Tenant Fees Bill

Bob Blackman Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to give way to my constituency neighbour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

That is the crux of what we will come on to later. The Government’s approach has been not narrowly to specify the specific things that could qualify as default fees. There has indeed been discussion of this topic. The Government’s point of view, which I will explain later, will I hope provide some clarity on that point.

If I may return to the—

[Bob Blackman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

Ah—I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Bob Blackman]

A lot of the Government proposals are formed around what is reasonable, and one of the key tests in law relates to what is reasonable. I gently ask him to set out for the House what he considers to be reasonable. To give an example, he has mentioned the loss of keys. The loss of a normal household door key may be relatively cheap, but security keys provided by only one manufacturer can be very expensive. Is it reasonable for a tenant to be charged should he or she lose such a key? If so, that would mean a default charge of quite a considerable sum of money, even if it was specified in the original contract—the lease or rental agreement. Would that need to be specified in that way, or would it be classified as a reasonable default charge if the key was lost?

[Rishi Sunak]

I again thank my hon. Friend for all his work on the Select Committee in helping us to improve this legislation. I know that he has given great thought to the matters we are discussing today, and we have just heard another example. I can tell him that the word “reasonable” has been chosen very deliberately, because it is a commonly accepted legal term that is widely used in various pieces of legislation and is open to interpretation in a consistent way by the courts. Indeed, the Opposition have chosen the same term in amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend is right. He made the same points in Committee, and I appreciate his raising them again today.

The Government have listened to concerns that some agents and landlords see the £5,000 initial fines as a cost of business and thus repeatedly refuse to comply. That is why the legislation makes landlords and agents liable for a financial penalty for each individual breach of the ban that they commit. In addition, setting financial penalty at up to £30,000 for a second or further breach of the ban will act as a serious deterrent for prolific offenders. It is worth pointing out that further breaches will leave the landlord or agent liable to prosecution and an unlimited fine and, indeed, qualify as a banning-order offence. The Government believe that, taken together, this set of sanctions forms a serious deterrent to poor behaviour. To accept the Opposition amendment would be disproportionate and excessive in respect of the cases we are discussing.

[Bob Blackman]

There is a specific issue in relation to very corrupt landlords who exploit vulnerable people. The concern that I think many Members who have investigated the background to this issue will have had, particularly in parts of London, is that a fine of merely £5,000 will be seen as just the cost of doing business. These people are exploiting vulnerable people to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, so for them even a fine of £30,000 would be nothing. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to consider this matter further as the Bill makes its way through the other place. Will he look at what can be done to take on these people? They are not landlords, but rogues and crooks. They need to be brought to account for the damage they are doing to the rental market and for the exploitation of very vulnerable people who have no choice in where they live.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. He knows first hand, from the excellent work he does with his constituents to tackle this issue, the scale of the problem in particular cases. He will be reassured to know that, while existing legislation allows local authorities to levy a £30,000 fine for a second breach, if they choose not to do so, they can go down the prosecution route. For the cases he mentions, that would probably be more appropriate. The sanctions in that case are an unlimited fine and a banning order, which, for the specific landlords he mentions, would be appropriate. I think that he would agree that being banned from being able to rent any property for 12 months or longer, or an unlimited fine, would serve as a very significant sanction to the core behaviour in such cases. With that final assurance, I commend the Government’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that the Government have finally accepted the need to ban tenant fees, for which my party has called for for no fewer than five years—I have personally campaigned for the ban for four years. I support the Labour Front-Bench amendments, because the Bill does not go far enough. We need further specification of the fee regime to make it more user-friendly, and we need to increase penalties for those landlords and letting agencies that flout the new legislation.

Few places in the country are in more need of this legislation than Oxford. Only 39% of people in the city own their own home or have shared ownership—that is well below the national average. Nearly half—49%—rent privately, and that figure has risen by more than a fifth since 2001. Private renting is not just a stopgap in the city; it is the only option for huge numbers of people.

