Renters' Rights Bill (First sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and will move on to declarations of interest. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a private landlord.

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am a landlord but only of registered social housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I welcome both our witnesses to our session to answer questions following their evidence to the Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill. Please introduce yourself briefly. Members will then ask questions about your evidence.

Ben Beadle: I am Ben Beadle, the chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association. We have 110,000 members, who provide for nearly a million homes in the private rented sector.

Theresa Wallace: My name is Theresa Wallace and I am chair of the Lettings Industry Council. I think it is the only group that is made up of stakeholders across the property redress scheme, including tenant groups, landlord groups, professional bodies, government bodies and agents large and small.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Welcome, and thank you very much for attending today. To kick proceedings off, I am interested in hearing your first impressions of the Bill in respect of whether you think there should be a balance between landlords and tenants and whether the current drafting gets that balance right. I would be grateful if you could identify any differences in opinion between professional landlords and those who are sometimes described as accidental landlords—amateur landlords with one or two buy-to-let properties, perhaps for a pension.

Theresa Wallace: I think the Bill has the best intentions, and we support a lot of its changes. However, I believe that as it is currently written there will be unintended consequences, one of which would be more homelessness. It needs some changes. We know that section 21 is going, but we have to accept that it will not solve the issues in the PRS. We have—the English housing survey has quoted this—more than one million tenants in the PRS in receipt of benefit for housing. The majority of those should really be in social housing. If we had those social homes, we would not have the current supply/demand pressures and rent pressures, and we would not have properties lower down in the market that are unfit for purpose and damp and that should not be there in the first place.

One of our problems is that a lot of the Bill will help tenants—renters—once they are in a property, but we have to stop those properties that are not fit for purpose being rented in the first place. I heard a story last week about a lady who is renting further up the country. She is paying £500 a month for a two-bedroom cottage. On the market, it would be worth £750 a month, so she is saving £250. Her property has damp and mould, which she will not be reporting to anybody because that is all she can afford to pay and she has nowhere else to go.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Can I bring you back to your opening statement? You said that there were likely unintended consequences from the Bill in its current form, and that one of those unintended consequences would be an increase in homelessness. Could you expand on why you said that?

Theresa Wallace: There are various reasons. We need the private landlord at the moment, no matter what his property is like—a lot of them are in very good condition. Private landlords are very scared about this Bill and a lot of them are exiting. I know some of you might think that there are other places those properties can go, but we need them in the PRS—the tenants need them. We want to keep those landlords. We have institutional investment, but that is a very small percentage—I think it is 2% or 3%—for build-to-rent. Unfortunately, the build-to-rent model does not work financially in the places we need those properties, because of the way their financial model works and margins.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q I am butting in again—I apologise. You say that private landlords are exiting the market already; what evidence do you have to support that statement?

Theresa Wallace: There is evidence out there. With my agent’s hat on, I can say that we have evidence in the amount of landlords we have lost and the number of people looking at properties compared with before. I gather we have a 12% increase in properties on the market now, which is the highest since 2014, per agent.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q What impact, if any, is that having on rental asks? If supply is being reduced, what is happening to demand?

Theresa Wallace: Demand is up and supply is down, so that obviously does have an effect. It is not just an effect on rent: it is also an effect on the tenants who can secure the properties in the first place. The Bill is there help the people who are struggling, and in some places those are the people who will be penalised.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Ben, you have been patient. Perhaps you could do your best to answer the same question.

Ben Beadle: With pleasure. We are largely supportive of many features in the Bill. There is a lot to be welcomed, and the Minister should take great credit for bringing in these reforms so quickly. One thing the industry has suffered with is the hokey-cokey politics of when we will see the abolition of section 21. Our position has been very clear: we do not oppose the abolition of section 21, providing the alternative is workable and fair, but there are two elements that do not quite strike the balance.

The first element is court reform and the need for landlords to have confidence in it. I appreciate that others might have viewed this as a delaying tactic in the past, but the reality is that we are waiting seven months on average to get possession of our homes, and that is for a fast-track situation with almost no proof needed. When we move to a section 8 ground, that will require more resource and more scrutiny, quite rightly, but without investment in the court system we will not deliver what either renters or landlords need.

In a survey of over 1,400 of our members, 60% of landlords said they were less confident or not at all confident that they will remain a landlord without suitable court reform. That declines to 37% if suitable court reforms are enacted. Our argument has always been that this is about confidence, striking the balance and giving support to responsible landlords, as well as delivering for renters.

The other area we have seen is that landlords will be provided with robust grounds for repossession; I may have missed them, but I do not see the doubling of notice for serious rent arrears or increasing the rent arrears threshold from two to three months as sending the right message or as fair and proportionate. Those tenancies will largely fail, whether it is two months, three months or six months, quite frankly.

What we want to do is avoid rent arrears building in the first place, so we are supportive of something like a pre-action protocol where responsible landlords can help to signpost tenants to manage their arrears. We did that during the pandemic. I worry that not addressing that point will send the wrong message. We have an average of 21 people chasing every home, so whatever nip and tuck we make around here, whether landlords are leaving or not, that is only going to worsen as confidence decreases.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You have mentioned confidence twice. In anticipation of the Bill, and now that it has been published, are you able to say what has happened to confidence in the real market for both accidental and commercial landlords?

Ben Beadle: If you consider yourself an accidental amateur landlord, that is arguably part of the problem —I do not think we can have amateur landlords. Having a lettings business is a business. Whether you have one or 10 properties, you need to do it properly, and we try to support all our members with that.

