalty is imposed, and a right of appeal against the imposition or the amount of the penalty.

Amendment 148 would narrow the offence of misusing a ground for possession to evict a tenant when possession would not be obtained on that ground. It would do so by removing the element of recklessness from the offence. Amendment 242 would narrow the offence of providing information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect in the same way.

To commit the first of these offences, a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, would need to know that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession on that ground. If a landlord, or person acting or purporting to act on their behalf, was simply being reckless as to whether the landlord would be able to do so, it would not amount to an offence.

I do not think that limiting the offence in this way is necessary or helpful. Clearly, landlords should not be penalised for minor mistakes, but recklessness goes beyond making a mistake. It entails taking an unjustified risk, and landlords should not take an unjustified risk when their action may result in someone losing their home. It is, of course, the case that the offence is committed only if the tenant actually surrenders possession. Making enforcement in every case dependent on being satisfied to the criminal standard that the landlord, or those acting or purporting to act on their behalf, knew that the landlord would not be able to obtain possession using a ground for possession, would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords and agents to escape enforcement.

Similar arguments apply in relation to the database offence. To require knowledge to be proved in every case would make it too easy for unscrupulous landlords to submit false or misleading information in purported compliance with database requirements.

It is well-established in legislation for offences relating to the provision of false or misleading information to include the mental element of recklessness, including in housing legislation. It is used, for example, in relation to the provision of false and misleading information to local authorities in connection with their functions under the Housing Act 2004—an offence that is prosecuted by local authorities.

In short, we consider that the mental state of recklessness is appropriate to apply to these serious offences, so I kindly ask that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute as well as of the Local Government Association.

Trading standards represent an important ingredient in achieving the objectives of the Bill: they are the front line in enforcement of key measures of good practice by property agents carrying out lettings activities. To assist local businesses of all kinds and the trade associations that represent and advise them, arrangements are in place for primary authorities—local authorities able to provide specialist advice on a range of consumer protection legislation. Primary authorities cover different aspects of property matters and support property agents, as well as their trade association Propertymark and the Property Ombudsman. These arrangements enable authoritative assured advice to be given to property agents, who can then rely on that advice in dealing with any query or dispute. It relieves local authorities’ enforcement teams from dealing with queries, complaints and misdemeanours that could be avoided if assured advice was available.

Demand for high-quality advice is likely to grow as a result of the Renters’ Rights Bill. More landlords are likely to make use of letting agents to ensure that all regulatory requirements are being met. The letting agents, in turn, need the best possible advice on the extensive legislative measures that affect their client landlords. A problem here, however, is that current arrangements for assured advice do not extend to aspects of lettings activities in the Tenant Fees Act 2019. This legislation bans agents from charging fees to tenants as well as to landlords. Since the introduction of that legislation, local authorities have been anxious for this area of letting agency work to be included in the assured advice arrangements.

This small amendment would mean that lettings advice covering the Tenant Fees Act, on which property agency businesses can rely, would at last be available, and that local authority enforcement authorities can act with confidence. It is an entirely helpful amendment in tidying up a piece of defective legislation, and it fully supports the objectives of the Renters’ Rights Bill. I am not expecting passionate expressions of support from lots of your Lordships for this somewhat technical amendment, but I hope the Minister will say that it meets with the Government’s approval. I am pleased to move it.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I rise very briefly because I feel that this ties in quite neatly with his later amendments on letting agents becoming more professional and having better qualifications. Any means that will reduce the pressure on local authority enforcement teams are very much to be welcomed. The amendment is techy but simple, and I think it could be effective.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for moving this very sensible amendment, which is thoughtful and well-considered.

The integration of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into the framework of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, through Schedule 2, is not just a technical improvement but a step towards greater coherence and clarity in an already highly complex area of legislation. In a Bill of this scope and detail, ensuring that our legislative frameworks align and complement one another is not only sound law-making but essential for those responsible for implementation on the ground. Was that passionate enough?