The cost of setting up and maintaining a tenancy in the private rented sector is a huge problem in the city. The sharpest end of that is seen with the exponential growth in rough sleeping in Oxford. On some nights in the 2000s, nobody would be recorded as sleeping on the street, but nowadays having 60 people rough sleeping is the new normal. That is relevant to this debate because the core reason why people in Oxford become homeless has changed. It used to be relationship or family breakdown, but that is no longer the case. The key reason for homelessness now is landlords ceasing tenancies, often because of non-payment of fees.

There are many excellent landlords and letting agents in Oxford, and I find some of the mischaracterisations of the Opposition’s approach in this area bizarre. We all know excellent landlords and letting agents in our constituencies, but a small number bring the rest of the sector down and pollute its reputation, because they do not act in a responsible manner. A significant proportion of my postbag is taken up with tenants who have been asked for unreasonable fees, as well as people who are simply unable even to rent. In fact, I have a meeting in a couple of days with someone who is trying to move into Oxford but cannot afford the different costs associated with getting into a tenancy, and that is even with the private rented sector deposit guarantee scheme operated by the local authority. People are not able to move into Oxford’s private rented sector anymore.

Labour’s amendments would ensure that the new regime that the Bill will rightly introduce would be sufficiently watertight. I welcome some of the changes that the Minister specified, but we need the fee regime to be upfront in the manner specified by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. We need a user-friendly regime that tenants can easily understand, and that is not presently the case under the Bill.

We also need to make sure that the fees are sufficient. Oxford has one of the strictest regulatory regimes for landlords, operated by the local authority. Many landlords support it because they see that it squeezes out the rogue operators, and that it has removed many of the most unsafe and unhealthy properties from the housing market in Oxford. The regime pays for itself, and it is important that the regime under the Bill pays for itself, too. That means that those fees have to be sufficient. We have already had a lot of discussion about the cuts that have been made to trading standards, but it might also be helpful to look at how those fees—the Minister asserted that they would be sufficiently deterrent—compare with some of the profits obtained by landlords in areas such as my own.

The average property rent in Oxford is currently £1,919 per calendar month, so £5,000 is very obviously less than three months’ rent—we can all do the maths. Now, I appreciate that not all that rent will be profit, because of course there are associated costs. However, estate agents encouraging people to come into the buy-to-let market in my city inform those people that they will have an average annual return on their investment of 18%. When we talk about whether a fee is deterrent and whether a £5,000 fine is sufficient, we should reflect on that figure.

Comments have been made about the role of central Government and local authorities. Yes, it is absolutely right, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said, that there are local authorities that do not fulfil their responsibilities. There are others that want to go further but have been able to do so only at the behest of central Government. Please can we get to a situation in which local authorities that want to have more stringent regimes do not have to wait to get the okay from central Government? We need more local control.

[Bob Blackman]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the passionate view of her constituents. May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

In the absence of the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I had the honour of chairing the Select Committee pre-inquiry into this legislation. We looked at a lot of the evidence that is now coming forward. I am delighted that the Minister has seen fit to make some changes during the passage of the Bill and to accept many of the Select Committee’s recommendations.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) raised the matter of how many weeks’ rent a deposit should be. It is a shame that she has not tabled an amendment to that issue on Report, because I think several Conservative Members would feel very sympathetic towards restoring what the Select Committee recommended, which was a compromise. There was an argument for four weeks and an argument for six weeks, and we took the view that five weeks was the appropriate compromise for two reasons. First, if the limit is four weeks’ rent, there is a risk that the tenant will just refuse to pay the last month’s rent at the end of a tenancy. Secondly, a deposit of six weeks’ rent would almost certainly become the norm for most landlords, and would therefore be inflationary on the amount of deposit that would be charged.

I gently remind the Minister that in the last Budget the Chancellor allocated some £20 million towards a national rental deposit scheme, following representations from me and several other colleagues to set one up. The Department has not yet set up that scheme, but by saying that the limit will now be six weeks, instead of four or five, the Minister is going to reduce straightaway the number of families that can be assisted under the national rental deposit scheme when the Department finally does bring it forward. I ask him to look at this figure again, because it will limit the number of people who could be assisted through this programme.

