Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

I think that is quite poor, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has itself benefited from £11.1 million of UK shared prosperity funding and £13.4 million from the levelling up fund. Next to him I see the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), whose constituency has benefited from £24.4 million from the towns fund. Oldham is also the recipient of £10.8 million from the future high streets fund. We are levelling up right across the country, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

8. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of Government funding allocated to local authorities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, we make continuous assessment with regard to the adequacy of funding. In this financial year we have made £64.7 billion available to local government in England, an above-inflation increase for local authorities as their real-terms increase in core spending power is now up to £4.5 billion or 7.5% in cash terms. That includes the additional measures for local authorities, worth £600 million, that we announced on 25 January, having listened to the views of local government, to her views when she engaged in the consultation and to the views of hon. and right hon. Friends across Shropshire.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but we have seen Shropshire Council make £50 million of cuts this year, and we are told that there will be £60 million of cuts next year to avoid a section 144 notice. Local residents are particularly concerned about the potential closure of recycling centres and a likely increase in fly-tipping across our beautiful countryside. Does the Minister agree that rural councils are in danger of delivering nothing more than statutory services if things continue? Will he consider adjusting the way that funding is allocated so that rural councils are given an amount that reflects the cost of delivering services in their area?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady is right to point to the need to review the formula, which is a commitment for the next Parliament. She will probably be aware—I hope she is—of the £8.9 million extra that Shropshire Council received this year through the rural services delivery grant in order to deliver those sorts of services. Do I think rural councils have to reduce to statutory services alone? No. All my engagement with the sector points to a vibrancy and a commitment to innovation, shaping places and improving the lives of people up and down the country, including in Shropshire.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I fully support the Government’s wish to overhaul the antiquated and feudal leasehold system in this country and address the imbalance of power between freeholders and leaseholders. I thank the Minister for his ongoing discussions with me about a number of issues I have with the Bill, and for attending the leasehold roundtable that I held recently with my constituents.

I would like the Government to abolish the system completely, but I understand that that will not happen with this Bill. I have therefore tabled an amendment and three new clauses that would improve the Bill further. New clause 12 would reduce the participation threshold required to claim the right to manage from 50% to 35%. That is a massive issue in Cities of London and Westminster. More than 1,300 properties in the City of London and an eye-watering 12,100 in Westminster have owners living abroad or are owned by companies using central London’s golden postcodes as a place to park their cash. That reduces the ability of leaseholders in those blocks to secure the 50% of signatures required to achieve the right to manage, as it is incredibly difficult to contact those overseas leaseholders for a meaningful discussion.

Let me give an example of that type of dilemma in my constituency. Residents in The Quadrangle in the Hyde Park Estate say that leaseholders in their block will struggle to meet the 50% participation threshold. They estimate that at least 40% of leaseholders in their block do not live in the building and are uncontactable. Accepting new clause 12 and lowering the threshold to 35% would give many more leaseholders living in similar blocks the chance to manage their buildings.

I commend the work that has been done on the Bill to support blocks that have shared commercial and residential usage. The Bill proposes to increase the proportion of commercial or non-residential space permitted in an individual block for a right to manage application from 25% to 50%, but I believe we can go even further. I have heard from many residents whose blocks will fail to qualify even after the threshold rises to 50%. For example, residents of 8 Artillery Row in Victoria believe that increasing the threshold to 50% does not go far enough, as the residential element of their block is lower than 50%. That is why amendment 17 is needed, as it would allow residents in a block with up to 75% commercial premises to apply for the right to manage.

New clause 14 is similarly designed to allow more leaseholders to strive for the right to manage, especially those in mixed-use buildings. Simply sharing a broom cupboard with a commercial property can disqualify them from claiming the right to manage. At Cambridge Court in Marylebone, for example, leaseholders striving to manage their block would benefit from the Government’s proposals to increase the non-residential threshold allowed in a building, but they are concerned that their ability to qualify for the right to manage would be undermined by the existence of a single shared car parking space in their building. My new clause 14 would amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 by adopting recommendation 5 from the Law Commission’s “Right to Manage” report, which is to allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or underground car parks to exercise the right to manage.

Finally, my new clause 15 would correct the unintended consequences of the Building Safety Act 2022. That Act has interfered with the long-standing section 24 regime, which was a vital right for leaseholders. It introduced an accountable person mechanism that expressly banned section 24 managers from being the accountable person. Consequently, specially trained and vetted professional property managers willing to take on difficult sites have been barred from being the accountable person. That makes absolutely no sense, and it stripped leaseholders of an existing right. That could not have been the Government’s intention when they introduced the 2022 Act, which was intended to provide leaseholders with additional statutory protections. So many leaseholders in my constituency and across the country would benefit from applying for a section 24 manager, but they cannot risk it if they are in blocks of 18 metres or higher because of the accountable person regime issue arising from the Building Safety Act. It is imperative that our buildings are safe, that leaseholders are safe, and that the burden does not fall heavily on leaseholders.

I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I hope that the Government will consider what I have spoken about and work with me to introduce the measures in the other place. This is a watershed moment for the Government to prove that they understand the terrible treatment that leaseholders have faced and continue to face by incompetent freeholders, and to address the imbalance between freeholder and leaseholder. I hope that the Bill will deliver real change.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, which was tabled in my name, and in support of a number of new clauses and amendments tabled by right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.

I tabled new clause 1 because, as was said by the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), who is no longer in his place, fleecehold is a scam. It attempts to deal with the issue whereby a freeholder is trapped in a situation where they pay estate management charges for the areas around their development, be they roads, play areas or open spaces. Critically, the new clause also deals with the shared assets that might be in use to service their homes, such as ground source heat pumps, septic tanks or sewage pumps. I am sure that there are many instances in which the management company does a great job and charges reasonable fees for its work, but my inbox—like those of many hon. Members—contains horrifying examples of the management company, which is usually directly owned by or related to the developer in North Shropshire, failing to do a good job, or to do any sort of job at all.

There is a freeholder in my constituency, for example, who must obtain an information pack from their estate management company in order to sell their house. Despite repeated requests, my constituent has not received that information pack, so their sale has been significantly delayed and is at risk of falling through altogether. The management company is apparently just a shell—it does not respond to correspondence, hold annual general meetings or provide accounts—so the affected residents are powerless and cannot take control of the company and appoint a reliable professional to provide the services that they so desperately need. New clause 1 would allow them, where the management company has gone AWOL and will not respond to anything that they request of it, to take control of the company and do those things themselves.

The new clause also extends to assets, which may be more of a rural problem when it comes to shared estate charges. In one example in my constituency, a developer installed a ground source heat pump to provide all the heating and hot water for a barn conversion development that involved several houses in the same set of barns.

That developer has two separate companies: one is the management company through which he charges the owners of those houses for their electricity bill, and another, totally separate company that was nothing to do with the sale process, which is where he placed the heat pump. As such, he is able to cream off all the renewable heat incentive income for himself; he provides accounts to residents through the management company, but does not provide them with any information about the fundamental asset that is servicing their home. Those residents are unable to benefit from the renewable heat incentive that accrues from that asset, and do not know whether it is being properly maintained and serviced. They are unable to do so themselves—they have no rights in relation to that heat pump.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I draw to the hon. Lady’s attention and that of the Minister the article by Patrick Hosking in The Times today, which deals with estate management companies and estate management charges. I hope that the Government will read what he has written and see what they can do to make things better.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention.

I will conclude by saying that I support the amendments that would require professionalisation of the industry— that would be very sensible and consistent with other legislation that the House has passed. I also support new clause 5 and amendments 4 and 8, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook); new clause 39, tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts); and new clause 25, tabled by the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The Bill goes some way towards providing the protection that we need, but it needs to go much further to protect freeholders from rogue developers and estate management companies. I urge the Government to take that away and do more.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To protect the last six speakers and protect ministerial time as well, there is now a five-minute limit on speeches, which will give the Front Benchers sufficient time to respond.

Local Government Finance

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

In common with many Members of the House, including 40 Members of the Government Benches who signed a County Councils Network letter a couple of weeks ago, I can report that my local council—Shropshire Council—is cutting services because it is chronically underfunded. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

It is disappointing to try to score political points about an issue that is so important and directly affects the lives of so many people. Shropshire Council is run by the Conservatives and, while undoubtedly the Liberal Democrats would make different political choices about how money is spent, there is no getting away from the fact that the issue affects councils of all types, under all parties, because there is a chronic structural funding issue that we need to address. Most people in Shropshire are paying more for less because of our social care costs, which amount to 85% of the budget. No political party will be able to solve that issue without additional help from central Government. There must be recognition of the social care crisis that is overwhelming councils such as mine.