The practical implications of this amendment deserve the Committee’s close attention. In essence, it would allow primary authorities to give assured, legally backed advice to letting agents on how to comply with the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Supporting letting agents through legislative transitions in this way will help avoid confusion and ensure compliance from day one—a key goal for any regulatory change.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned, the amendment would also relieve pressure on local enforcement teams, many of which operate with limited resources, in both finance and capacity. By reducing their workload where possible, we enable these teams to concentrate on the most serious breaches—rogue landlords, unsafe housing and the exploitation of vulnerable tenants—where intervention is most urgently needed.

This approach is not without precedent. Organisations such as the Lettings Industry Council have consistently called for greater clarity, guidance and consistency in how regulations are enforced across local authorities. Integrating the Tenant Fees Act into this structure directly supports those calls and shows that the Government are listening to those working on the front line of regulation and compliance.

We are, therefore, sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. It offers practical benefits to tenants, agents and enforcement authorities alike. We believe that it would contribute to a more effective, fairer and more streamlined regulatory environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I live not far from Aldeburgh, not too far from Southwold, so I am very conscious of the issues that have arisen from people acquiring homes and then turning them into short-term rentals. It is a really important part of the coastal economy, but I would suggest in a different way that, in fact, the changes made to the tax situation, where it was possible to offset mortgages and all sorts of expenses, led to a significant increase in the price that people were prepared to pay for houses. I saw this in Southwold, where I got a lot of angry letters—admittedly from people who had done just this thing. What happened was that neighbouring houses that had been priced only a few years earlier at something like £300,000 to £400,000, were now selling for over £1 million. This was done on the basis of the short-term property rental that was possible.

However, what concerns me about this particular amendment is that it does not account for those people who are moving into a place to make it their permanent home. At the moment, this amendment suggests that, if it has been used at all for long-term tenancy, it should be excluded or need further planning permission. I suggest that there are plenty of people who are trying—whether in rural or coastal areas—to make their long-term home, but want to take advantage of the times when they themselves choose to go on holiday to be able to get some rental income. It is a perfectly sensible way, at times when people choose to be away potentially at the height of season, to gain that extra income. While I am sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I think that we need to explore what happens when the property transitions from one owner to another so that they can use their new family home in the best way possible, not only to enjoy that home but potentially to make sure that it gets used all year round.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 185 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and signed by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and me. It has been explained very fully and in detail, so it needs no further repetition or expansion from me. Indeed, from our many and various discussions or Oral Questions during House business, we are all only too aware of the problem, both here and abroad. The loss of properties from the long-term private rented sector into the much more lucrative and less regulated short-term lettings is causing considerable problems in some parts of the country, as outlined in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Best.

It is a fact that some communities—I am sorry to keep stressing that, but I feel it is important to keep a balanced perspective on this—are being hollowed out as locals cannot find somewhere to rent for the longer term, nor can they find somewhere that they can actually afford to buy. They therefore feel that they cannot remain in their communities. Some areas where short-term lets proliferate can, as we have also heard, be the result of regular antisocial behaviour, which can be of various types, from the very obvious noise nuisance to the degradation of neighbourhoods. Any moves to incentivise landlords back into the long-term private rental market are therefore welcomed by us on these Benches and anything to deter landlords from flipping, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young, will also be supported by us.

We recognise the willingness of both the previous Government and this Government and the difficulties of efforts to balance the needs of tourists, home owners and local residents. It is tricky, because balance is key and individual local plans should be able to reflect each local authority’s needs and circumstances.

To help local authorities, as we have already heard, there was the mandatory registration scheme proposed by the previous Government. That was very positive, as it would improve transparency and ensure compliance with local regulations. However, I note that, in parliamentary debates on the Bill, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook stated that the previous Administration’s proposals to clamp down on holiday lets

“did not go far enough”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters' Rights Bill Committee, 5/11/24; col. 238.]

and that his Government are considering what additional weight to give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures that they face, as a result of what have been called “excessive” concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes in some parts of the country.

To keep this brief and to sum up, it would be welcome to have, before Report, an update on the mandatory registration scheme and any other powers that have been taken forward on this Bill or in other legislation, including actions on companies that take no action, as was well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. We could therefore judge whether this amendment is a helpful addition to take forward on Report or is completely unnecessary. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for proposing this amendment. It raises a serious solution to one of the most acute crises affecting the private rental sector: the supply of housing. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. There is a fair degree of support for this from all sides of the Committee.

