Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Carla Denyer and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

It has just occurred to me that the same question might apply to houses in multiple occupation, in areas where section 4 is applied. When the Minister looks into it, will he include that as well?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to include that in my correspondence with the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

I rise to support amendment 72, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, who made a compelling case for the need to provide adequate housing for those who serve us in the armed forces. I want to pick up on the reassurance that the Minister attempted to offer us on the existing regulatory regime for asylum accommodation, which he believes is sufficient. There is a two-word answer to whether it is sufficient: Bibby Stockholm. Would the Bibby Stockholm meet the decent homes standard? No, it clearly would not, and the Bill is an opportunity to fix that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will respond briefly, partly because a number of the issues raised are outside my ministerial responsibility. I commit to replying in writing to the points raised in relation to the responsibilities of the Home Office and the Department for Education, to give the Committee more clarity. Some of those details will come out when we consult. Everyone is assuming that we are talking about the decent homes standard as if it exists—it does not exist. We need to consult on what those specific standards will be and introduce the regulations.

The powers we have given ourselves in the measures will ensure that the standard can be extended to temporary accommodation, and to other types of housing provision where needed. I will happily come back on the point that the hon. Member for Bristol Central raised about the provision of asylum accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

These provisions deal with financial penalties. Schedule 5 sets out the process for a local housing authority to impose a financial penalty on a person and applies to clauses 39, 56, 64 and 89. Foremost, schedule 5 stipulates that, before imposing a financial penalty, a local housing authority must issue a notice of intent setting out its reasons for issuing the fine. Landlords then have 28 days to make written representations to the local authority—I have discussed this point outside of Committee with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Following that period of representations, the local authority must decide whether to impose a penalty. If it decides to issue a penalty, the local housing authority must then issue a final notice detailing the fine to be paid by the landlords, who will be able to appeal a decision to impose a penalty or the amount of the penalty by bringing an appeal to the first-tier tribunal within 28 days. The process in the schedule follows the precedent of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and is similar to the process in the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

Clause 99 applies the schedule 5 procedures and rules for imposing, appealing, recovering or applying the proceeds of a financial penalty related to the anti-discrimination provisions, rental bidding, landlord redress schemes and the private rented sector database. I commend the provisions to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 100

Rent repayment orders: liability of landlords and superior landlords

[Carla Denyer]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 100, page 120, line 9, leave out from “order)” to the end of line 12 and insert—

“—

(a) in subsection (1), omit “, beyond reasonable doubt,”;

(b) at the end of subsection (3), insert—

“(d) section 46A (where an order is made against more than one landlord or there has been a previous order”;

(c) after subsection (3), insert—

“(4) Where the application for a rent repayment order relates to an offence under sections 1(2), (3) or 3(A) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the offence has been committed.

(5) Where the application for a rent repayment order relates to any other offence to which this Chapter applies, the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offence has been committed.”””

This amendment would apply the civil standard of proof for Rent Repayment Orders pursued on the basis of a Protection from Eviction Act 1977 offence.

[Carla Denyer]

The amendment is related to amendment 44, which I spoke to a few days ago, and to the serious issue of illegal evictions. Amendment 41 would apply the civil standard of proof for rent repayment orders, known as RROs, which are pursued on the basis of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 offence, known as PFEA—I apologise; there will be acronyms. RROs are extremely difficult for renters to bring under the PFEA offence, due to the criminal standard of proof. As the Minister himself pointed out in our discussions on illegal discrimination, it is notoriously difficult for tenants to prove landlords’ culpability to a criminal standard of proof.

As I understand it, RROs for PFEA offences require a landlord who has committed an offence listed in the 1977 legislation to repay rent that has been paid in respect of a tenancy or licence. RROs are brought in the first-tier property tribunal, often as compensation by self-represented applicants who seek to reclaim rent they have paid to their landlord. Importantly, legal aid is not available for RRO claims, so tenants are almost always on their own. Currently, RRO claims require a criminal standard of proof. That is inappropriate because an RRO is not a criminal prosecution. It does not follow criminal procedural rules, or result in a criminal sentence or a criminal record if the defendant is convicted. As things stand, PFEA RROs are an anomaly. A civil claim in a civil court for illegal eviction or harassment applies the civil standard, despite the fact that civil claims typically attract much higher penalties in the form of civil damages. It is therefore logical and consistent to apply the civil standard of proof to PFEA RROs, in line with the rest of civil law.

What is more, RROs are intended to be accessible to lay applicants, but although that may be so for licensing offences, it is far from the case for PFEA offences. Lay applicants—I would include myself in that category, because I would also make the following mistake—might understandably focus on proving one aspect of the offence, for example the locks being changed, rather than a separate part of the offence, for example by proving the intention of the landlord. To a non-lawyer, that might seem an insignificant distinction, but intention carries substantial legal weight.

Often, these offences are not just difficult but impossible to prove to a criminal standard. Often, if a landlord changes the locks, they do it when the tenant is not at home. Illegal eviction and harassment occur in the privacy of renters’ homes, often without witnesses or evidence. The criminal burden for PFEA RROs places an extra and often insurmountable burden on lay applicants to prove their case at tribunal. It has a chilling effect because it prevents many claims from being brought in the first place, as the evidence to meet that standard is simply not available. Under the current standard, therefore, renters cannot apply for RROs as they cannot prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, even when it is clear that an offence has occurred and that only the landlord would be motivated to commit it. That error weakens enforcement and access to justice, and it undermines the purpose of RRO legislation.

The incredibly low number of RROs and PFEA eviction offences demonstrates that the system is not working. Safer Renting—also known as Cambridge House—and the University of York have conducted research estimating that, over the two-year period from January 2021 to December 2022, there were at least 16,089 illegal evictions, and that number is almost certainly an undercount. Meanwhile, data gathered from the organisation Marks Out of Tenancy—founded in my constituency, as it happens—shows that in the same period, from 2021 to 2022, there were just 31 RROs in which a PFEA ground was successful. That is 31 out of more than 16,000. The system simply is not working.

I appreciate that the statistics that I have referred to might be explained by several things, but the standard of proof is certainly part of the problem and could be part of the solution. In fact, given that we are getting rid of section 21 evictions, I fear that failing to apply the civil standard of proof will risk creating the unintended consequence that illegal evictions will soar, as landlords find a way around the protections introduced by the Bill. I hope that, on that basis, the Minister will consider my amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will begin by addressing clauses 100 and 101, and I will then turn to amendment 41, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central.