It is worth reflecting on the amount of central Government funding that has been awarded to councils since 2016-17. According to the House of Commons Library, there has been a £5.75 billion decrease in real-terms funding—in Shropshire, that is about £37.3 million—and compared to 2015-16 there is 51.3% less funding per person in Shropshire from central Government. How are we going to stop people paying more for less? I do not have the answer, and I know the leader of Shropshire Council does not have the answer either.

What does that mean for people across the country? Providing fewer services drives inequality of all types. Let us think about the example of swimming pools. The Government have said 276 local authority pools have been closed since 2015, including the Whitchurch swimming pool in my constituency, although we are lucky because that pool is being rebuilt. Many places are not so lucky; people in my constituency may be without a swimming pool for years, but in some places it will be forever. If they cannot get to a neighbouring town, have access to a car or pay to go to a nice private swimming pool, their children will not learn to swim. That fundamental and deep inequality, which we should avoid, is a direct consequence of poor council funding.

Another example in my constituency is that the civic centre in Whitchurch has had to close recently because of issues with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and asbestos. The council cannot afford to either rectify or rebuild that civic centre because of the interest on the money they would have to borrow. The amount to be borrowed would be about £7 million, so the interest would be about £750,000 a year. The council should not be in a situation where it cannot provide cultural enrichment or generate economic benefit by bringing people into the town centre because it cannot afford that relatively small amount of additional borrowing for something so basic.

As I mentioned, Shropshire Council is Conservative-run. I have had some constructive meetings with its leader, who has been very open and said that the social care requirements will overwhelm the whole budget in future years unless something urgent is done. No amount of paperclip savings will get the council to the point where it will be able to afford our social care budget in the future. Not only do we have an ageing population and an elderly demographic, but we are also a very rural area. The cost of delivering social care is much higher in such areas—a point to which other Members have alluded—as carers have to travel long distances between each person they are caring for and so pay high fuel costs. It is much more expensive to deliver that social care.

We need to look urgently at the issue of fair funding, taking into account the cost of service delivery. While the £15 million increase in the rural services delivery grant is welcome, the total budget of £120 million will not touch the sides of the social care issues that councils in rural areas face. We urgently need the Minister to work with his colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care to fundamentally reform how we fund and deliver social care. Until we grasp that nettle, we will not solve the issue of local authority funding with the odd extra bit of money here and there. Someone could end up in crisis just so that fewer councils have to issue section 114 notices.

I wish to touch on children’s social care and special educational needs and disabilities. I had an interesting conversation with a school recently about its budget. I realise that this is not a topic for this Department, but, while the money the school gets to support a child on an education, health and care plan is woefully inadequate—it makes a loss on each child that it is trying to support—the £6,000 cost is crippling the council budget. We need to look at that, but, again I urge the Minister to consider what that means for the lives of individual people. I have a case of a young man who has just turned 16. He has a life-limiting illness and severe disability. The council had to save money and made a policy decision not to fund transport for young people over 16 with special educational needs and disabilities, so his transport funding was cut. Thankfully, we have resolved the situation for that one individual, but there will be thousands of other individuals in the same position across the country, and the impact on the family is devastating. Those young people need to go to a special place during the day for additional care or schooling, and their parents need to go to work. If the transport is not there, it has a fundamental and detrimental impact on the life of that family. We need to acknowledge that and find a way to solve the issue.

The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee report, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has said that SEND support is an issue that will lead councils to a cliff-edge of section 144 notices, so we need to address that matter properly.

I also wish to touch on the issue of housing, which affects those district and unitary councils that have to deal with the problem of temporary housing. A couple of weeks ago, Eastbourne District Council organised an event in Westminster; they invited council leaders of all parties and from all parts of the country to discuss the issue of temporary housing and its impact on their budgets. It was a well-attended event, with a good deal of cross-party agreement. However, I was a little disappointed not to see a Minister there to talk to those council leaders.

Eastbourne is spending 48% of its budget on temporary housing. That is not sustainable. Even in Shropshire, which cannot be counted as one of the councils with the most critical issue of temporary housing, we have seen the numbers of those in temporary housing double since 2018. It is important that the Government grasp this issue of social housing—housing for social rent—because people are living in temporary accommodation that is often unsuitable, inadequate, and not anywhere that any of us would be satisfied to live in. The problem could be solved by investing in social housing. We have a plan to deliver 150,000 social houses a year by the end of the next Parliament. To put that into context, it would save, according to the House of Commons Library, £11 billion a year in housing benefit, which currently ends up in the hands of private landlords. Therefore, it makes economic sense to solve this problem, and I urge the Minister to consider that.

I am aware that I have repeated some of the points that other Members have made. Rural councils are struggling to meet the needs of an ageing population and the increased costs of delivering those services. They are struggling to plan not only with this single-year settlement, but with the fact that there is no certainty about what happens after next year. Shropshire Council is trying to save £50 million this year. That means £1 million of cuts every week to services that people have paid more for, and the council does not know what it will cut next year. That is the reality. Dipping into reserves, using some of its capital budget for revenue, or selling off some of its assets are one-stop solutions and do not solve the ongoing structural deficit into the years ahead. Therefore, once a council has sold the library and spent that money on adult social care, what does it do the following year? There is no library left to sell. It is so important that we do not plug these gaps with short-term fixes. We must address the structural problem affecting our councils.

In my meeting with the council leader, I was told that even after a 30% increase in council tax in Shropshire to plug the gap, people would still see a cut in services. Clearly, that is unsustainable and unacceptable.

Let me return to this point about the difference between rural and urban councils. The Rural Services Network has said that urban councils get 38% more than rural ones. However, we should not be having an argument about robbing Peter to pay Paul, because those urban councils are in crisis as well. We need to look at the overall cost of delivering services, and find a solution to deal with the fundamental drivers of increased costs.

I know that the Minister has been a councillor, as have many Members. Regardless of their political party, no councillor has got themselves elected and put themselves on the frontline in order to charge their own residents more and deliver less. We should be considerate of individuals in that situation, and address the fundamental drivers of the crisis affecting councils led by all parties and in all parts of the country. To reiterate, the issues are social care, children with special educational needs and disabilities, and housing. I urge the Minister to work with his colleagues in the relevant Departments to come up with long-term fundamental reform in those areas to solve this crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Loder]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I appreciate the point she makes and agree with much of what she says. I just wanted to briefly say—

[Helen Morgan]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe my hon. Friend had finished her speech. She was not accepting an intervention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Are we saying that the hon. Lady had sat down?

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Helen Morgan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I have mentioned before that Liberals have been campaigning to end leasehold since the days of Lloyd George, so I am pleased to see this piece of legislation finally being debated in the dying days of this Parliament. I hope that there is the time left to pass it and see meaningful change for the many leaseholders—leaseholds comprise 20% of the housing stock in England—who are boxed in by exorbitant management charges and uncapped ground rents.

The content of the Bill is welcome, and the Liberal Democrats will not oppose it on Second Reading, but, like other Members, we have significant concerns about the omissions from it. First, the Bill does not actually ban leasehold. Perhaps more importantly, it does not ban the creation of new leasehold flats. I do not grasp the logic of arguing that leasehold is outdated and unsuitable for the modern housing market, while allowing 70%—the vast majority—of leasehold arrangements to go ahead.

The Liberal Democrats support the comments made recently in The Guardian by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), that

“commonhold should be the new default tenure”

for all flats, and that it should be easier for leaseholders to collectively purchase their freehold should they wish. I also agree with several other Members that giving leaseholders first refusal when the freehold is sold is a good idea. It seems to me that without those more radical measures, the Bill is less leasehold reform and more leasehold tinkering.

I think that we all agree with the Secretary of State that this is a feudal system that needs radical overhaul, and I am not sure why the Bill does not go further to achieve that. I have been lobbied, and I have some sympathy for the argument that there is a need to ensure that there is a clear line of responsibility, and indeed liability, for building maintenance and safety in large blocks of flats, but most other countries—in fact, all countries other than Australia—have managed to achieve that without reliance on the leasehold model. Indeed, our recent experience regarding the safety of large blocks of flats, with the cladding scandal, suggests that in many instances the leasehold model has demonstrably failed to provide it. We probably all agree on that point.