On the issue of enforcement, I welcome the changes proposed by the Minister. Many of the changes, which are very clear, go above and beyond those proposed by the Opposition. Having looked at the evidence in relation to this legislation, many of us will share concerns about the difference between what I would classify as true costs, and charges. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), the key question is, who does the letting agent work for? The letting agent works for the landlord, not the tenant. It is the responsibility of the letting agent to acquire tenants on behalf of their employer—namely, the landlord—and therefore there should not be two charges incurred. The letting agent should charge the landlord for their fees, not charge the tenant for acquiring.

However, there are costs associated with acquiring a tenant—for example, when there is a requirement for a credit check. If a prospective tenant were to fail that test, there is a cost that someone has to collect. If an applicant makes a request through a letting agent and a credit check is then undertaken that is failed by the prospective tenant, it is reasonable that the cost should be passed on to that individual, particularly if they were going to knowingly fail the credit check in the first place. That is an example of a true cost as opposed to a fee charge. My hon. Friend has set out a set of areas and then a limit on the charges that a letting agent may charge a tenant. I trust that he will not press his amendment to a vote, because that goes completely against the spirit of this Bill and what we are proposing.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making an important point on referencing. Does he agree that it might be beneficial if the Bill were clarified so that everybody was clear about circumstances in which some of the holding deposit might be retained by the landlord or the agent in the case of somebody failing a reference check? If that were not the case, people on low incomes, for example, could be discriminated against when they apply to rent a property.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We clearly need to be more specific. I accept the principle set out by my hon. Friend the Minister that we should not put this in the Bill, but it should be put in regulations, because we can change regulations rather more easily and add things to them at an appropriate time without having to go through primary legislation once again. This is a question of detail that I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at again.

The other issue is charges for, for example, lost keys, cleaning or damage that may be done to a property. Those are reasonable costs that a tenant should incur. If that has to be set out in the tenancy agreement, it must be made crystal clear in what we lay out in regulations and guidance to landlords what is allowed and what is not allowed. In particular, things that are not allowed must be specified as being completely outwith the potential of the Bill, as opposed to being in the Bill.

I thank the Minister and his team for looking at and reflecting many of the recommendations that the Select Committee made on the draft Bill. With a few more tweaks, this can be an excellent Bill that we can all be very proud of.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I rise in support of this Bill and my hon. Friend the Minister. During the Bill’s passage, he has conducted himself, as I think everybody in all parts of this House has already recognised, with the utmost sincerity and courtesy to all parties, both inside and outside the House.

I served on the Bill Committee—entirely voluntarily, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having listened to the exchanges in Committee and today, it strikes me that there are a couple of points where there is complete agreement in all parts of the House. There is agreement that the average letting agent fees have gone up by 60% over the past six or seven years, and that there is a growing problem of tenants feeling that they are less empowered in relation to their tenancies and letting in the private sector market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, I will not give way, because I want to allow hon. Members who have not yet spoken to get in.

Why are we preventing letting agents from charging for credit reference searches, identity and passport checks, and all the rest? When one looks at the evidence in support of the Bill, it is quite clear that if the existing laws were properly enforced, the need for the Bill would not have arisen. I am extremely sceptical about the Government’s assertion that enforcement will be a lot more effective. If they really believe that, why do they not place a duty on local authorities to enforce the legislation, rather than leaving it as a mere power?

The legislation will have a lot of unintended consequences. It is already difficult enough for tenants to obtain rented accommodation if they have pets. It is very difficult for tenants on housing benefit to obtain accommodation. It is very difficult for tenants who do not have clear British citizenship to get rented accommodation. All those things will become a lot more difficult as a result of this additional burden on the private rented sector.

Some 30 years ago, I was a junior Housing Minister. I was much associated with deregulating the sector—introducing shortholds, getting rid of controlled tenancies and enabling the growth that has taken place in the private rented sector. I am disappointed to see my Government working in the opposite direction. I signed amendment 4, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. I understand that he has been bought off by the Government, so I will not press the matter to a vote. However, I think that there is too much crowd-pleasing on the part of the Government and not enough sensible regulation and recognition of the important work done by those in the private rented sector.