Noble Lords will remember that this is one of the themes that these Benches have been most concerned about. My noble friend Lady Scott highlighted the reduction in housing supply on the first day of Committee. Savills reported seeing a 42% reduction in the number of rental properties available on its books in the first quarter of this year. Data compiled for the National Residential Landlords Association found that 41% of landlords say that they plan to cut the number of properties that they rent out in the next 12 months. This is highly concerning, given that the supply of available rental properties is already falling.

TwentyEA found that the supply of properties available to let has dropped by 1% compared to the first quarter of 2024 and has plummeted 22% below the 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Currently, only 284,000 rentable homes are available nationwide—a decline of 18% from last year and 23% from 2019. In the first quarter of 2025, 15.6% of new property listings for sale were previously rental homes. This is a sharp increase from 9.8% in the same period of 2024. Renting is no longer simply a transitional phase or fallback option for many people. It is a deliberate and legitimate long-term housing choice. Renting offers flexibility, mobility and freedom from the financial and practical burdens of home ownership, but tenants cannot benefit if there is simply not enough supply.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, raised, as did many others, the risks associated from the Bill accelerating this trend to short-term lets such as Airbnb and other types. This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would contribute to the solution. Where there is not enough supply of available rental accommodation and many landlords are planning to sell up, working to reduce the amount of short-term lettings could protect the currently available supply and hopefully prevent further reductions.

Planning consent helps local authorities manage the shift and safeguard their rental supply, especially in high-demand areas. This is especially true given the highly regionalised disparities in supply deficits of private rental housing. As the Bill goes forward, we need to ensure that local authorities have sufficient capacity in their planning teams and, in this context, to consider whether licensing may also be an effective tool in this area.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start with government Amendments 136, 138 and 139. These amendments make provision for the requirement to provide a written statement of terms for tenancies that become assured after they have begun. A tenancy may become assured during its lifetime for a range of reasons; for example, because it becomes the tenant’s principal home, or rent becomes payable on the property.

Where this happens, landlords should be able to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement of terms. These amendments will therefore require landlords to provide a written statement of terms within 28 days of the tenancy becoming assured. Without this, landlords would be left in limbo, unable to comply with the duties in new Section 16D of the Housing Act 1988 to provide a written statement of terms at the outset of a tenancy, leaving them liable to penalties. It would also leave a tenant without the written statement of terms, a key benefit of the new system, despite their tenancy having become assured. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

In view of the time that we have lost—and I must say publicly that I regret the pressure that we are putting ourselves under—I will just say that it is essential that written statements are mandated to help people resolve conflicts and provide evidence if disputes go to court. What these must contain, which is the essence of Amendment 140 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is clearly important and needs to be widely known.

There is quite a lot in the Bill that we feel needs to be widely known, and we have all had concerns about the level of knowledge. All I will say, with my tongue in my cheek for things down the road, is that that is all the more reason to regulate those who act for landlords—such as letting agents—to make sure that they act professionally and inform their tenants correctly.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 14 aims to strengthen the transparency of rental agreements by requiring landlords to provide written terms at the outset of a tenancy. This is a welcome step towards ensuring that tenants are fully informed about their rights and obligations, and that landlords are held to account for the terms they offer.

Amendment 140, in my name, recognises that legislation alone is not enough. We must ensure that tenants, landlords and, indeed, any third-party contractors involved are informed and empowered. By requiring the Secretary of State to issue clear, accessible guidance, we help to make these rights and duties real and usable in practice. Without such guidance, even the most well-intentioned legislation risks becoming an abstract concept rather than a meaningful tool for change. This is why it is crucial that the Government take proactive steps to ensure that everyone involved in the rental process understands their roles and their responsibilities.

Amendments 136, 138 and 139, tabled by the Minister, seek to refine the process through which written statements of terms are provided. The intention, as I understand it, is to ensure that landlords are held to account for providing these terms in a timely manner, which is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we must be careful to consider whether the amendments fully take into account the diverse needs and circumstances of both tenants and landlords.