I am also confused about why the Bill omits to introduce professionalisation in the management of leasehold buildings. The British Property Federation has said that

“the lack of any provision to introduce competency standards or regulation to our sector is a missed opportunity.”

Given the experience of many leaseholders over the cladding scandal, and the welcome professionalisation of the social housing sector, I hope that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that management is professionalised and will seek to introduce such measures in Committee. I wonder whether the Minister would commit to that in his closing remarks.

In my North Shropshire constituency we do not have a large number of flats, but we have been plagued to some extent by new housing developments in which the housing is freehold but shared areas, services and essential infrastructure are managed by the original developer. As we all know, those are referred to as fleeceholds, and since being elected I have told a number of horror stories regarding such arrangements, both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. The provisions in the Bill that allow the right to challenge charges, provide for greater transparency of information, and relate to the quality of work and an associated system of civil penalties, are a welcome step in the right direction, but I wonder whether I could push the Government to go further in that area.

The tenants of such developments pay both their council tax and an estate management charge, yet they often receive a far worse service than those who live in adopted developments and are subject only to council tax. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) laid out some of the issues in his excellent speech, so I will not go into too much detail, but I urge the Minister to consider ending the practice of shared ownership of public spaces for the vast majority of new developments. They have the commercial substance of a leasehold, and I would like to see a presumption that the shared areas around new developments are almost always adopted by the local authority where the development is standard in nature. Where there is no good reason for that not to happen, homeowners on those developments should have their rights clearly set out so that the matter can be settled quickly in court.

I ask the Minister to consider further the specific circumstances where assets such as sewage pumping equipment or a ground source heat pump are shared by everyone on the estate. I am grateful to him for listening to my concerns prior to the debate. Freeholders using such equipment are dependent on its being installed and maintained to a high standard, but the experience of my constituents is that conveyancing solicitors do not alert buyers to the risks involved in this type of structure, and that the ownership structure can be opaque and almost impossible to challenge. I have one development in which the developer retained the ground source heat pump to be used by the rest of the houses in a separate company. He charges the full cost of running that pump to the residents but keeps the renewable heat incentive payments to himself, making a huge profit in the process. The freeholders’ only route of redress is through the courts. Because of the opaque management structure, it is not clear that they will win, and they do not really have the resources to commit to those legal proceedings.

It is not uncommon in rural places such as North Shropshire for a new development to use a shared septic tank rather than be connected to the mains sewer. If the tank has been installed to a poor standard, the costs of rectification are charged to the freeholders once they move in. Those are costs that they would not have anticipated when they bought the property. I would welcome greater clarity over who is responsible for ensuring that such shared assets are fit for purpose before the freehold houses are sold for habitation. Currently, such assets and services are outside the building control regime. That means that if someone gets a completion certificate on their house, which might have been properly constructed, but their sewage system is not fit for purpose, they will still have a valid building control certificate, and will be none the wiser when they buy the property.

I ask the Minister to consider whether further protections can be put in place, such as ensuring that inspections of those assets are included as part of the building control sign-off, ensuring that reserve funds are being collected and appropriately ringfenced through reasonable service charges throughout the life of such assets, and allowing freeholders to take joint ownership of the assets for a nominal fee if they wish to do so. A right to manage would be so welcome for residents trapped in such situations.

Will the Minister also expand on the issue of enforcement? The additional rights afforded to leaseholders and those paying estate management charges will be effective only if there is an affordable way for leaseholders and fleeceholders to ensure that they can be enforced. We all have experience of freeholders simply failing to respond to correspondence, or requiring their tenants to take them to court in a highly unaffordable process, often charging the costs of that court process to leaseholders. Enforcement is therefore not really achievable at the moment, but it is so important to ensure that those revenue streams are effectively squeezed for freeholders.

The Bill is a small step in the right direction, but so much more could be done to end this outdated form of tenure. It was 1909 when Lloyd George described leasehold as “not business, but blackmail”. It is high time that we grasped the nettle and ended it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have had numerous conversations to that effect. Northern Ireland has benefited from £120 million in rounds 1 and 2 of the levelling-up fund but, in the context of growing pressure on Northern Ireland budgets, it is right that the UK Government should consider their approach to the funding available for Northern Ireland in this round. In LUF3, £30 million has been reserved for Northern Ireland and, as part of our commitment to levelling up, we will work with the restored Executive to find the best approach to supporting people in Northern Ireland. I again confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that I will work with him and others, once the Executive are back up and running, to see how we can best level up his community.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Whitchurch in my constituency has not received any levelling-up funding, whether from the levelling-up fund itself, the towns fund or the future high streets fund. Now it has found itself without a civic centre because of dangerous reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, so it has lost its library, registry office and driving test centre, which was soon to be reopened following a long campaign by myself and others. Will the Minister meet me to work out what we can do to put that important building back into the heart of Whitchurch?

[Jacob Young]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Member.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point and on the other questions that he raised.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 9 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 10

Other duties of landlords and former landlords

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 10, page 13, line 11, leave out “three” and insert “six”.

This amendment would increase the time which must elapse between a landlord taking ownership of a property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it and making the property available to rent from three months to six months.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 140, in clause 10, page 13, line 11, leave out “three” and insert “12”.

Amendments 140 and 141 would prohibit a landlord from reletting or remarketing a property within 12 months of obtaining possession on the ground for occupation or selling; and from authorising a letting agent to market the property within that period.

Amendment 134, in clause 10, page 13, line 13, after “tenancy” insert

“or on a short-term let or holiday let”.

This amendment would clarify that a landlord cannot let a property as a short-term or holiday let for at least three months after taking ownership of the property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it.

Amendment 135, in clause 10, page 13, line 14, at end insert

“or on a short-term let or holiday let”.

This amendment would clarify that a landlord cannot market a property as a short-term or holiday let for at least three months after taking ownership of the property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it.

Amendment 133, in clause 10, page 13, line 19, leave out “three” and insert “six”.

This amendment would increase the time which must elapse between a landlord taking ownership of a property for the purposes of them or their family occupying it and the landlord authorising a letting agent to make the property available to rent from three months to six months.

Amendment 141, in clause 10, page 13, line 19, leave out “three” and insert “12”.

Amendments 140 and 141 would prohibit a landlord from reletting or remarketing a property within 12 months of obtaining possession on the ground for occupation or selling; and from authorising a letting agent to market the property within that period.

Amendment 142, in clause 10, page 13, line 27, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) the tenant either surrenders the tenancy without an order for possession being made or delivers up possession of the dwelling house under the terms of an order for possession.”

This amendment would extend the prohibitions on a landlord reletting or remarketing a property, and from authorising a letting agent to market the property, for which possession has been obtained on the Ground for occupation or selling by court order.

Clause stand part.

Government new clause 4—Other duties.

Government new clause 5—Landlords acting through others.

[Helen Morgan]

Once again, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, on which there are two jointly owned properties: a residential property and a holiday let.

During our evidence sessions, we heard that experience in Scotland has shown that grounds 1 and 1A are open to abuse by landlords who are simply looking to re-market their property either at a higher rent or to a different tenant who will not complain about serious defects in the property. We heard about a pretty horrifying case in which a rat and maggot-infested property was simply re-marketed three months later. Clearly, the time in which the property could not be re-marketed was not enough of a deterrent to prevent abuse of such a clause. Amendments 132 and 133 therefore seek to extend from three to six months the period before which a property can be re-marketed.

In our debates over the past couple of days, I have spoken at length about the need to ensure the maintenance of balance between tenants and landlords, so that landlords are not driven from the market, which would exacerbate the chronic shortage of rental property in the whole UK and the decline in the size of the private rented sector in rural parts. I do not think that these amendments would have an impact on that balance. Any landlord who is seeking repossession under ground 1 or 1A and is acting in good faith has no intention of re-marketing the property at the point at which they seek repossession. Extending the period beyond which it can be re-marketed should not influence their decision in any way.

We understand that people’s circumstances can change, sometimes very suddenly. I think six months is a reasonable length of time both to provide a deterrent to abuse of grounds 1 and 1A and to provide fairness for landlords who have acted in good faith but have suffered an unexpected change in circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the steps needed to prevent the recurrence of the situation in Scotland that we heard about and, ultimately, to support the lengthening of the period.

Amendments 134 and 135 seek to address the problem facing many tourist areas that properties for private rent are being flipped into holiday lets or Airbnb-style holiday homes. Members of all parties who represent tourist hotspots have raised the issue in the main Chamber, and there is broad consensus that the over-supply of holiday accommodation is having a hugely detrimental effect on those areas.

