Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I support amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144, which would require evidence to be given when using grounds 1 and 1A. While that is important, I again think—I always live in hope—that some clarity from the Minister about the courts being required to obtain at least the first part of that evidence could achieve this without that necessarily being written in the Bill. I believe that the second part would need some legislative clarity, which is why the amendment is useful.

However, let us be clear: it is a crime to knowingly make a false statement to the court. We need to make it clear to landlords that that crime will be followed up. It can only be followed up if we then determine that the property was not then taken into possession and that there was no malicious element to it—there can be other reasons, of course. Without that element of enforcement, and therefore knowing what has happened in a number of months’ time, that will never happen. This could quite easily be implemented through the property portal sending automatic messages to the court, which would not overburden our court process. I again ask for some clarity from the Minister that this is how the property portal and court reform is intended to work. That would probably alleviate some of these issues.

I have tabled a number of other amendments in this group, which I would also like to speak to. The first one would provide for the six-month protection to be renewed on the basis of rent renewals. At the moment, a lot of assured shorthold tenancies—not all of them, Mr Gray, I grant you, but probably the majority of them—have rent renewal clauses, such that that when the rent is increased, there is a new tenancy. The landlord will say, “I’m increasing your rent. Please sign the new tenancy for the year ahead.” Every year, the landlord says, “Well, you’re moving on to the periodic. I would quite like you to sign the new tenancy with the new rent.” That is what happens for most of my constituents who are in the most precarious part of the market, which we are trying to address. That gives them six months’ protection every year, on an ongoing basis, every time their rent is increased.

I know that the National Residential Landlords Association has described this idea as bonkers, but I think that is because it does not quite understand what I am trying to get at here, which is to retain what we already have currently. Although it seems that the Bill is increasing the protection of tenants—and the security of landlords, by knowing that the tenant will be there for a period—the danger is that it will reduce it because, de facto, most tenants currently have six months protection in every 12. The proposed change would provide six months’ protection over an indefinite period, which is clearly far less. Six divided by infinity is an impossible mathematical equation, but it is clearly less than six months divided by 12.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is zero.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Quite right: zero protection—well, it is mathematically zero, but I think we all know that six months’ protection is a bit more than that—so there needs to be something.

When a landlord comes along on that annual date, the landlord might say, “I don’t want to make any changes. I don’t want to increase the rent.” Then, to some extent, the question is: why should any further protection be afforded? But if the landlord comes along and says, “I want to increase your rent,” and the tenant agrees that they are going to increase the rent—it does not go to a tribunal; it is all agreed—it seems quite reasonable to ensure protection on both sides, for example to provide for a new six-month protection period, just as happens at the moment.

That is why I have tabled these amendments, because I do not think it is in anyone’s interest for tenants suddenly to be leaving. Although the six-month protection does not prevent tenants from leaving, it does produce a mindset that the tenancy is now at least fixed for six months, based on what the landlord is offering and the higher amount that the tenant is now offering to pay. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I would love to see the Government accept the principle of it. If not—of course, I am not foolish, but there is always wishful thinking—it would be useful to hear an indication from the Government of which measures they think might be put in place to ensure that rolling protection.

The other amendment that I wish to speak to concerns the ability for a tenant to be offered the property before it is for sale. If it is a genuine sale, on the open market—the amendments would require a solicitor’s letter or an estate agent’s letter; I think that is reasonable and fair enough—no landlord would have any problem with making this offer for a short period. In my experience of selling houses, it takes more than four weeks between interest and getting it on the market anyway. I am talking about the landlord offering it to the tenant at the rate at which they are going to initially list it on the market. The landlord might reduce what it is on the market for later, because of market factors. I am not saying that that needs to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the initial listing should be offered to the tenant—a right of first refusal—in those four weeks. Again, I do not think this is unreasonable. Of course, in the majority of cases, the tenant will not be in a position to buy; but if, in a small number of cases, we can prevent turmoil and give the landlord a quick sale, it is in everyone’s interest to do so.

Again, I am not delusional and do not think that the Minister will accept this proposal, but I hope that the Minister might indicate how he will be encouraging, through court papers, potentially, and court reform, all those questions to be asked, just as we saw during covid, when court papers required the landlord to ask whether the tenant had been affected by covid. That was not a Bill change—a law change—but it was in the court papers. I am talking about how the question could be asked in court papers. There does not necessarily need to be a change in the discretionary grounds, but the very fact of asking the question could change the mindsets of landlords and, I think, is important.

Finally, under amendments 204 and 203, which I have also tabled, no rent would be required for two months—