Clauses 100 and 101 make provision about the application of rent repayment orders to superior landlords and to company directors. To be most effective, tenants and local authorities need to be able to seek a rent repayment order against any landlord in the chain who has committed an offence. We are seeing a rise in so called rent-to-rent arrangements, which are often used by criminal landlords to mask illegal and exploitative practices and escape enforcement action. Clause 100 provides that superior landlords in such arrangements can be subject to rent repayment orders; that is currently not possible. With this important clause, we are ensuring that superior landlords cannot avoid their responsibilities. Rent repayment orders need to act as a sufficient deterrent to criminal landlords. Some criminal landlords see financial penalties simply as a cost of doing business. Clause 100 therefore doubles the maximum amount payable under a rent repayment order from 12 months to two years, making the deterrent effect significantly stronger.

Clause 101 will enable rent repayment orders to be made against directors and other similar officers of landlord bodies corporate that have committed a listed offence. Currently, if a tenant pursues a rent repayment order against a sham rent-to-rent or landlord company, the company can escape the penalty by virtue of having few or no assets or by simply dissolving. The clause will prevent this practice, for example by ensuring that, where certain conditions are met, individual directors of such companies can have a rent repayment order made against them. The clause ensures that rent repayment orders can be used effectively to tackle unscrupulous landlord companies and sham rent-to-rent companies.

Amendment 41 concerns an issue that the Government have previously considered and that I continue to keep under close review, namely what might be done to address the fact that proving illegal eviction and harassment to a criminal standard is, without doubt, extremely challenging and the prevalence of rent repayment orders in this area relative to other offences is low as a result.

As I have said before during our proceedings, the Government are clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences that cause significant harm and distress. Perpetrators must be robustly punished. It is right that the Housing and Planning Act 2016 extended repayment orders to cover these offences and that this Bill takes steps in other areas, including expanded civil penalties, to bear down on them.

Amendment 41, for which the hon. Member for Bristol Central made the case eloquently, would reduce from criminal to civil the standard of proof that needs to be met for rent repayment orders to be awarded in relation to unlawful eviction and harassment. To be candid with the hon. Lady and to explain my thought process, my concern about her amendment is primarily about the implications that it could have for the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole. RROs are a mechanism designed to provide redress and act as a deterrent in relation specifically to criminal offences. As such, I fear that lowering the standard of proof for individual offences, as proposed in her amendment, runs the risk of weakening the link between the culpability of the landlord and the making of a rent repayment order. If the tribunal does not need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord committed an offence, we could see a weakening of that link.

I am absolutely committed to ensuring that rent repayment orders are effective across all the listed offences. I feel that that has to be balanced against the need to maintain the coherence, efficacy and fairness of a regime that is, as I hope she will acknowledge, in most instances working extremely well and that we want to strengthen. As we introduce the strengthened rent repayment orders in the Bill, I am mindful that we do not want to inadvertently damage the functioning of that regime, which we need to build upon.

Although I am more than happy to continue a dialogue with the hon. Member for Bristol Central on the matter, I kindly ask her to withdraw her amendment. We would have to resist it if she pushed it to a vote, and I would like that not to happen. We keep this area under review, and I would like to keep the conversation going.

[Carla Denyer]

I have a follow-up question. If the Minister desires to keep the criminal standard of proof for RROs, will he consider speaking to his colleagues about amending legal aid, so that it is at least available to tenants who would otherwise need to represent themselves in criminal courts?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot, as a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, give her that commitment in Committee today, but we are having conversations across all Departments. This is an issue that the Government have considered, and I keep it under review. I recognise the challenge that the hon. Lady rightly poses, and which we have considered, which is that rent repayment order prevalence in this area is far too low.

As I have said, I worry about the unintended consequences of making what would amount to quite a significant change to the RRO regime. We want to strengthen it, because it is working and has worked incredibly well—particularly since the changes made in the 2016 Act—in providing effective tenant redress and acting as a deterrent. I am mindful about accepting significant changes in Committee, but I keep the matter under review. I will have those conversations, and my Department’s officials have had conversations across Government on this and many other areas.

Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Carla Denyer and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for moving the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), and I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their contributions.

The Government absolutely agree that unwanted private rental moves are not only stressful but extremely expensive in terms of both the unrecoverable costs associated with moving home and the significant up-front costs of moving into a new property, including tenancy deposits. That is why one of the Bill’s main objectives is to remove the threat of arbitrary evictions and increase tenant security.

Under the new tenancy system a small proportion of tenants will still find themselves evicted through no fault of their own in circumstances where the landlord has good reason to regain possession of the property—for example, if the landlord or a close family member wishes to live in it as their only or principal home. I therefore recognise the worthy intentions behind the new clause—namely, to ensure that tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by unwanted moves resulting from the use of such possession grounds.

However, I am not convinced that the new clause, which would require the FCA to issue guidance on how possession orders specifically should be reflected in an individual’s credit score, is necessary, because tenants’ credit scores are not adversely affected by evictions under ground 8 possessions. Credit reference agencies do not receive information about possession orders from the courts, and as a result possession orders are not recorded on people’s credit reports and do not negatively affect their credit scores.

I acknowledge that there is a distinct, but related, issue in respect of the impact on credit scores of changes of address in general, on which it is worth noting two things. First, the methodology that underpins credit scores is not uniform across different credit reference agencies. Experian, TransUnion and Equifax, for example, each have their own distinctive approaches to credit scores, including in how they reflect changes of address. Secondly, almost all lenders review a person’s credit report when assessing an application for credit, and a change of address would still be recorded on those reports.

Whether it is feasible and sensible to seek to have the FCA attempt to ensure that credit reference agencies treat moves resulting from the use of certain possession grounds set out in schedule 1 differently from changes of address more generally is an entirely valid question, albeit one somewhat distinct from that posed by the specific wording of the new clause. As things stand, I am not entirely convinced that it would be, but I will happily seek to ensure that Treasury Ministers engage directly with the FCA on this matter, including on the review cited by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. However, for the reasons I have stated, I will not be able to accept the new clause and ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

[Carla Denyer]

I and thank the Minister for his consideration and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the impact of the provisions of this Act on the housing market in the UK.

(2) A report under this section must include the impact of this Act on—

(a) the availability of homes in the private rental sector;

(b) rents charged under tenancies;

(c) house prices; and

(d) requests for social housing.

(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.”—(David Simmonds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

New clause 9 would head in the opposite direction from new clause 5. It is about removing unnecessary barriers to the use of licensing schemes to improve housing standards. The new clause would do two things. First, it would increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes from five years to 10. Secondly, it would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licensing conditions to improve housing conditions.