There needs to be some holiday accommodation, but the balance of holiday and private rented sector accommodation is very important for those areas, because over-supply of holiday accommodation hollows out communities. It has led to a situation in which the workers needed for the tourist industry to thrive have nowhere to live, so hotels and restaurants are unable to operate at full capacity. That is bad for the local economy, as well as for people who cannot find anywhere to live in the area.

Meanwhile, in rural areas, the private rented sector is shrinking rapidly. Local families and people working in essential services, such as care workers, teachers and nurses, are being driven away. The sector is completely out of balance. My understanding of the legislation is that landlords seeking repossession under ground 1 or 1A must not re-market the property as a residential let within a three-month period; I would prefer six months. There is no provision for holiday let-style marketing, because those properties do not require tenancy agreements.

My amendments recognise that problem by adding holiday letting to the three-month, or ideally six-month, moratorium on re-marketing once ground 1 or 1A has been used to regain possession. I think that that is a pretty uncontroversial addition to the Bill; I very much hope that Government Members support me when I press amendments 134 and 135 to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to speak to amendments 140 to 142. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Shropshire. We agree fully with the spirit behind amendments 132 to amendments 135, and we will support the hon. Lady when she presses either amendment 134 or amendment 135, regarding short-term lets, to a vote. They highlight a valid concern.

As we made clear during an earlier debate on mandatory possession grounds 1 and 1A when considering clause 3, we believe that there is a clear risk that these de facto no-fault grounds for eviction could be abused in several ways by unscrupulous landlords. As a result, we are convinced of the need to amend the Bill to provide tenants with greater protection against their misuse. However, we do not believe that the hon. Lady’s proposal to extend the no-let provisions in clause 10 from three to six months for both standard periodic and short-term lets is sufficient, for reasons I will go on to explain.

We are once again considering mandatory possession grounds 1 and 1A because clause 10 would insert proposed new section 16E into the 1988 Act, prohibiting certain actions by landlords or former landlords, including re-letting or re-marketing a property or authorising an agent to market the property within three months of obtaining possession on those grounds.

We take no issue with the prohibitions that the clause provides for. It is obviously right that the Bill seeks to prevent landlords letting a fixed-term tenancy; serving an incorrect form of possession notice; failing to give prior notice where required; specifying a ground for possession that the landlord is not entitled to use; and issuing a notice for possession proceedings within the proposed six-month protected period that applies to grounds 1, 1A and 6. We also welcome the clause’s explicit prohibition of the re-letting or re-marketing of a property obtained by means of issuing a ground 1 or 1A notice, and the fact that clause 11 provides for financial penalties and offences for a breach of that prohibition.

As I remarked to the Minister in a previous debate, the fact that the Government have introduced that prohibition highlights that they clearly accept that amended ground 1 and new ground 1A could be used as a form of section 21 by the back door. However, we are absolutely convinced that a three-month no-let period is simply not sufficient to deter and prevent abuse of the kind we fear will occur if the two possession grounds in question remain unchanged. We take that view because of our understanding of the English rental market.

Three months of lost income, which is what any unscrupulous landlord who deliberately abuses mandatory possession grounds 1 and 1A in order to evict a tenant will incur, may act as a significant disincentive for some buy-to-let landlords, particularly those with highly geared large portfolios who have seen their rental yields reduced by rising interest rates and the restriction of mortgage interest tax relief as a result of tax changes under section 24 of the Finance Act 2015.

However, a significant proportion of landlords do not have a mortgage; they own their property outright. A recent survey carried out by Shelter suggested that well over half of all landlords come under that category. For landlords who are mortgage-free or have a mortgage but can absorb extended void periods, a three-month no-let prohibition, which could ultimately see them losing only one month of rental income if the tenant serves out the two-month minimum notice period that applies to grounds 1 and 1A, is not a particularly strong deterrent against abuse.

We believe that the no-let prohibition provided for by clause 10 in respect of mandatory possession grounds 1 and 1A must increase from three months to 12 months. That would ensure, taking into account the full minimum notice period, that any landlord not legitimately using the landlord circumstances grounds to occupy or sell the property would lose 10 months of rent—a financial penalty that we think would be sufficient to deter and prevent such misuse. Amendments 140 and 141 would provide for that 12-month no-let period. I urge the Minister to reflect further on the issue and to accept the amendments.

Amendment 142 seeks to address a distinct but related issue with the no-let prohibitions provided for by clause 10 in relation to grounds 1 and 1A. Proposed new section 16E(5) provides that the prohibition is applicable only if the tenant surrenders the property as a result of a notice having been served, without an order for possession being made. To put it another way, the proposed three-month no-let ban will be applicable only in instances where a tenant has left a property voluntarily without court proceedings, not where a court has issued an order. That is genuinely inexplicable, from our point of view.

Is it the Government’s view that where a ground 1 or 1A notice is served and the tenant wishes to contest it, the no-let prohibited period would, in effect, run throughout the possession proceedings, so that if they take three months or more, the period will have been deemed to have already expired prior to any order being issued? Is that the reason? If so, we would welcome clarification. Otherwise, we cannot understand why the prohibition does not apply where a court has issued an order. The Minister must provide a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the Government’s decision, because we cannot understand why it is equitable to apply the prohibition only to instances where a tenant has left a property without court proceedings, vis-à-vis having challenged them by taking the matter to court.

We are also concerned that the decision to do so will prevent tenants themselves from seeking redress in instances where they have good reason to believe that grounds 1 and 1A have been misused. It stands to reason that tenants who have challenged their eviction in court are inherently more likely to suspect that they are being wrongfully evicted and to be willing and able to pursue their landlord if they are abusing the grounds subsequent to losing their home.

To reiterate a point I made in an earlier debate, it is almost certain that a minority of unscrupulous landlords will abuse grounds 1 and 1A to unfairly evict tenants they perceive as problematic, and will then proceed to re-let those properties in short order. As things stand, if and when they do so the courts will be able to do nothing. Indeed, how will they even know what happened subsequent to a ground 1 or 1A possession case? The obvious mechanism to ensure that grounds 1 and 1A are used legitimately in each instance is to require landlords to evidence and verify prior and subsequent to a notice being issued, but the Government rejected our amendments 138 and 139 out of hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I genuinely do not. In a case where a tenant has felt so strongly that they are potentially being evicted unlawfully that they have taken the matter all the way to the court, it is right that the no-let period should apply from the point that the award is granted. Again, that may be a point of genuine disagreement, but we will press amendment 142 to a vote.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his comments. I am in general agreement with his point about needing to extend the period beyond which a property can be re-marketed, although my view is that 12 months is excessive. If a landlord’s circumstances have changed—for example, if they repossess their house to sell it because they are facing financial hardship but are unable to sell and need to re-let it—12 months is punitive.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd November 2023 Public Bill Committees

Division 7

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 6
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 130, in schedule 1, page 75, line 4, leave out paragraph 23.

This amendment would maintain the existing definition of anti-social behaviour as being conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance, rather than being defined as behaviour “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 131, in schedule 1, page 75, line 5, at end insert—

“23A In Ground 14, after ‘residing in’ insert ‘regularly’”.

This amendment would clarify that visitors to a property displaying anti-social behaviour must be regular visitors, so that Ground 14 cannot be used to penalise tenants for the behaviour of a one-off visitor.

Amendment 158, in schedule 1, page 75, line 5, at end insert—

“23A In Ground 14, at start of line 1 insert—‘Where the landlord seeking possession has had regard to any relevant guidance made by the Secretary of State and’”.

This amendment would require landlords seeking possession on Ground 14 to have regard to any guidance produced by the government on what constitutes anti-social behaviour.

Government new clause 1—Factors for court considering granting possession order for anti-social behaviour.

New clause 55—Duty to publish guidance on what constitutes anti-social behaviour—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 180 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish guidance defining anti-social behaviour for the purposes of Ground 14 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988.

(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must define how anti-social behaviour differs from nuisance and annoyance caused by incidents of domestic violence, mental health crises, and behaviour resulting from adults or children with autism spectrum disorders or learning difficulties.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Government to produce guidance on what constitutes anti-social behaviour for the purpose of assisting landlords to determine when Ground 14 conditions have been fulfilled.

[Helen Morgan]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I tabled these amendments to reflect my general concerns about the potential for abuse of ground 14, the discretionary ground for eviction on the basis of antisocial behaviour. We heard, both on Second Reading and in last week’s evidence sessions, about concerns that ground 14 could be used to evict a tenant who is a victim of domestic abuse or is suffering with mental ill health or a physical condition that could cause annoyance to surrounding neighbours.