The Government have a clear opportunity here to provide a system that is not only fair and transparent but also practical and achievable for all those involved. We must ensure that these provisions do not overburden landlords with an administration task but, at the same time, protect the rights of tenants by providing them with the necessary information to make informed decisions about their tenancies. While the intention is to create more transparency, it is equally important, we feel, that we do not add unnecessary complexity or red tape that could inadvertently discourage smaller landlords or make the rental process more cumbersome.

In light of these considerations, I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, is the Minister confident that the 28-day requirement for landlords to provide written statements will not lead to confusion or delays? This timeline, while designed to allow time for landlords to issue the statements, may in practice create gaps in communication, potentially leaving tenants in a state of uncertainty about their rights and obligations. How do the Government intend to mitigate these potential delays?

Furthermore, how do the Government plan to ensure that smaller landlords, who may not have the dedicated administration teams, will be able to comply with these provisions without facing excessive burdens? Small landlords, who often play a crucial role in our rental market, could face challenges in keeping up with increased administration requirements without support or resources. We must be mindful not inadvertently to create barriers that make it harder for these landlords to continue offering tenancies.

In conclusion, while we acknowledge the Government’s intention to improve transparency in tenancy agreements and better protect tenants, we must consider the real-world impact of these changes. We must ensure that reforms are workable for both tenants and landlords, without increasing the complexities of the rental process or creating unnecessary barriers to housing. The amendments, while positive in some respects, do not fully address the practical challenges landlords and tenants face. Is the Minister confident that these provisions will not place undue burdens on landlords, especially those at the smaller end of the market, and that they will effectively protect tenants’ rights without creating new avenues for confusion and non-compliance? The legislation must strike a balance that promotes fairness and transparency while also being workable for all parties involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I have spent some time looking at this and I have listened very carefully to the amendments in this clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as well as listening to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

I am neither a lawyer nor a solicitor, but we are troubled by Amendment 144 in particular, as it would in effect delete all of the new Section 16I of the Housing Act 1988, inserted by Clause 18. In doing so, it would remove the ability of local housing authorities to issue civil penalties for a range of offences, pushing them into the courts. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I think that there probably is a debate about what should be pushed back to the courts, but in general I see a legitimate role for local authorities to issue penalty notices. I also feel that in much of the Bill we have talked about the courts’ capacity to deal with things, so I would be a little reluctant to increase the burden on the courts, which we are already arguing are stretched.

I would also be interested in hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, why Clause 15 of the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill gave similar powers to the local housing authorities as in Clause 17 of this Bill, albeit with a much lower maximum fine. To us, the proposal undermines the regime in the Bill that empowers local housing authorities to issue civil penalty notices. It is part of the tools in the box to give local authorities more powers to enforce across the many and various sections of the Bill. If the one objective of the Bill is to raise standards and root out rogue landlords, the Bill is right to give greater powers to local authorities to do so and raise the level of fines that can be imposed to be an effective deterrent.

At this point, when the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, very nicely pointed out the one person who has inherited and the this and the that—I do not think that those landlords need to be worried at all about this measure, as they are not the people whom the Bill is aimed at. In fact, there is a tiny degree of scaremongering in this. As I understand the aim, and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, we are looking at the bottom end of the market. The answer to the landlords mentioned in the list cited by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is, “If it is so ruinous to you, don’t do it—don’t do the thing that will result in that fine being imposed”. I am absolutely certain that the majority of good landlords would go nowhere near it—but actually, as the noble Earl said, some of our worst landlords do terrible things. It is very often a shock to talk to the people who deal with bailiffs, evictions and all that, to actually see the conditions that some landlords will subject human beings to. But it is a legitimate argument to talk about what should go to the courts or not as a result of what we have been talking about.

Amendments in this group seeking to reduce the amount that a local authority can charge in civil penalties will be generally resisted by ourselves, precisely because this Bill enables these fines to be used as revenue to provide resources for a strong and effective enforcement service. The capacity and capability of local authorities to carry out positive enforcement is a serious matter—and, of course, we will cover that in the next group. Councils keep the fines that they impose, whereas fines from the courts go to the Treasury, although it must be said that the LGA is still concerned that there will be a funding gap, the amount of which is going to be fairly speculative at this stage, which makes the reasons for wide-ranging reviews, which we will discuss in later groups, to be imperative. Perhaps the Minister could give us some reassurances on funding.