Licensing can be an effective way to improve housing standards for at least three reasons. First, it is proactive. It provides a means for local authorities to inspect privately rented housing using enforceable conditions and to identify and resolve problems without the need for tenants to have complained, and it provides that proactive regulation in a locally tailored form. It makes major contributions to area-based issues such as crime, antisocial behaviour and waste management, and it brings together a range of bodies to focus additional support services—for example, for landlords and tenants, improving public health and reducing burdens on the NHS. There are a huge number of wins, and I have experienced that at first hand with licensing schemes in my local authority.

Secondly, licensing is self-funding. It means that the market pays for its own regulation, which is a good principle, rather than relying on the taxpayer. It provides a sustainable and predictable source of income that enables local authorities to maintain staffing levels and support the training of new officers.

Thirdly, licensing is targeted. It enables local authorities to target regulation where that is most needed, so that the worst landlords and the most vulnerable tenants get the most attention and landlord costs can be minimised in other areas.

The problem, however, is that local authorities have to implement licensing schemes with their hands tied behind their backs, because previous Governments have made various decisions that have placed unnecessary and irrational barriers in their way. Given that licensing schemes are expensive and time-consuming for local authorities to initially introduce, it does not make sense to restrict the period over which they can act to only five years.

New clause 9 would amend sections 60 and 84 of the Housing Act 2004 to increase the maximum duration of discretionary licensing schemes, which includes both selective licensing schemes and additional—sorry, jargon again—for HMOs from five to 10 years. That would allow local authorities to advertise for longer-term posts for officers and to include training of new staff in those schemes. It would also provide more time for local partnerships formed through such schemes to become embedded and effective.

The new clause also addresses another issue, which was highlighted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health during oral evidence. That respected body pointed out that it does not make any sense to have the current peculiar disconnect in the 2004 Act, whereby local authorities can introduce selective licensing schemes to address poor housing conditions, but they cannot include a directly enforceable requirement relating to the housing condition as a condition of the licence—so they do not have the tools to do what they are set up to do. The new clause would therefore amend section 90 of the 2004 Act to enable local authorities to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions directly.

I stress that the new clause does not cover all that needs to be done to remove barriers to licensing. For example, I also urge the Minister to commit the Government to removing the Secretary of State’s ability to veto selective licensing schemes covering more than 20% of the local authority area.

[Matthew Pennycook]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

I support new clause 8, and I would also like to speak in favour of new clause 14, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). New clause 14 seeks to address an injustice around guarantors for students. In this speech, I cite heavily evidence provided by the National Union of Students and individual student union officers in my home city of Bristol, all of whom are very concerned about this injustice.

The widespread landlord practice of demanding that tenants provide a guarantor is discriminatory, especially in this situation. Tenants are asked to put someone forward, normally a parent or relative, who owns a house in the UK and/or earns an income typically above the national average. The guarantor is asked to guarantee to pay the rent should the tenant default, and to pay for any damage to the property should the tenant be unable to do so.

Although for some, this is just an inconvenience, for tenants who are from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds, who are estranged from their families, who have a background in care or who are coming to the UK, such as international students from abroad, it can be a huge barrier to securing a home. The practice can push those unable to find a suitable guarantor into unsustainable debt, because they are forced to pay either months of rent up front or for costly guarantor schemes run by private companies. Others are forced into hostels or sofa surfing, and can even be made homeless.

The stats are stark: 13% of students experience homelessness during their studies, and that figure rises to 29% for international students. This issue has a detrimental impact on the lives of student renters and their ability to focus on their studies. It is imperative that we address the issue to ensure fair and equitable access to housing for all tenants, including students, allowing them to flourish in their education.

Landlords have several other means available to protect themselves against potential losses, including tenant referencing, rent guarantee insurance and deposit protection schemes, all of which make guarantor schemes unnecessary. I am not pushing for a vote today, but I ask the Minister to have a dialogue—if he is not doing so already—with the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who tabled the new clause, and the NUS, with a view to including the changes in the next version of the Bill. Finally, I should mention that I have joined the all-party parliamentary group for students.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke for speaking to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), whom I commend for her work in this area, not just in this Parliament but in the previous one. She has been prodigious in pursuing this issue on behalf of her constituents, and I have reflected further on the points that she made on Second Reading.

The Government agree that it is unacceptable for bereaved guarantors to be held liable for unpaid rent where the only reason for it is the sad death of a tenant. Guarantor arrangements are not usually intended to protect landlords against the risk of financial loss caused by the death of their tenant; rather, they are used by landlords to reduce the financial risk of letting to a tenant who, for example, may have no previous residency in the UK and consequently no references from former landlords, or who might not successfully pass credit checks.

Although we understand that few landlords would use guarantor agreements to pursue debts that occur after a tenant’s death, we do know that sadly some do. This is an unacceptable practice that compounds the grief that families face after unexpected bereavements. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke will be reassured to hear that the Government have been considering this issue closely and in detail. We take it very seriously, and I am extremely sympathetic to the issues raised. I hope to be able to say more on Report about the matter and about the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for speaking to new clause 14, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on this issue, and for his engagement with me and on the Bill more generally. The Government understand that obtaining a guarantor may be difficult for some prospective tenants, and I absolutely sympathise with those who are in that situation. For some tenants, the requirement can, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central made clear, effectively block access to the private rented sector.

The Government are clear that landlords should consider a tenant’s individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts. I have been concerned to hear anecdotally about some landlords insisting that all tenants provide a guarantor, regardless of individual circumstances. That said, and ever mindful of the unintended consequences of weighing in without thought, I am aware that the use of guarantors can give landlords confidence to provide tenancies to individuals who otherwise may struggle to gain accommodation. That might include those with a history of rent arrears or with no previous rental history, those who are moving out of home for the first time and foreign students. As such, I am concerned that the wording of the new clause may inadvertently make it harder for those tenants to find a place to live, despite the honourable intentions behind it.

I recognise the importance of getting the balance right between barriers and enablers to accessing the private rented sector. I will continue to engage with hon. Members more broadly and with wider stakeholders, but in particular with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who has diligently pursued the matter. For the reasons I have given, however, I respectfully ask my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much sympathise with the intent behind the new clause, but I am afraid I will have to disappoint the hon. Lady by saying that I do not think it is necessary, and I will set out why. The Government strongly agree that landlords should not unreasonably refuse disability adaptations. As she rightly says, there is already a requirement in law that they do not. The Equality Act 2010 provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a request for reasonable adjustments to be made for the purposes of a disabled person using their home. Where consent has been sought and is refused, the burden is on the landlord to show why their refusal or any conditions are reasonable.