We also heard last week from Liz Davies KC, in our fourth sitting, that the threshold is being lowered by a very small margin. She said that it was difficult to see circumstances in which behaviour would not meet the threshold of “likely to cause”, but would meet the threshold of “capable of causing”. She outlined that, in her experience, courts use the existing discretionary ground wisely, to rightly allow possession where there is a flagrant problem with antisocial behaviour. We have no reason to believe that courts will not continue to do so. I am therefore a bit perplexed as to why the Government have tried to slightly lower the bar for eviction. Further to our recent discussions of other amendments, I am concerned that it is to allow landlords to exploit the clause as a route to an easier eviction.

Amendment 130 would maintain the existing definition, which, as we heard last week, should be sufficient for landlords to evict where antisocial behaviour is a genuine problem. Unless the Minister can provide some reassurance that the changed terms will not lead to an increased number of evictions, I intend to press amendment 130 to a vote.

Amendment 131 reinforces that point. Literally interpreted, the legislation does not specify whether or not a visitor exhibiting antisocial behaviour is regularly attending the property. Clearly tenants should be protected from eviction where there has been a single or very intermittent problem. Indeed, a regular antisocial visitor may not be welcome at the property; they may be regularly attending to intimidate or cause distress to the tenant.

I have a piece of casework in which the tenants of a property, through no fault of their own, have been subjected to intimidation and verbal abuse by a member of the community who lives elsewhere. I do not doubt that that causes nuisance and annoyance for other residents, but it would be grossly unfair to evict those tenants. In all likelihood, it would not resolve the problem in the long term either; it would just shift it to a different place in the same town.

I will not press amendment 131 to a vote, because ground 14 is discretionary and we should trust the judgment of the court as to whether an eviction is appropriate in each individual case. However, as we have heard of instances where unreasonable evictions have taken place, I would welcome an assurance from the Government that there will be safeguards and guidance in place to prevent the innocent from being evicted by an unscrupulous landlord under ground 14.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I rise to speak to amendment 158 and new clause 55, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Shropshire. Both her amendments to schedule 1, in relation to the proposed revision of existing ground 14, are welcome. Indeed, we tabled an identical amendment to her amendment 130, but it was not selected, on the basis that it was an exact duplicate—that is a lesson for the whole Committee on the importance of tabling amendments in a timely fashion. If the hon. Lady presses her amendment 130 to a vote, we will certainly support it.

As the hon. Lady set out, paragraph 23 of schedule 1 to the Bill will widen ground 14 of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 to include behaviours

“capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”,

as opposed to the existing language, which merely refers to

“likely to cause nuisance or annoyance”.

We are pleased that the Government are not proposing to make existing ground 14 mandatory, as some had feared prior to the publication of the Bill earlier this year. The court will therefore still have discretion to judge whether it is reasonable and proportionate to evict a tenant for the behaviour in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister must have been listening to a different balance of the totality of the evidence from what I heard. I heard significant criticism of this proposed change by the Government. He still has not given me an example of the types of behaviour that would not fall under the existing definition, but that would be covered by the expanded one. I think that is because the change is driven more by the politics of what is required to get the Bill through than by any empirical evidence that such a change is required to deal with instances in which landlords cannot recover their properties from tenants who cause antisocial behaviour.

[Helen Morgan]

We heard extensively from the representative of Grainger plc about antisocial behaviour. I felt that her evidence demonstrated clearly that the existing grounds were adequate for tenants to be evicted under such circumstances. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think that is a worthwhile intervention. I heard the evidence from Grainger and others highlighting concerns about this ground, so the Government are just wrong if their position is that expert opinion out in the country is that there is no problem whatever with the proposed change to ground 14.

We agree with the hon. Member for North Shropshire that the Government should remove paragraph 23 of schedule 1 and leave ground 14 with the current “likely to cause” wording. However, if they resist doing so, we urge the Minister to at least consider clarifying, as I have asked him to, what kind of behaviour is and is not capable of causing nuisance or annoyance so that county courts can better exercise their discretion about whether eviction is reasonable and proportionate in any given circumstance once the Bill has come into force. Let us be clear: the Government’s eleventh-hour new clause 1 does not do that. Indeed, it is not clear what on earth they are trying to achieve with it. As with so much of what the Government have tabled fairly late, we suspect it is more a product of rushed thinking than anything else.

New clause 1 would make it a requirement for the court to consider, in particular, the effects of antisocial behaviour on other tenants of the same house in multiple occupation, but that is already the case. Judges already have to consider the impact of behaviours that could be categorised as antisocial on others, so why do the Government feel the need to specify that they are required to do so via this amendment, purely in relation to HMOs? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us with a reason. Will he also explain why the Government do not believe this provision needs to cover, say, a house under part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 or a rented property that is not covered by parts 2 or 3 of that Act?

The new clause also provides for the court to take into account as a factor in its determination

“whether the person against whom the order is sought has co-operated with any attempt by the landlord to encourage the conduct to cease.”

Again, when considering antisocial behaviour, the courts can already consider, and frequently do, what efforts the tenant has made to co-operate—for example, what the tenant’s response has been when a landlord has tried to contact them to press them to bring the offending behaviour to an end.

Of course, that presumes that the landlord has tried to contact the tenant, but that highlights a more fundamental problem with the new clause. At present, there is no duty on landlords to prevent or take steps to stop antisocial behaviour on the part of their tenants. I am thinking of the extensive case law reviewed in the recent Poole Borough Council v. GN judgment. Is the new clause an attempt to impose such a requirement surreptitiously? If it is, I wonder what the National Residential Landlords Association and other landlord organisations will have to say about it. The problem is that it is not clear at all, and we fear that fact exposes the Government to the possibility of litigation.

If the new clause is not an attempt to impose a requirement for landlords to take steps to stop antisocial behaviour on the part of their tenants, should we instead take it to imply that landlords now have to at least reasonably co-operate with a tenant to limit antisocial behaviour? If it does not imply that, what is the point of it? If landlords do not have to do anything to encourage antisocial behaviour to cease or do anything about it, whether a tenant can “co-operate” is reliant on the whim of the landlord in question and whether they decide to ask the tenant to stop.

Put simply, we question whether the new clause will have any practical effect, and we would appreciate it if the Minister could explain the thinking behind it, particularly because, like the many other last-minute Government amendments to the Bill, there is no detail about it in the explanatory notes. Even if the Minister just reads his box notes into the record, I would welcome the clarification. That would at least give us a sense of the Government’s thinking.

Leaving aside the deficiencies of new clause 1, we remain of the view that if the Government are intent on widening ground 14 to cover behaviour likely to cause nuisance or annoyance, they must at least clarify what kind of behaviours they believe will be included in that definition. New clause 55 would place a duty on the Government to produce detailed guidance on precisely what constitutes antisocial behaviour for the purpose of assisting landlords and the courts to determine when ground 14 conditions have been fulfilled under the revised terms that the Government are proposing. Specifically, it requires the said guidance to define how antisocial behaviour differs from nuisance and annoyance caused by incidents of domestic violence, mental health crisis and behaviour resulting from adults or children with autism spectrum disorders or learning difficulties. Amendment 158 would, in turn, require landlords seeking possession on the basis of amended ground 14 to have regard to the guidance that the Government would be obliged to produce.

Taken together, we believe that new clause 55 and amendment 158 would at least provide the extremely vulnerable tenants we fear might fall foul of amended ground 14 with a further degree of protection beyond the discretion that the courts will still be able to apply. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will say two things to the Minister, because I think that was a helpful answer, although his officials are going to be doing a lot of writing over the coming days and weeks. It was helpful in two ways: it is welcome to hear an assurance that we expect guidance before these measures come into force, and that the working group has been set up to that end.

This is where the private rented sector is very different from the social rented sector, where registered providers operate. Registered providers often have trained antisocial behaviour teams who are equipped and trained with the tools—injunction powers and others—to remedy antisocial behaviour before eviction action has to take place. They are trained to distinguish between antisocial behaviour and things such as the domestic violence instances that we are worried about, and to take safeguarding action to protect tenants from either eviction or criminalisation. The private rented sector has none of that. I do very much think we need guidance in this area, so I welcome the Minister’s clarification in that regard. On that basis, I am happy to not to push new clause 55 to a vote.