Amendment 144 removes the power of local housing authorities to enforce several provisions in the Bill that we strongly agree with, such as purporting to end a tenancy by serving a notice to quit orally or serving a purported notice of possession—in other words, not using the Section 8 process. In other words, it is conning a tenant that they have to leave. Councils must have the right to enforce this, as it goes to the heart of the Bill.

Amendment 144 therefore reduces the powers of local housing authorities to enforce, and Amendments 146 and 154 go on to reduce the penalties that can be imposed, which we opposed. Amendments 147 and 155, as well as all the amendments from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton and Lord Keen, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, are an interesting variation on that theme, using rental payment as a measure of the penalty. I can see some logic in that, given that rents vary enormously depending on the property. But two months’ rent in a small house in Lancashire might well be several hundred pounds, whereas a similar property in Hertfordshire might be several thousand. There is a fairness of argument there, which is probably why there is a range of fines the authority can use, and I am sure the noble Baroness will enlighten us.

Finally, we can agree on Amendment 157. The burden on local authorities cannot be understated, and therefore it should be contingent on the Government to specifically look at this aspect and not just rely on the LGA and others to point it out. We are not convinced that it needs to be in the Bill, but it should be a genuine commitment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving those amendments. I send my get-well wishes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, as well, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving the noble and learned Lord’s amendments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for taking part in the debate.

It might help if I start with a brief bit of context. We are taking a clear escalatory approach to civil penalties here. Across the Bill, less serious, one-off breaches will be subject only to the maximum penalty of £7,000. Only if landlords persist in not signing up to the database or the ombudsman will they become liable for a civil penalty of up to £40,000—and that is the maximum. Where landlords continue to fail to remedy unacceptable conditions in a property, they may be faced with a civil penalty of up to £40,000 or indeed criminal prosecution. Where there is evidence that landlords and letting agents continue to discriminate in the letting process, they can face multiple fines. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, good landlords—there are many of them—will not be subject to any of these fines because they do not commit the offences that would lead to those fines. The answer is to follow the outlines in the Bill and then there will not be any need for landlords to be fined.

Amendment 144 would remove the ability of local authorities to impose financial penalties for non-compliance with the tenancy requirements where this is not a criminal offence. Effective enforcement against landlords who flout the rules is a key part of ensuring that our reforms deliver their full benefits. Across the provisions in the Bill, as I said, we have taken a consistent, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties. The civil penalties of up to £7,000 for less serious or first-time non-compliance is an important part of that approach. Removing the ability of local authorities to impose civil penalties for non-criminal breaches of the tenancy requirement would create a gap. How would landlords who, for example, failed to issue tenants with a written tenancy agreement or ended a tenancy illegally be held to account? Transferring responsibility for determining fines for these breaches to the courts would be a poor alternative and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, it would unnecessarily increase pressures on the courts. We have had many debates about that in this House in response to other areas in the Bill. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the capacity of local authorities to deal with this, local authorities have significant experience of imposing civil penalties. I do not see a good reason for excluding breaches of the tenancy requirements from this well-established practice.

Amendments 137, 141, 149 to 151, 156, 158 to 164, 293 and 294 are consequential on Amendment 144 and remove references to new Section 16I of the Housing Act 1988, which Amendment 144 would delete. Amendment 146 would reduce the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements from £7,000 to £5,000. Amendment 147 would, in the alternative, set the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements at two months’ rent. Amendment 154 would reduce the maximum financial penalty for tenancy offences from £40,000 to £30,000. Amendment 155 would set the maximum penalty for tenancy offences at 12 months’ rent. Amendments 153, 201, 217 and 241 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to tenancy reform, illegal eviction, the database and the ombudsman from £40,000 to £7,000.