The hon. Lady said that the Bill does nothing to target the problem that she outlines, but I think it takes a series of steps that will support disabled renters to challenge unreasonable refusals without fear of retaliatory eviction—I am talking about the general overhaul of the tenancy system, which should provide them with more confidence in that area. In addition, when the new PRS landlord ombudsman is established, tenants may be able to make a complaint to it if they think that the landlord should have given permission for disability adaptations but has unreasonably refused to do so. That is another means of redress that will be introduced through the Bill.

Notwithstanding the hon. Lady’s point about a postcode lottery—we could rehearse for many hours the pressures on local authorities’ budgets—where a tenant has applied for a disabled facilities grant, local councils have the power to override the requirement for tenants to have the landlord’s permission to make adaptations, and to award the grant without permission if they believe that permission was withheld unreasonably. For those reasons, although I will reflect on the point that she made and although I sympathise with the intent, the new clause is unnecessary and I kindly ask her to withdraw it.

[Carla Denyer]

I will be honest: I am not convinced that the new clause is unnecessary, but I can do the maths so will not seek to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Rent controls

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body to be known as the Independent Living Rent Body within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(2) The ‘proposed rent’ referred to in section 55(2) must be no more than an amount set by the Independent Living Rent Body.

(3) The amount referred to in subsection (2) must be calculated as a function of property size, quality, local incomes, location, and such other criteria as the Independent Living Rent Body sees fit.”—(Carla Denyer.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Lady’s new clause, which she has set out clearly, seeks to require the Government to establish an independent body to set the maximum rent at which a landlord could advertise a property in writing, under clause 55, which I remind Committee members requires a landlord or a person acting on their behalf to state a specific and proposed rental amount in a written advertisement or offer for a proposed letting. Although I very much recognise the concerns in relation to rising rents generally and extortionate within-tenancy rent increases in particular—I do not think anyone on the Committee dismisses those concerns, particularly in parts of the country with hot rental markets, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—I do not believe the approach proposed in the new clause is necessary or proportionate.

I understand from the hon. Member for Bristol Central that her new clause is intended to provoke debate, and I am more than happy to debate it. However, I must confess that when I was considering the new clause’s specific wording, I struggled somewhat to ascertain how the new independent body would operate. I think she has given us a bit more clarity on her thinking, but I am still a little unsure. I will therefore put the two options in my mind that it might reasonably take.

It could mean that every landlord and letting agent in England would need to engage with the body proposed by the hon. Lady to set a maximum starting rent for every property they seek to advertise on every occasion that they require a new tenant. I think that is what she was driving at when she said that it would have to take into account specific factors relating to each property. We are debating the specific measure rather than a general point but if that is the case, the costs of administrating such an arrangement, which would have to apply to the approximately 950,000 new lets that occur each year, would be likely to be enormous. In my view, it would almost certainly have an impact on the time that landlords and tenants take to agree a rental price.

If, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central touched on later in her remarks, the body would simply be required to set maximum rents on the basis of broad principles and therefore not account fully for variation in the market, it would in effect be overseeing a form of rent control. The Government believe that would impact negatively on tenants as well as landlords, as a result of reduced supply, discouraged investment and declining property sales, as I have set out in detail previously.

I gently push back on the hon. Lady’s assertion that I am just asserting such a point; I have given the Committee extensive references to some of the negative impacts of various forms of rent control in other countries. There are academic studies on countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from cities such as San Francisco and Ontario, which show that rent regulation can have those precise effects. I was in Rome at the G7 yesterday, discussing this very matter with the German Housing Minister, who acknowledged that while there are benefits to the system in Germany, it has had an impact on supply in places. It could have a detrimental impact on tenants if we introduce it into our system here.

I am more than happy to debate. I think we will debate the issue throughout the Bill’s remaining stages in this place, and I am sure it will be a source of debate in the other place and again when it returns to us. I do not want to test your patience or the Committee’s, Sir Roger, by repeating the long discussion we have already had about rent control. I simply reiterate that the Government are confident that the Bill strikes the right balance when it comes to addressing, in particular, unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases. We do not believe the establishment of a body along the lines that the hon. Lady proposes would be beneficial to tenants or landlords.

I have made the point, and will do again, that the legislation is not the Government’s only answer to affordability pressures in the private rented sector. The hon. Lady referenced the Government’s intention to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. I appreciate the urgency with which that needs to take place. She is more than welcome to clarify the point, but I hope she commends the additional £500 million of funding in the recent Budget, the top up to the affordable homes programme this year and the action we are taking on right-to-buys, giving local councils 100% retention of discounts from sales. There will be more to come, not least when we set out further Government investment in the spending review next year.

On the basis of all the points I have made, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw new clause 11. I do not think it will be the last time we debate the matter as part of the Bill or more widely across the Parliament.

[Carla Denyer]

I certainly welcome additional funding for social housing, and I know that many local authorities do too, although I suspect that most if not all would also say that they need more than that. In terms of what exact model of rent controls we are talking about and how the independent living rent body works it out, I am deliberately not attached to exactly how to do that.

As I mentioned, there are 17 European countries that have some form of rent controls; they are all tailored to specific circumstances and some have worked better than others. My point is that we should not rule out an entire category of available tools on the basis of looking at a few examples that have not worked. I would rather we look at how we could make it work or, if not, at what the Government are going to do instead to tackle affordability in the private rented sector, given that the positive measures on social housing are unlikely to bring down rents in that sector by anything like the necessary amount.

As it is clear that the Minister will not support new clause 11, I suggest he should at least consider the merits of setting up a living rent commission to undertake work to inform evidence-based decision making about what we can do on the issue. When I was a Bristol city councillor, I was the co-proposer with a Labour councillor of commissioning a local version of that work to look at how rent controls could theoretically work in Bristol if the Government gave the council the necessary powers. We took that route specifically because we were aware that several options were available, so we first needed research on how it might work and how to avoid unintended consequences. I would love the Government to commission an equivalent study at a national level so that we can make informed decisions in future.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Lady that commitment. She somewhat downplays the amount of thinking that has gone into this legislation by my officials, me and my colleagues as to the appropriate and necessary measures. We think the measures strike the right balance. This legislation is not the only intervention we are making on affordability pressures in the private rented sector. As I have said, I am more than happy to continue the debate with the hon. Lady in the remaining stages of the Bill.