However, what I am still concerned about, and why we will support the hon. Member for North Shropshire if she pushes her amendment to a vote, is that in some ways it does not matter what the guidance says if the definition of what constitutes antisocial behaviour is very broad and the change from “likely” to “capable” is made. That still concerns us a great deal. The Minister has not given me an example—I only want one—of a kind of behaviour that would be “capable of causing” antisocial behaviour without falling under the existing “likely to”. I do not think he has any such behaviour in mind; I do not think the officials have any idea, either.

I think the Minister gave the game away, intentionally or otherwise, that this power is to be used to make it easier for landlords to threaten tenants in the first instance, and most will not go to court, and then to be able to evict tenants. As he said, the behaviour in question does not have to have caused or be likely to have caused antisocial behaviour in any given instance. It will enable an argument on the basis that there is a pattern of behaviour that now meets the reduced threshold.

None of the evidence I listened to last week suggested that that was necessary. I remember—one good example—that Timothy Douglas from Propertymark could not understand the difference between “likely” to cause and “capable” of causing, and the need for the change in this instance. He did call for guidance—absolutely. However, none of the evidence I heard supported the change, apart from evidence from some landlords, who, of course, are going to say that they welcome a widened power. They do not have to deal with the consequences. It is local authorities and society that will have to do that.

I know this is not the Minister’s brief, but he really should know whether tenants, if evicted under these grounds, will be made intentionally homeless. I suggest that it is almost certain that they will be. We are talking about an easier way to make people homeless, and we will all pick up the costs in various ways. This will impact some incredibly vulnerable tenants. We therefore think that this measure needs to be removed from the Bill. Again, we will certainly return to the issue at a later stage.

[Helen Morgan]

I welcome the support from Opposition Members, who, I think, have summed up the issue very well. There is an increased threat of eviction even if these cases are not taken to court, because the threat of having notice served in the first place is very frightening for people who do not necessarily have the legal ability to follow that through and oppose it.

[Jacob Young]

I take the hon. Lady’s point fully on board. I inadvertently forgot to mention during my speech that tenants will be given full information on their rights when notice is served. I hope that addresses her concerns about the threat being enough to push someone out. People will know their rights and whether or not they can challenge this in a court.

[Helen Morgan]

I welcome the Minister’s intervention. It is sometimes hard for us to put ourselves in the position of the tenant who may not have the professional skills of some of us in this room. The threat of being taken to court is a very serious one, even if someone has been advised of their rights. It is an intimidating place, and an intimidating process to go through.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The timetable referred to is two weeks. We all know about the crisis in people being able to get a lawyer, seek advice or even get an appointment at a citizens advice bureau: it can often take longer than two weeks. By the time a person has got advice or legal support, they will be out, will they not? Is that not a key problem with the provision?

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his well-made point. In Shropshire, citizens advice bureaux sometimes refer people to their MP’s office because they do not have the capacity to deal with the number of issues that are brought to them. The point about the threat is an extremely important one that we need to bear in mind: it will have a strong adverse effect on tenants who are put in that position. The hon. Member for Westminster North made the excellent point that we are dealing with people who would otherwise be in social housing, but they are not in social housing because we do not have an adequate social housing stock. With the best will in the world, a lot of landlords in the private sector—particularly when it is not their main business or primary job, but they happen to rent out a property—do not have the skills or capacity to deal with these things.

I welcome the Minister’s explanation that a working group will come up with detailed guidance. That is a positive step forward and is the reason why I will not press amendment 131 to a vote. However, I am concerned about his comment that the point of the expansion of the definition is to reduce the evidential level at which a landlord is allowed to serve notice. For that reason, I will press amendment 130 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

I am allowing the courts to consider what the local housing allowance increases might be. If a house was marketed at local housing allowance, and it was given particularly to people in receipt of universal credit or housing benefits, the courts could consider what a fair increase in local housing allowance would be for that tenant and property, bearing in mind that the landlord was happy for that property to be rented at local housing allowance initially.

[Helen Morgan]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I am broadly supportive of it. If we get this right, we should see a stable private rented sector where rents do not go up very much each year; they might fall in some local areas, depending on local circumstances. Does he envisage allowing rents to drop, or does he envisage them always going up by some kind of consumer price inflation-linked level?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is an interesting question. In amendments 200 and 201, they would be linked to CPI or median local rents. Where that has been introduced in Belgium, two-thirds of landlords declined to increase rent at the rate of inflation, so it has not particularly caused a constant push to always increase.

In amendment 197, I am talking about a negotiation between the tenant and the landlord. If they do not agree, the tribunal can consider not just what the current market rate would be if the property were to be put on the market brand-new, but a number of other indicators, and come to a conclusion. It might well be that if market rents have decreased in an area, the tribunal would be able to come to that consideration; I am not forcing the tribunal, but allowing it to come to that consideration. Some of these amendments allow more flexibility, and I always think that flexibility in these issues is probably right. Amendment 197 also allows the tribunal to consider CPI and median income growth.

However, amendment 198 says that the tribunal might consider all those things, but even then it can never increase rent above CPI or median wages. It might well be that the tribunal wants it to go down, and it might find a different place, but there is a ceiling. Amendment 197 allows the tribunal to consider; amendment 198 puts a cap on what the tribunal can impose. Amendment 199 and new clause 66 give the Secretary of State the power, from time to time, to lay before Parliament statutory guidance or a statement outlining the consideration that courts should take into account in their rent deliberations the maximum amount by which they can increase it. I think that is the most flexible. It allows the Secretary of State, from time to time, to look at the wider market and be able to say, “It needs to be locally driven,” or, “It needs to be national indicator-driven.”

As I have already discussed, the market is changing, and there is not just one market throughout the UK. We would not necessarily have to find a single indicator that would work for everyone. We have development areas, areas where house prices have slumped and areas that are going through gentrification. We have properties that are increasing in value because of infrastructure inputs. If High Speed 2 was ever to happen, property prices might increase in parts of the north. If Labour gets in, perhaps we will see some actual improvements in rail and other infrastructure in the north of England, and that will help the market. Of course, we have had many promises that have never been delivered so far.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I should have referred this morning to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I apologise for that oversight and refer Members to it now.

I rise to support the amendment and the new clause. We have had a lot of discussion, in good faith, about the unintended consequences for the private rented sector and the impact on tenants, but much of this has been guesswork. It would be extremely sensible to have a requirement to look at this a couple of years down the line and to ask, “Have we driven landlords from the market unintentionally? Have we put tenants in an insecure position unintentionally?” It would be remiss of any Government to fail to assess the impact of their legislation.

[Ms Buck]

I really do hope that the Minister will concede on this point. One of the striking themes that emerged in the evidence sessions was just how little we know about what is happening in the private rented sector. It is to the shame of the Government, and probably even the previous Government, that this massive transformation in the life of the country and throughout the housing stock, which is affecting millions of people, has happened without us having accurate data to assess the impact. We are struggling to catch up in so many respects.

We will no doubt be talking more about the changing grounds for possession in the context of antisocial behaviour and rent arrears but as has been reinforced—we just need to keep saying this—the people in the private rented sector who we have the most concern about are those whose equivalents were not in the private rented sector 20 or 25 years ago. Their patterns of need, the patterns of demand they place on the sector and the risks they have to face are also quite different.

Families with children, families experiencing domestic violence and those with all kinds of vulnerabilities, including serious mental health problems, addictions or learning disabilities, would for the most part not have been in this situation before, but they are now having to be accommodated. It is not only that they are in the private rented sector in a way that they were not before, and are at risk, but that they are disproportionately impacted by harsh decisions that cause them to lose their homes. They face a higher risk and are worst affected.

I do not know whether all Members have experience of this, but any Member of Parliament with a larger private rented sector will be experiencing the consequences and will have traumatised families coming to them with problems who will perhaps be facing eviction and be in distress. That is often for completely trivial reasons or because of circumstances that arise simply out of misunderstandings or the failure of the bureaucratic and social security systems to catch up.

It is the most basic and sensible thing to do to ensure that there is a proper data review and that we make up for the fact that we have spent several decades now trying to understand a system about which we have too little information. The Minister has a chance to put that right.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

In the interests of avoiding repetition, I will keep my remarks fairly brief. As I outlined on Second Reading, Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. We welcome the objective of achieving a balance between landlords and tenants, increasing the supply in the private rented sector and enhancing the ability of tenants to enjoy a secure and safe home. To that end, we welcome the introduction of periodic tenancies.