Civil penalties need to be set at a level that provides an appropriate punishment and acts as an effective deterrent to future non-compliance. To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the level of the fines, we have set the maximum civil penalty for offences across the Bill at £40,000. This mirrors existing maximum civil penalties for offences under the Housing Act 2004, which are currently £30,000, but this takes account of inflation since those came into force. We intend also to increase the Housing Act 2004 maximum penalties to £40,000, via regulations, to reflect those changes in the value of money. The £7,000 maximum penalty for breaches represents a similar percentage uprating to reflect inflation, compared with a maximum fine level of £5,000 for less serious non-compliance in other housing legislation; for example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Increasing maximum fine levels to reflect inflation ensures that the deterrent effect of the penalties is maintained. However, I emphasise that these are maximum levels: they will not be the normal penalty level. Local authorities will need to look at the particular circumstances of each instance of non-compliance. They will need to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors and arrive at the final penalty in line with their policy. When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent, allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or amount of the penalty, they will of course be able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this group. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for bringing amendments to this House. I also wish him all the best for his recovery. These amendments, while similar in spirit to ours, would go even further in addressing the limits placed on local housing authorities. The noble and learned Lord is right to highlight both the challenges faced by local authorities and the significant scale of the proposed fines.

As there appeared to be a little bit of confusion, let us be absolutely clear: we need powers to hold to account rogue landlords who deliberately and maliciously break the rules to the detriment of tenants. That is something we can all agree on. However, we need a system that is fair and proportionate and does not ensnare essentially innocent landlords who inadvertently —or not maliciously—fall foul of the rules. They need to be encouraged to stay in the rental game.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, we need more rental homes, we need people to stay in the rental market and we need more people to come into it. We need to be very wary of coming up with systems where they fear very significant fines that they may perceive as arbitrary. Hence, I was very keen to get clear guidance from the Minister about how these fines would be placed and at what levels. I look forward to hearing further from her on this. I also appreciated what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said around the 2016 Act and the importance of guidance on that.

I thank the Minister for her reply and the commitment to share some reasoning for the figures that the Government have arrived at and some guidance— it appeared she would, anyway. Without insight into the rationale for the figures selected and the thresholds imposed, we are left to critique in the dark. For scrutiny to be effective and informed, the Government must provide not just partial explanations but a full and transparent account of how these conclusions were reached. Only then can Parliament properly fulfil its role in holding the Executive to account. I hope that the Minister will enable us to do this by sharing some of the Government’s reasoning and further guidance on how those fines will be brought forward.

Getting penalties right is not a technical detail; it is fundamental to the fairness and effectiveness of a system designed to remedy an offence. Significant fines and penalties for rogue landlords are appropriate and proportionate. However, as I said earlier, significant fines for someone who unintentionally falls foul of the law would be inappropriate. We need to be careful and calibrated to ensure that they deter offences but do not distort the functionality of the housing market. Although we want to address rogue landlords, we also want a thriving rental market and to avoid deterring good landlords who might perceive a significant risk of large, arbitrary fines.

I will finish with this message: a well-designed penalty framework should uphold the law, encourage compliance and support the functioning of housing authorities. The success of this legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I just ask him: did he really feel, in his time as chair of the Local Government Association and leader of a reputable authority, that local authorities were dishing out fines willy-nilly or were disproportionate in their measures when they were considering things? I found the opposite—there were times when I wished we would be a bit tougher and stronger and go a bit further. I do not recognise this picture that the noble Lord is painting: that landlords might perceive that it is terrible and feel bad about it. I genuinely believe that most good landlords have nowt to fear—it is not those that the Bill is gunning for. We have a duty to convey that message and not to make good landlords feel threatened by the fact that there is an escalation in fees.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much. She is absolutely right: most councils in this country are very good and proportionate and do not levy fines—or whatever—willy-nilly. I absolutely agree with that. However, it is very much in the eye of the beholder, and we need to do everything we can to encourage a successful and thriving rental market with good landlords. Within that, one needs to think what that single-, two- or three-home landlord will look at. They will see the potential risk of £40,000, and it is perception. I absolutely concur that councils act appropriately in many instances, but if a landlord feels that there is a risk, and particularly when that risk can be two, three, or, in some cases in the north of England, four years’ rent, they may just say, “I do not want to take that risk, I will sell my property”. That is one less house for somebody to rent and one more person on a council’s housing waiting list.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I also support these amendments. I have one small niggle, which I will get to, but I live at the end of a very ropey copper wire system, so I yearn for the day when broadband reaches up into the Midlands—or, as it is known down here, the north.