[Carla Denyer]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Matthew Pennycook]

May I take this opportunity, Sir Roger, to put on the record my thanks to you and to the other Chairs of the Bill Committee? Several Committee members are new to the process, and you and the other Chairs have done an incredibly effective job, with patience and generosity, of helping everyone to navigate the process.

I thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard Reporters, and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings. I also thank my officials and private office team, who have supported me and worked tirelessly over a short time to bring forward the Bill that we have debated in recent weeks.

Finally, I thank all hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for Bristol Central for the spirited and constructive dialogue we have had. I value all the contributions and the challenges that have been made. I know that we are united in wanting to deliver the best legislation that we can for all our constituents.

As we end this stage of scrutiny and prepare for Report stage, I hope we can all agree that these important reforms will finally provide certainty for the sector and deliver meaningful change to millions of renters and landlords. I look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Carla Denyer and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think I would make that particular point. To expand further, we have taken this particular approach because we think there is a benefit provided by the burden of proof that local authorities are required to meet. It is also the case that making breaches of rental discrimination provisions a single civil matter in England is in line with our wider discrimination legislation, in the way that it is not in Scotland and Wales—we will come on to discuss those points.

It is worth noting that, where there is evidence, local authorities can take enforcement action against either the landlord or the letting agent, or indeed both, if the letting agent has been party to the breach, and they can face multiple fines. They are civil fines at the £7,000 level rather than the criminal fines found elsewhere in the Bill, which have a much higher threshold of £40,000. I hope that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Again, if he writes to me, I am happy to give him a more detailed answer.

I hope that I have reassured the shadow Minister as to why we have taken this approach and that we have considered its impact on different cohorts. It is important that the power provided for in clause 38 is there. We will take it forward only very specifically, as I have said, after consultation and through the affirmative procedure, but we want to have it so that the system can to adapt to any new instances of discrimination that arise. To go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central has put to me fairly frequently, if sufficient evidence is brought to us that shows that certain cohorts, be it care leavers or anyone else, are facing the type of discrimination we want to bear down on through the Bill, we can more easily add them and cover them with that power.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I will quickly clarify the comments made about my amendment 78 by the shadow Minister, and then I will discuss my amendment and answer some of the Minister’s points. If I heard correctly, the shadow Minister said that he did not support the amendment because it mixes up compensation with criminal penalties, but my understanding of the conversation that we have just had is that the clause uses civil law rather than criminal law, so that point does not stand—or have I misunderstood something?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which I will come to in a moment. I have considered the role of the ombudsman, but the point of amendment 78 is predominantly to incentivise tenants to engage with the enforcement of the local housing authority.

Given the seriousness and scale of discrimination, bold measures are required. Though I welcome the Bill’s intention to stamp out discrimination, the reforms will only be as effective as the enforcement that underpins them. Under the legislation, local authorities will remain dependent on prospective tenants reporting a breach in the first instance. Let us bear in mind that we are discussing discrimination before somebody becomes a tenant—it is discrimination in the advertising of a property—so the prospective tenant may well not have an incentive for pursuing it. Local authorities will be dependent on tenants reporting the breach in the first instance, maintaining a potentially lengthy co-operation with the local authority and assisting the inquiry all the way to its conclusion.

That is a real burden. A tenant who has been refused a tenancy will likely still be contending with the extremely pressing issue of where they are going to live—they may have just been served an eviction notice or they may have had to move out of their accommodation quickly for another reason. They are unlikely to have the time or energy to volunteer their services for free to the local authority in exchange for no benefit.

I want to address a point that the Minister made against the amendment. In the circumstances I mentioned, the chance of tenants falsely or speculatively submitting a complaint is pretty slim, because they will have pressures on their time. If the prospective tenant were to get a cut of the amount received by the local housing authority, that would be a good incentive for them to report discrimination to the local authority, and discriminatory landlords would begin to be rooted out.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Will the hon. Lady give way on the point she just made?

[Carla Denyer]

Can I get to my next point? I suspect that I am about to answer the Minister’s question.

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady answers it, I apologise. I want to make two points. First, I understand her concern about tenants not having an incentive to take a complaint to the local authority. We want tenants to make legitimate complaints about rental discrimination, and I think that can be encouraged through Government messaging and guidance.

Secondly, one of the four concerns I expressed was about the impact on local authorities. Has the hon. Lady spoken to her own local authority to determine how comfortable it feels about losing £1,400 out of every £7,000 fine for a breach under this provision?

[Carla Denyer]

I will plough on, because I was indeed going to come to that issue.

First, however, I will address one of the Minister’s other points on the convergence of penalty and compensation principles. I understand his purpose in pointing out that these are not normally combined, but there is a precedent. Sharing the proceeds of a civil penalty between public bodies and the person on the end of the wrongdoing is a departure from the norm but, as I understand it, under section 214 of the Housing Act 2004, if a landlord has failed to comply with the tenancy deposit protection regulations, a court can award a tenant a sum of between one and three times the deposit they paid.

While there is no question in that legislation of sharing an award with the local authority, it is nevertheless an example of the convergence of penalty and compensation principles in a single move. Although deposit protection rules do not give us a blueprint for the proposal I put forward in amendments 78 and 79, they demonstrate that an acknowledgment elsewhere in housing law of the importance, proportionality and justification of restitution for tenants, which also serves as a form of deterrent and admonition for rule breaking, all in one go.

The Minister may be aware that I tabled an amendment to increase civil penalties for exactly the reason that he has highlighted: if the local authority is to share the proceeds with the tenant, the total amount should be higher to ensure that it covers the cost of the local authority taking on the enforcement. That amendment was not selected for debate, so I will not shoehorn in my comments on the subject, but since the Minister specifically asked me about it, I will make the case for increasing the total civil penalty. I proposed that it be increased to £15,000 so as to not harm the local authority’s ability to undertake enforcement activity, as well as to properly reflect the time and expertise involved in the local authority pursuing such cases. I think that addresses the concerns the Minister raised.

In conclusion, the tenant is the linchpin upon which a discrimination case such as this depends. On that basis, I believe that some form of financial compensation for the person on the end of the illegal treatment is fair and proportionate. They can pursue a case with the housing ombudsman case as well, and there is an argument for taking into account whether the tenant has received something through the housing ombudsman in determining what they receive in my proposed scheme, or vice versa, but the function of the two tools is different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

On the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central, the civil penalty income is imposed by a public body as a punishment for breaking the law. There is a point of principle about whether it is right—whether there is a precedent—to give a contribution back to the tenant from that. It feels very unusual to me.