I would like to touch on some of the evidence that we heard last week around the absence of any longer-term tenancy option. We heard from both tenant and landlord groups that in certain situations they would like a long-term tenancy option to be introduced. As things stand, periodic tenancies guarantee a tenant only six months’ security before a no-fault ground for eviction can be introduced. For a landlord, that period of certainty is effectively only two months, because of the notice period that the tenant has available to them. Some landlords might therefore feel that they are not secure in that market, given that they cannot guarantee their income. Equally, tenants might feel that they are unable to commit to a local school, for example, or a job, because they do not know whether they will be in that property for longer than six months.

I have not tabled an amendment, because clause 1 does away with fixed-term tenancies and is a fundamental part of the Bill, and also because we are not opposing the introduction of periodic tenancies, but will the Minister give some indication of whether a long-term alternative, where neither the landlord nor the tenant could break those terms, could be considered? That would mean that some people will have the security that they need.

I was particularly concerned about the evidence from Grainger plc that some financing is dependent on the availability of a longer-term period for the landlord. We would all hate to see withdrawal from the housing market because of a lack of financing for landlords, given that the issue of supply underpins this whole housing crisis—not just in the private rented sector, but in social housing, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has already pointed out.

That is my key concern about clause 1. I do not want to repeat the concerns about the delays in implementing clause 1, except to echo them. Landlords are running a business and need certainty about when these reforms will take place, so that they can plan for them. Uncertainty is the worst thing for a business. Even if they do not particularly like the idea that is coming in, planning for it enables them to get over the hurdles, but if there is uncertainty, that is the worst thing for any business to plan for. The Minister needs to be clear about the timescale of reform, when exactly the clause will be implemented and what the finished reform will look like. I echo the concerns around that.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me turn to the importance of not having tenancies that end at a fixed date. We will have slight disagreements about the student market, but we heard that one of its problems is that student tenancies last a year: by the time a student gets to any enforcement mechanism, they are on their way out, so the student housing ends up in a very poor condition. Well, that is the reality of the whole private rented sector at the moment. Many people think, “I am only here for a year, so there is no need to go to my local authority, because it will take too long for enforcement to come around.” That is particularly the case when people have minor issues, such as a little bit of mould but not a lot—most people unfortunately consider that a minor issue, although we should reconsider that thinking. It might be that they have minor issues about the behaviour of their landlord or issues with their neighbours. Those things need to be dealt with, but the problem with a fixed term is that rather than sorting out the problems, tenants hold off because they think, “I will be moving in a year.” The danger with the delay in the implementation of the clause is that more people will not enforce all the other standards that the Bill is meant to provide, such as the decent homes standard.

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about short fixed terms, and I absolutely agree with him. To be clear, my proposal was for a long fixed term of at least three years.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally take that point. I am talking specifically about the short-term problem.

On the all-party parliamentary group for renters and rental reform, we heard from Gemma Marshall, who every year has to look for a new house and has had to change her children’s school three times. She lives not in London, which is even worse, but in north Devon. This problem affects all parts of our country. We also heard from Amy Donovan, who does live in London, and equally has had to move numerous times, which has meant that she cannot commute to her job effectively and has had to move job.

This issue causes problems for the very foundations of society. On the Opposition Benches—and, I genuinely believe, on both sides of the House—we believe that strong societies are built with strong, stable families and communities from the ground up. To some extent, communities are built with bricks and mortar—with people being safe and secure where they are. That is why the clause is so important, but also why it is so important that it is implemented right now, because any delay will mean more mould on the walls for the Amys of the world and more new schools for the Gemmas and their children. Whether the wait is a year, two years or whenever the Minister has the whim to act—he has not laid out the conditions in which he will enact the clause—it is not acceptable for anyone.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Third sitting)

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I receive income support for my office to operate the all-party parliamentary group for renters and rental reform, and from renters’ organisations. I receive rent from a tenant in my personal home and am on the legal working group of a housing co-operative federation.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I am the joint owner of a house that is rented out for residential lets, and I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I am the joint owner of a commercially let property that is held in a pension fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am afraid that this will have to be the last question to this witness, so could we please have a short question and answer?

[Helen Morgan]

Q Could you expand a little on your concern about the way agricultural property can be repossessed to house an agricultural worker?

Judicaelle Hammond: I think that what is in the Bill at the moment would fit for agricultural workers. The issue is that actually 85% of rural businesses have nothing to do with agriculture, and some of them still need employees to be there, either because their shift starts early or because there is a need for them to be on the grounds as a matter of urgency. That includes workers who are not within the ambit of what is agriculture; care workers are an obvious example. If you are in a remote community, you still need to house them. If you are an employer and you have a small business—a maintenance business or a heat pump installation business, for example—you would not necessarily want to have your employees very far away. How can you recruit and retain anyone if they cannot find anywhere to live? We are hearing from a lot of members, particularly on the tourism side, who are saying, “If I want people of the right calibre to do my marketing or some of my managerial duties, I have to be able to provide accommodation as part of the deal. Otherwise, they don’t come.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

Q That is what the Government are doing under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

Helen Gordon: But under the Bill, the ability to serve notice on day one will inadvertently allow short-term letting through the back door.

[Helen Morgan]

Q On Tuesday, we heard from a number of representatives of renters and landlord associations that a minimum term would be helpful in some circumstances, whether or not that is a two-year minimum term to try to provide the security and build the communities you have described. Do you think that that would be a good idea? How might it work in practice, in terms of some of the notice periods people might be able to give and allowing flexibility for people whose circumstances change?

Helen Gordon: The business practice on build to rent was quite often to give a one-year, three-year or five-year lease to offer that, with the CPI uplifts within it. Most landlords are happy to give a minimum of 12 months or two or three years. In our case, because we are a longer-term landlord and we know that we will not require the property back for us to live in it, we have offered longer leases. I suppose the in-perpetuity tenancy does away with that need, but linked to that is giving tenants certainty on where their rent would go. Within that, if we had for example put CPI—and we had a very high level of CPI at the end of 2022—our customers could still give two months’ notice; they can leave within that minimum term as well.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that this will probably be the last question to the witness, so can we have a short question and answer please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Q Could I just go back to the issue of advice and representation? You both made the point that there are strong arguments for tenants being represented. Will you tell us what those arguments are? In practical terms, what are the consequences at different levels—within the courts, and also going back to issues such as homelessness—of people not being represented and having advice? Can you give us an indication of how the level of service is spread out across the country? Are there particular places and areas where there are difficulties for tenants in getting representation?

Richard Miller: The Law Society has published a number of maps showing the availability of legally aided housing advice across the country. Those have shown, over time, that the picture is getting worse. The number of law firms and law centres delivering these services is reducing. We now have something like 42% of the population without a housing provider on legal aid in their local authority area. By definition, the sort of people we are talking about—those who are financially eligible for legal aid, where very often the issue is that they are unable to pay their rent—cannot afford public transport to travel significant distances to get the advice they need. Local provision of advice is vital.

The problem we have—there may well be many people around the table who are not experts in the legal aid system—is that the last time the remuneration rates for legal aid were increased in cash terms was in the 1990s. That is what the profession is up against, and that is why more and more firms have decided that it is not economically possible to carry on delivering these services. We are seeing an absolute crisis in the state of legal aid provision across the country, and that needs to be addressed. I will pass over to Nimrod to deal with the consequences of people not being represented.

Nimrod Ben-Cnaan: Things have got so bad that even delivering the duty desk at court—the scheme that we are so reliant on to make possession work well for all parties—is difficult. In the last procurement round, the Legal Aid Agency had such problems sourcing providers in the greater Liverpool area—Merseyside, if you like—that there was a reliance on transitional arrangements. If you have a large urban centre where a legal aid firm should be able to make a sustainable business but is not able to do so, we have a real problem.

In terms of the kind of impact that legal aid services could offer us, I would say that the current scope of legal aid needs to be addressed, not just the remuneration. Ten years ago, in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the scope cut to legal aid was such that a lot of early intervention to help people was taken out of scope, so you are basically incentivised to let problems escalate. It is the wrong way round, and even the Government are realising that in their current review of civil legal aid. If you get in early, you are able to divert people from the court wherever possible. You get to represent tenants wherever possible, lightening the load of the court, and you get to give assistance for as long as it is needed, rather than by adhering to whatever original parcels you were apportioned by legal aid. There is an opportunity here to make a secondary provision to legal aid that would help to prop up the system through this transition.