My understanding is that Openreach, in the areas where it is installing, currently includes a building free of charge in its rollout programme. That could change, and it is not clear whether alternative network providers may charge for installing. The situation is not clear at the moment and is, of course, subject to change. Therefore, would the Minister consider it right to oblige landlords to take on the cost if one is imposed?

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to give my support for Amendments 134 and 135 in the names of my noble friend Lady Janke and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Best, who, in his usual style, has added some quality dimensions to this discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has given his usual nudge about something we might have forgotten.

In short, these amendments offer a simple, cost-neutral solution to a growing problem. Too many renters are still denied access to fast, reliable broadband, and there is a real risk of growing the digital divide as a result. The ability to work remotely and to access education and vital public services are basic needs in the modern world. Reliable broadband is not a luxury; it is a necessity as fundamental as water or electricity in our lives today, yet over 900,000 households are being left behind. This is often simply because, as has been said clearly, landlords are hard to reach for requests for fibre installation or are just not bothered. These amendments would introduce a clear, fair process, ensuring that tenants could request full-fibre broadband and receive a timely response. This is not about forcing landlords to pay but removing a passive barrier that is harming renters’ access to full-fibre broadband.

It is good to know that these measures are backed by many organisations, such as Generation Rent and the Good Things Foundation, and offer a cost-neutral way for the Government to improve digital inclusion, particularly for low-income renters. Importantly, yes, landlords benefit too, with fibre infrastructure clearly adding a long-term rental value to their properties.

This is a fair and practical step to connect more people and strengthen our digital infrastructure, so we strongly support these amendments—no surprise there—and urge colleagues to do the same. We look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a few words, particularly in response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Cromwell about loading costs on to the landlords. The problem is that, if you are in the countryside, they want to charge a huge amount to get it to you. We have one or two cottages and, to get a fibre cable out to us, we were being quoted £15,000 at one point. We would be connecting about five properties at the end of it—rented properties and another house. The other complication is that, if one of them is a business, for example, there are different rules on what they are allowed to charge. A lot of this is in the original regulations telling BT and the other networks what they had to do, particularly when BT was trying to block other people having access to the houses. There are a lot of unfairnesses in the legislation, which Ofcom never dealt with properly. I am not sure where it has got to now, but there are lots of little wars going on.

It can be very expensive: it is not just a matter of connecting something to a roadside, as it is in the city. If you are going to be running it half a mile or so, you will find that you can be loaded with enormous costs, and that they want five-year leases and so on. Sometimes, you can tell that the price will be slashed soon, because they suddenly make a big sales pitch, trying to get you to take on a five-year commitment to five grand a year; that is the best sign that they are about to roll it out in a couple of years’ time. So things are not quite as simple as they seem.

Homelessness: Young Adults

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said in my initial Answer, we continue to strive to make sure that we offer the best support possible for care leavers. The noble Lord is right to say that they deserve to have that support right through to the age of 25. Earlier this year, we introduced a measure into the DfE’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to make sure that no care leaver in scope of corporate parenting duties can be found intentionally homeless. We also made the decision to further strengthen legislation as the Government are all too aware of the long-term impact that pre-care and post-care experiences can have on young people. It is essential, as part of local authorities’ role as corporate parents, that this vulnerability is recognised and that care leavers are provided with the care, stability and support they need to build a secure and successful future.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, providers of support and housing for this vulnerable group need two things: funding from Homes England and accreditation from Ofsted. In a recent meeting with the YMCA, for Hertfordshire this time, I was told that all its development plans were on hold because of the lack of any announcement about any new funding streams from Homes England, leaving the sector completely in limbo. Can the Minister tell us why this is? In addition, it has been waiting since October 1923 to get Ofsted accreditation for a unit for 40 such vulnerable children.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

2023.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Okay—a long time. Will the Minister please agree to look into this logjam and see whether she can be Dyno-Rod?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am always happy to be Dyno-Rod, even when it goes back to 1923. I am not sure which programme the YMCA applied to, but at the Spring Statement we announced an immediate injection of £2 billion to support the delivery of the big boost in social and affordable housebuilding that is necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Austin, asked me to have a meeting with the YMCA, I think it would be very helpful to meet it and find out what it has experienced with this blockage to its funding. I hope we can do the Dyno-Rod job and get that freed up as quickly as possible.