I have a brief question for the Minister; it may be that as a new Member of Parliament I am not used to this yet. Is it normal to specify the amount of the fine in primary legislation? Can that cause problems later in respect of needing to uprate it with inflation or anything like that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, it is conventional to put the amount of the fine on the face of the Bill. There are provisions in the Bill that allow the Government to increase the fine to reflect the increase in inflation over time, so it is not a static, once-and-for-all £7,000 or £40,000 in the case of criminal offences.

On the point from the hon. Member for Bristol Central, I sympathise very much with the intent. We have to ensure that prospective tenants who face direct or more subtle forms of discrimination take a complaint to the local authority, but I have confidence that tenants will, and I have concerns about the approach she specifies. First, on a point of principle, the penalties are imposed by a public body for breaking the law. They are not a mechanism for compensation. It would be a departure from the norm, as she rightly appreciates.

My primary concern—I think the hon. Lady underestimates it even with the increased fee she proposes —is that there would be a significant impact on local authorities. They will take issue with losing 20% of the fine they can levy. I will check with her local authority after I leave the Committee as to whether they would be happy to lose that.

[Carla Denyer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me develop this point; then the hon. Lady is more than welcome to come back on it. Even if the loss of 20% of the £7,000 were covered by an increased fine, there are good reasons why we do not think that the fine should be higher in the Bill. Setting that aside, we think there would be significant administrative burdens to overseeing a system that redistributes part of a fine issued and secured via the specified means through the local authority. Different arrangements would need to be put in place to facilitate that. Financial incentives might create the risk of tenants taking cases where there is not sufficient evidence to press local authorities to investigate.

We have already had extensive discussion on whether, through this Bill, local authorities will be able to effectively enforce, because of the resource pressures on them. We are committed to new burdens funding to ensure that they can. I think that putting additional administrative burdens on them in the way specified is the wrong approach. The hon. Lady did not address this point, but there are real practical difficulties in identifying who has been the subject of discrimination. In her example it is simple, with a single tenant, but in cases of multiple tenants, what is the proportion of the compensation to be paid?

I think the hon. Lady’s amendment references instalments and a subdivision of the amount compensated for. This would be an over-complication of the Bill’s provisions. I am confident that the provisions will work in the way intended and that tenants will take their cases to local authorities. There is a duty on local authorities to enforce the provisions. The approach I put to the previous Minister was to put the onus on tenants and to enforce through the Equality Act. We are taking that burden off tenants and placing it on local authorities, imposing on them a duty to investigate and take action in cases of such increases. For those reasons, I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Lady’s amendments.

[Carla Denyer]

I have a few follow-up questions for the Minister based on what he just said. First, does he recognise that 20% of double the amount still leaves a significant increase for the local authority? He was talking about the local authority receiving a reduced amount, but losing 20% of double the amount still means a larger amount than previously.

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will give way, I can address that point.

[Carla Denyer]

My next point relates, so the Minister can probably address them together.

Secondly, the Minister said there were good reasons why he had selected £7,000 specifically and not a few thousand above or below that. Will he expand on why £7,000 is the magic number?

Thirdly, I would like to understand the Minister’s view on how tenants will be incentivised to have the prolonged engagement with a local authority that would be necessary to see the process through to conclusion—with only a public information campaign?

[Matthew Pennycook]

First, what research has the hon. Lady done on the administrative burden on local authorities of subdividing the amounts of money they take in through breaches to give that 20%? It is easy to say, “Increase the amount and the 20% is covered,” but, as I have put to her, there would be significant additional administrative burdens from setting up the type of arrangements she wants to see.

Secondly, why does the hon. Lady think that under the arrangements in the Bill tenants will have to spend an inordinate amount of time co-operating with the local authority to enforce breaches? As I have said, the onus is on the local authority duty, under the legislation, to investigate. Tenants have to co-operate, but I do not see any circumstances where a huge amount of their time is spent on investigation and enforcement. That is for the local authority. Does the hon. Lady have any more insight on those two points?

[Carla Denyer]

I have not myself done the calculations and consultations on what that might take a local authority. However, the amendment is based on evidence provided by experts in the evidence gathering part of the Committee’s work. I am trying to get the written evidence up on my parliamentary laptop, which is not co-operating. Off the top of my head, I believe it was from Shelter—I will try to look in a moment, when I have sat down. I am sure Shelter has done the work, so I would be pleased to get back to the Minister on the details when I can lay my hands on them.

Apologies, but I have forgotten the second thing the Minister said.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I simply asked why the hon. Lady thinks the process set out in the Bill will require huge amounts of tenant energy and time to see the enforcement process through. As I said, there is a statutory duty on local authorities in the Bill to take the process through. We have put the onus on them, not tenants. I wonder why the hon. Lady assumes it will take lots of effort on the part of the tenants themselves to seek redress through the provisions that the Bill sets out.

[Carla Denyer]

Yes, I remember now that the Minister asked whether I expected the tenants to investigate. I do not expect the tenants themselves to investigate, but I expect that a level of ongoing engagement will be required, which would be onerous if they are trying to flat or house-hunt and move house at the same time. My experience as a councillor for nine years, and as an active citizen, is that it often requires several successive engagements with a local authority to get the desired outcome.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will respond briefly because I have set out in some detail the Government’s view on the matter. If I can say so politely, there were a huge number of assumptions in there. There is an assumption that the tenant will have to spend inordinate amounts of time working with the local authority to enforce the provision. We do not want that to be the case. Tenants will have to engage, but the onus and duty is very much on local authorities to do the work.

The hon. Lady underestimates the amount of cost, time and resource that would fall on local authorities in terms of having to set up and administer a more complicated scheme to redistribute money. The ombudsman has powers in this area to investigate complaints. The provisions in the Bill are specifically targeted at ensuring that local authorities, through that civil offence procedure and that lower burden of proof, can take action to enforce. It is right that the fees set out in the Bill are ringfenced to local authorities to be able to enforce.

I sympathise with the objective that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, and we want tenants to take cases to their local authorities, but her amendments are flawed. I do not think they are thought through, and they rest on a series of assumptions that I do not expect to see occur in practice. For that reason, we will resist them.

[Carla Denyer]

I will follow up with the Minister on the details.

Renters' Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Carla Denyer and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for those well-made questions. This is a specific problem that we are trying to target, and the majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. We are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that, particularly in hot rental markets, there is a lack of supply vis-à-vis demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond which many of them can afford, or which, if they can afford it, puts incredible financial strain on them.