Richard Miller: To build on that, some unrepresented tenants do not bring cases that they could and should bring and do not enforce their rights; others bring cases that are misconceived, and that has an impact on the landlord, who has to defend the misconceived case, and on the courts, which have to put in resources to hear it. When these cases go to court, whether they are validly brought or misconceived, unrepresented tenants very often do not understand the processes and what is required of them, so they do things wrong and have to have things explained to them. That means that the courts have to put a lot more resources into managing the case than they would if the tenant was represented, so there is a whole range of ways that landlords and courts—and therefore the taxpayer—are adversely impacted by tenants being unrepresented.

[Helen Morgan]

Q You mentioned the problem that 42% of the population cannot access a legal aid provider in their area, and we heard earlier from another witness that there is a shortage of courts in parts of rural Britain. You have just described Merseyside, and I am not sure there is an obvious geographical disparity there, but do you see a geographical disparity between rural and urban areas, or in specific parts of the country where it is much harder to obtain legal aid?

Richard Miller: Certainly what we have seen in the data is that it was the rural areas that were the first to be impacted. We are now seeing a lot of market towns up and down the country where there is no provision, and the position in the cities is getting ever worse and ever tighter. It was definitely the rural areas that were the first impacted, but this is now a nationwide problem.

[Helen Morgan]

Q Do you think that both tenants and landlords are adversely impacted by that, or is it more the tenants or more the landlords?

Nimrod Ben-Cnaan: Landlords are beyond my remit—I only represent the other side—but yes, tenants are very much impacted by it. This is something we see, anecdotally, in support of the quantitative evidence that the Law Society has generated. The closure and consolidation of the courts over the last 13 years has been so significant that whenever a court closes, the remaining possession lists in nearby courts get lengthened, so there is an added burden on the remaining courts.

Another big problem in possession cases is that tenants defending possession of their home just do not show up, because they have not been advised early, so they do not know if they should. It could possibly improve their prospects. There is a whole gap in the structure of support for renters that has been missing for several years, and it would be quite simple to replace. You would see the beneficial difference in the medium term.

Richard Miller: Just to reflect on the position of landlords, for the reasons I have explained, landlords have a disadvantage where they are up against an unrepresented tenant. Some landlords are just individuals renting out properties on their own. They may also struggle to find accessible housing advice. They are not generally dependent on the legal aid system, so that aspect is not a problem for them. But some housing firms act for both tenants and landlords, so if they are closing down their housing departments, that may make it more difficult for some smaller landlords to get the advice that they need. The bigger and more commercial landlords will generally have solicitors that they are instructing all the time, so it is less of an issue for them—apart from, as I say, the impact on them of tenants being unrepresented.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Q Can I just say to Nimrod that I am greatly helped by South West London Law Centres in my constituency? I am very grateful for the work they do, particularly at the emergency and routine desk at Croydon county court. I can only imagine what that is like on a daily basis. Lots of very vulnerable tenants turn up with absolutely no advice, and the best advice I give to them is to get there really early and get to the front of the queue. I imagine all sorts of things happen to tenants and landlords in those courts that are not fair or reasonable, but because nobody is represented, or it is very difficult to get representation, it is difficult to avoid that.

On reforming the whole county court system, what can be done other than to resource it better and provide better advice to people? I can only imagine the amount of time-wasting going on because people are desperately in search of help. Currently, at Croydon county court, it takes 16 weeks on average to get a bailiff’s warrant after a possession order is secured. On the other end, we have the local authorities that are desperate to delay for as long as they can, because they do not have anywhere to put people. What is the resolution to that?

Nimrod Ben-Cnaan: It is a tough one, for two reasons. First—this has been mentioned in previous sessions—a separate housing court should probably not be set up. That is partly because if you already have a system that is starved of relevant—mainly judicial—staff and has had its budget starved, creating a separate jurisdiction that would need to have its own of everything makes no sense. The Government are right not to create a separate one. In effect, we have a housing court that works—when resourced—fairly well in the county court. This is something that I have heard Richard talk about before, and certainly we are very strong about that.

Our understanding of where justice begins for people needs to go well beyond the court doors. That is why we keep mentioning the advice sector, legal aid and other measures. I would also include in that public legal education and helping people understand their rights as tenants, which we are not doing nearly enough. Those kinds of support would not necessarily, in themselves, create a more efficient justice system, but they would create the kind of solutions that many people seek in it, rightly or wrongly, and which they could reach elsewhere. I am sure Richard has more on that.

Richard Miller: This is one of the ultimate challenges. If we are being asked how you can improve the situation without quite a bit of significant investment, my answer would be that you cannot. The point—this is so often overlooked—is that if you take that step back, you are still spending the money. You made the point that local authorities have to pick up the burden of homeless families. A bit of early advice to sort out the housing benefit might have meant that the family was never homeless in the first place, with huge savings to the public purse and in relation to pressures on the system. Early advice can stop cases getting to court at all and make sure that cases are better dealt with when they do go to court.

All that investment saves substantial sums. That is even before we get on to housing disrepair, where there is an impact on people’s health and the stress that is caused, which has an impact on the health service as well. There are substantial savings for the health budget in getting these things right early as well. It is penny wise and pound foolish to think we save the money here and to not look at the broader costs that we incur as a result of those tiny savings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q What are your concerns around the Bill?

Jen Berezai: My concern is that it is an excellent step in the right direction, but it is probably going to benefit those who rent houses more than those who rent flats. That is because of the head lease issue. I know that leasehold reform is going through; it would be nice if the two things could work hand in hand. Giving landlords the ability to say either “You must hold pet damage insurance” or “I am going to charge you for pet damage insurance” will make a difference to a lot of landlords who are currently on the fence about allowing pets.

[Helen Morgan]

Q My tenant has a dog, and I was not aware that pet damage insurance was available. How widely available is it? Is there a market for people to choose a reasonably priced pet damage insurance product? Notwithstanding the fact that presumably it will mature if there is a lot of demand for it, is it there now?

Jen Berezai: It is there now. There are only a handful of companies, to be fair, but it is there now. We at AdvoCATS tend to deal with one company called One Broker, which has been providing a product for quite a few years. Premiums start from about £15 per month, which gets a landlord £4,000-worth of cover. We are aware of people developing other products, because when the Bill goes through we foresee a lot more of them coming to market. In the course of preparing the “Heads for Tails!” report, we spoke to insurance companies, including the Alan Boswell Group. It developed and launched a pet damage policy for tenants, backed by SAGIC—the Salvation Army General Insurance Corporation—specifically as a result of our campaign and what we were calling for.

[Helen Morgan]

Q One of the discretionary grounds for possession is deterioration of the property or its furnishings. Do you find that landlords use that ground where the pet has not been as well behaved as anticipated?

Jen Berezai: Yes. There is probably a bit of a grey area there. I understand that there are accepted industry standards for how long carpets should last, which are different for a couple and for a couple with children. Perhaps it is important to build in a couple, or a couple with children and/or pets, so that if a tenant is leaving a property with a 15-year-old carpet and the landlord says, “Look at the carpet—I’m going to claim on the deposit or ask you to claim on your insurance,” that could be seen as unreasonable because of the age of the carpet.

[Helen Morgan]

It is discretionary, but that is helpful. Thank you.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q Jen, can I just say that I am a big fan of your work? I am delighted that this was included in the Bill. I appreciate that the Bill does not apply UK-wide, but we have about 35 million pets in the UK. We are a nation of animal lovers. Do landlords have a particular grievance with dogs as opposed to other pets? I occasionally babysit my daughter’s house rabbits, and they eat everything: the carpet, electric cables, anything they can get their hands on. Generally speaking, do landlords have an aversion to dogs?

Jen Berezai: The first time I heard my father swear was when my rabbit ate through the telephone cable for the third time.

It tends to be split about 50:50 down the middle. Some landlords will say, “Dogs are fine, but I’m not having cats,” whereas other landlords adopt the opposite position. Each can bring their own range of risk behaviour, but there is also a problem with perception versus reality. For example, Cats Protection did some research when it ran its Purrfect Landlords scheme. One thing struck me as particularly interesting: for 63% of landlords who did not allow pets, their major concern was a flea infestation, whereas only 2% who did allow cats had ever experienced any problem like that. A horror story will get more traction than a good luck story, so there is a lot of education to be done. Vet referencing should definitely be used to demonstrate responsible pet ownership. Microchipping is becoming compulsory for cats next June. If an animal is microchipped, vaccinated, neutered, and flea and worm-treated, that rules out the majority of antisocial behaviours.