Once these provisions are in force, we think landlords will—in much the same way as the tribunal might—determine what the market rent is in a given area and what they can expect to receive from their property, and then advertise the rent at that price. I have been asked how that would work. Will landlords not advertise a price below what they could otherwise expect? We cannot have it both ways. If a landlord can expect a certain price through a competition, that suggests that tenants can pay a slightly higher price and bid up. We expect landlords to look at the market price in a given area and advertise the property at that rent, and these provisions will ensure that they cannot encourage or invite bids over that amount.

On the specific cases that the shadow Minister raises, I would not expect organisations of the type he lists to be in breach of their fiduciary duties as a result of these provisions. I understand his point about intermediary agents, particularly in groups of property where they might look to get the best deal on any of those things. I will come back to him on that specific point in writing, because I understand the need to work through those hard edge cases, but we think that only a very small minority of landlords will be affected. This is not the usual practice across every part of the country. His points were well made, and I will come back to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Penalties for unlawful eviction or harassment of occupier

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 57, page 79, line 31, after “section 1” insert—

“—

in subsection (4)(a), omit ‘the prescribed sum’ and insert ‘£60,000’;

(b)”.

This amendment increases the maximum fine for illegal evictions under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to £60,000.

[Carla Denyer]

I am sure we are all aware of the risk that the abolition of section 21 may lead to a rise in illegal evictions. The Renters’ Rights Bill needs measures to protect against that, and that is the purpose of amendment 44. Across the country, a segment of private landlords evade the courts and attempt to evict tenants themselves by taking actions that include changing locks, disposing of belongings, and even cutting off electricity and water supply and harassing tenants. Many illegal evictions take place in the shadow market, where landlords and letting agents deliberately breach the law to maximise rental profits. Many renters in the shadow market are on lower incomes in marginal employment, and they are unfamiliar with their rights.

In 2019, there were just 30 prosecutions of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 in the whole of England and Wales. Such a low prosecution rate allows criminal landlords to act with impunity. When sentencing, magistrates are also very lenient; fines of less than £1,000, community service and conditional discharge are common penalties for such behaviour. If the maximum fine is £40,000—as it currently is in the Bill—because of the nature of civil penalty notices, it is unlikely that the fine will ever reach that maximum unless the offence is particularly violent. So—and here is the rub—landlords may still take a calculated risk that they can save money by unlawfully evicting tenants, given the abolition of section 21. Even where illegal eviction is not violent, it is still a horrific crime, so it is appropriate that fines reflect that. I therefore propose a maximum fine of £60,000, to give space for appropriate fines to reflect the criminality and harm caused within that range.

The change would help to ensure that, for rogue landlords, illegal eviction is not the path of least resistance, as I fear it could otherwise be. Increasing the maximum will also give a strong indication to the courts that this is not just a technical breach, and that will hopefully therefore have a knock-on effect on sentences issued upon conviction.

These cases are particularly complicated and expensive for councils to pursue, and that brings us back to the point about the cost to councils that we discussed earlier, especially where landlords refer a case to the first-tier tribunal. If local authorities are bound to lose money even when they win the case, they will be hesitant to begin proceedings. Increasing the maximum fine will help them to have more confidence that they will not lose a substantial amount of money. That is particularly important in the context of 14 years of council funding cuts, as we all know, which mean that if councils stand to lose a lot, they are disincentivised to act.

[Matthew Pennycook]

As we move to the final set of clauses in part 1, we cover several miscellaneous issues. As we have heard, clause 57 concerns unlawful eviction and harassment of an occupier.

The Bill clarifies and expands grounds for possession so that landlords can take their property back when there is good reason for them to do so. Landlords must always follow correct court procedures to legally evict a tenant. There is no excuse for those who seek to gain possession in an unlawful way.

The Government are clear that illegal eviction, which can include harassing individuals to leave their home, is a criminal offence, and those who flout the rules and deprive tenants of a home in this way must be punished accordingly. Clause 57 amends the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to strengthen local authorities’ powers to do so if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed such an offence.

At present, local authorities can only prosecute offenders. That can be a lengthy process, and the fines imposed can be low. Although local authorities will still be able to prosecute after these provisions come into force, for the first time they will be able to issue a financial penalty on landlords who evict their tenants illegally in lieu of such a prosecution. That fine will be up to £40,000. It will be an alternative route to criminal prosecution, and it may often be simpler and more cost-efficient for local authorities.

The schedule that accompanies this clause sets out the procedure that authorities must follow regarding financial penalties. That includes information on handling the imposition of financial penalties, appeals and enforcement, and how to use the proceeds of the penalties.

The provisions will ensure that local councils consistently punish the most egregious offences, while allowing them to take the context of individual cases into account. By strengthening the enforcement framework, we will deter unscrupulous landlords from flouting the rules, drive out bad actors from the sector and improve protections for tenants.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central for tabling amendment 44. The Government accept that any attempt to force a tenant from their home unlawfully is unacceptable, and those who do so must be met with enforcement. However, in our view, the amendment is not required. It seeks to increase the fine for illegal eviction in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 from £5,000 to £60,000, as the hon. Lady has just set out. However, the cap on magistrates’ court fines for these offences has already been removed by section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and the offences are punishable by a fine of any amount.

Through the Bill as a whole, we are taking strong action on illegal eviction. We are extending civil penalties and rent repayment orders, placing a new duty on councils to take enforcement action and enhancing their powers of investigation to make that easier. We consider that our approach to enforcement is a fair and proportionate one. We are taking a clear, escalatory approach to civil penalties with first time, less serious non-compliance subject to much lower maximum penalties than serious or repeat non-compliance. The Government believe that the £40,000 maximum penalty for illegal eviction will act as an effective deterrent and is consistent with other serious offences across the Bill. I point out that that is higher than under the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, in which the amount was set at £30,000. As such, in our view it will act as a greater deterrent.

As I have said, criminal prosecution of course remains available for illegal eviction, and local authorities may decide that is the right course of action for the most serious cases. In such cases, landlords can be sentenced to imprisonment or to an unlimited fine. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Carla Denyer]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Abandoned premises under assured shorthold tenancies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Carla Denyer and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling these amendments, which allow us to have this debate. In my view—I think this is shared across the House —landlords must have robust and clear grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to take their property back. I hope that he will appreciate the steps the Government have already taken to ensure that the grounds are fair to both parties. We have overhauled the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill to provide additional protections for tenants, including longer notice periods, a longer protected period and a higher rent arrears threshold. We have also scrapped the previous Government’s harmful proposals to introduce a new ground for repeat rent arrears, and we have reduced the discretionary antisocial behaviour threshold to behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance.

However, amendments 73, 74 and 77, which would make all grounds discretionary, are a step too far. Indeed, I never argued for all grounds to be discretionary when we considered the previous Government’s Bill. Making all grounds discretionary would mean that landlords have no certainty that they would be awarded possession even if the grounds were otherwise met. That includes in situations of serious antisocial behaviour—where the tenant has been convinced of a serious criminal offence or has broken an injunction put in place to stop their behaviour. Landlords wanting to sell or move into their property could be prevented from doing so, and specialist sectors, such as temporary and supported accommodation, would not be able to guarantee regaining possession in order to house new individuals who require their support.

I assure the hon. Member that there are still many discretionary grounds in the Bill and that judges will have discretion in less clear cases or where possession may not always be reasonable, despite the ground having been met. It is absolutely right that judges have discretion where possession takes place in those circumstances, and that includes smaller breaches of a tenancy agreement or low levels of rent arrears. I believe the steps that we have taken to protect tenants provide sufficient protections against unfair evictions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I would like to speak in favour of the amendment and to bring the Minister’s attention to the evidence we received from experts, which highlighted the fact that discretionary grounds do not make it impossible for the court to award possession. In fact, in many cases, especially ones involving antisocial behaviour, it is reasonable to assume that the courts would apply a high threshold for where to exercise discretion. Nevertheless, that does not negate the principle that there may be extremely exceptional circumstances in which discretion is needed. The Government completely tying the hands of the courts so that they are unable to consider those extenuating circumstances is counterproductive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not have much to add to what I have already said. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Changes to grounds for possession

[Carla Denyer]

I beg to move amendment 42, in schedule 1, page 155, line 9, leave out “1 year” and insert “2 years”.

This amendment would increase the minimum period before a landlord can use certain grounds for possession from 12 months to 2 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

I thank the Minister for his response. I, too, have spent a lot of time reflecting on the potential effects of the amendment, including thinking about potential edge cases, exactly as he described.

Imagine someone who became an unintentional landlord, perhaps because after buying their home, they got seconded to another country for work for a year or two. While I recognise that it might be inconvenient for a landlord to have a two-year limit, it is also inconvenient for a tenant to have instability of tenure. If someone is, for example, seconded to work abroad for a year or two, with a fixed date of return to be back in their own property, they have to consider their responsibility to provide stable housing for their tenants. If they are not able to do that for a long enough time for the tenant not to be subjected to undue costs and effects on their health, stability, education and so on, maybe the landlord needs to look into short-term lets, rather than creating a situation where somebody believes they are making a permanent home. Say that person was going abroad for a year and a half, and the limit is two years—they might have to find somewhere else to live for a few months before moving back in. Yes, that would be an inconvenience, but we have to weigh that against the huge inconvenience for tenants who have their only home constantly disrupted and moved around.

I ask the Minister to look at this again, and to think about the edge cases, as well as where the greatest inconvenience and injustice really lies between the landlord and the tenant. I would be happy to have a chat with him. I will not press the amendment to a vote this morning.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Lady for her further contribution. I have weighed very carefully in the balance, and looking at the Bill in the round, whether a two-year protected period would be appropriate. I concluded it would not be, taking into account those edge cases, for the following reasons.

While I sympathise with the point the hon. Lady made about the very significant costs that tenants face with moves, and while we obviously need to ensure that tenants under the new system have the requisite amount of stability and security, she too readily dismisses the potential impact on supply in the sector. It would be inconvenient for landlords; it would be inconvenient for tenants more widely if we saw a subsection of landlords that feel that they may need to use ground 1A and would not put their property on the rental market because of the possibility that they will need to use it.

As we heard in the evidence sessions, such is the acute nature of particularly hot rental markets across the country—hers will be one; mine is another—that if we lose a chunk of supply because we say to landlords, “It is too costly, too risky for you to put your property on the market if you may need to go abroad and work for a year,” that would be to the detriment of tenants in the round.

I think the one-year period strikes the right balance. It mirrors the sort of typical fixed-term, one-year tenancy. I urge the hon. Lady to go away and think about whether, in the round, with all of the protections we have introduced vis-à-vis the previous Government’s Bill, the one-year protected period does not do enough. We will not accept the amendment. I will, however, further reflect on the points she made because, as I have said, I am sympathetic to them and had weighed up two-year protected tenancies in the context of the previous Government’s Bill, but I think, looking at this Bill in the round, one year is the appropriate period.

[Carla Denyer]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 157, leave out line 13.

This allows Ground 1B to be used to obtain possession whenever the landlord intends to grant an assured tenancy to another person (whether or not it is to be granted pursuant to a rent-to-buy agreement).

Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Carla Denyer and Matthew Pennycook

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Yes, that is very useful. Thank you.

Anna Evans: In terms of the differences between your Bill and the private residential tenancy, I have to confess that I am not an expert on your Bill, so I cannot answer that in detail, but I can say that the PRT is an open-ended tenancy. It has no fixed-term period. There is the eradication of eviction with no grounds. Eviction proceedings are simplified to 18 statutory grounds and there has to be a reason—what are the grounds for eviction? There are extended notice periods and also a phased implementation. I think that is a key point. A lesson that the current Housing (Scotland) Bill is looking at is whether short assured and assured tenancies should actually just be terminated now because there has been long enough. There is still a good proportion of assured tenancies in existence—we estimate probably about 20%. Short assured tenancies are certainly less secure, so one lesson would be that if you are changing, do not do it over seven years; do not delay.

[Carla Denyer]

Q Since you are an expert on the Scottish system, I will make use of your expertise; I want to ask more about rent controls. In my understanding, when the Scottish Government initially brought in rent controls in tenancy, that was because that was all they had the power to do at the time—they brought it in using existing legislation, initially during the cost of living crisis triggered by the pandemic—and ultimately, that they might do something different. You mentioned the Bill going through at the moment. In your view, is there an inherent problem with rent controls, or could the problems that you described be remedied by having some kind of controls between, as well as within, tenancies?

Anna Evans: I think what we have concluded from all of the evidence is that the rent control has to be very carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences. It is above my pay grade to say what that design might be, but there could be a range of ways in which landlords try to get around rent control. We have seen examples of offers from tenants—I understand that your Bill will avoid wars between tenants, in terms of rent levels, but because of demand-supply imbalance, tenants do offer landlords higher rents to get properties. Evidence across different states shows that rent control efficacy is variable, so it has to be very carefully designed.