We have been tracking sentiment in the sector for the last 12 years, across our membership, and it is at a record low. Only about 10% of our members are looking at actively investing in the sector, and about a third are looking at disposing of one of their properties or exiting the sector completely. I appreciate that that is sentiment rather than actuals, but we also have to point to the fact that we are seeing such a significant number of section 21s being used where a landlord is selling, and that still has not percolated through to some of the statistics. An average of 21 people applying for a rental property is not going to get better.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you both very much.

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

Q I have three questions, starting with court improvements. There is a shared understanding between the sector and the Government that ensuring that the Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared for the implementation of the new tenancy regime is essential. You all know that we took issue with the previous Government’s legislation, which made the tenancy regime hostage to unspecified court reforms.

You mentioned investment, and I wanted to press you on precisely the type of improvements you want to see. You know that, together with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, we are already taking forward improvements towards digitising the court possession process. What are the metrics you want to see in that process as improvements? On the understanding that —I think you will accept this—not every section 21 notice will read across to a section 8, so there will potentially be a bit of an increase, what do we need to see on the section 8 side and the tribunal side to ensure that the system is fit for purpose at the point that we switch it on?

Ben Beadle: I have a couple of things to say on this, Minister. I agree that court reform has been almost like the Colonel’s secret recipe—nobody quite knows what is in it or what it looks like. It is incumbent on us to define what “the courts are ready” means in practice. For us, there are two or three areas that could be improved. First, we are getting many reports of applications that are made to the court actually running out of time because they have not been processed in time. You have the admin part of the sausage factory at the beginning, because it is not so much about the number of judges. I sit as a magistrate and I often sit around waiting for cases to come to me and to be input into the new common platform. There are delays built into the administrative process that cause frustration.

The other issue we have seen is the wait for a bailiff. Once you have patiently waited for your court hearing date and you have possession, that will be what it will be, but waiting for a bailiff can take months in some areas. Sometimes there are really poor excuses—earlier this year, we saw the stab-proof vests not being available. If it is a high-risk area, you need somebody waiting out in the car and somebody on the door. London is predominantly a high-risk area, which is why we see such slow eviction timescales.

Personally, we want to prevent evictions. Landlords do not go around evicting tenants willy-nilly, but when they have a legitimate case, we do expect it to be dealt with expediently. To me, court reform looks like sifting the cases more appropriately and more speedily; digitising that process so you see the ping and the pong of the evidence going backwards and forwards; and, when you get possession, an automatic link to the bailiff, rather than having to reapply. Those are three tangible things. Ultimately, though, it is seven months at the moment, and it needs to be lower.

Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Q You said earlier that the first-tier tribunal is working better, but did you really answer the question of whether you feel the Bill will increase pressure on the tribunal and the courts, and whether they are ready for it? Have you seen any evidence of an increase in funding, given this impending legislation?

Justin Bates KC: I want to be careful not to speak for the first-tier tribunal judges. Parliament has provided additional funding for the FTT in anticipation, not of this Bill, but of other areas. Those of you who worked on the Building Safety Act 2022 will know that you gave new powers to the FTT over unsafe buildings. Funding came along with that, because new building safety judges have been appointed. For obvious reasons, I am not privy to all the spending decisions, but as a regular attendee of the tribunal, I can see that money must have been provided. Whether you provide more money for this Bill is, frankly, miles above my pay grade.

On the increased workload, it is very difficult to say. It is plausible that there may not be that much of an increase in workload, because people can still agree what the new rent will be. If they agree it, there is no need to go anywhere near the tribunal. If I were pushed, my informed guess would be that there will be an increase in the first few years, because there always is whenever the law changes, and that it will settle down after a while, but I cannot properly comment on the minutiae of how you fund the FTT.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Q Just to follow up on that point, none of us knows what the increase in tribunal work will be, but there will be an active incentive not to agree a rent increase because you have your rent, it is going to go up, there is the delay of the process, and then at the end, the worst that can happen is that you get the rent increase that you were going to get anyway. Why would not tenants always, as a matter of course, put off the evil hour? They would get six, eight, 12 or 15 months free.

Justin Bates KC: But what I am saying is that I do not know whether it will be that long. There is an assumption in the questions, which may or may not be correct, that all these cases will need a hearing. Most of the section 13 cases that the tribunal already deals with are done on the papers. It rattles through 10 of them a day because, unless there is something specific about the property—unless you need to see it to understand the condition of disrepair, or whatever—there is no reason why you cannot do rent-based determinations on the basis of written materials: the Rightmove print-offs, the price and so on.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q But even on that basis, you are loading on to the landlord a requirement to create the papers and a period in which the tenant has to respond —I am guessing 14 or 28 days, but we do not know yet. Then there is a period of consideration. What is it currently? Even if it is dealt with on the papers, what is an average period of deliberation?

Justin Bates KC: The tribunal’s KPI internal target is all decisions within six weeks.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q But what it is actually doing?

Justin Bates KC: It broadly keeps to that. The FTT is pretty good at keeping to its standards. You can safely assume that we are looking at three months. Those are the figures you are throwing at me, and I can see that being realistic.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Okay, so three months of avoiding a 20% rent increase. Everyone will do it, will they not? Why would they not?

Justin Bates KC: I do not know, is the answer. That is not a cop-out; it is recognising the limits of what lawyers should safely talk about.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Okay, I accept that answer. Am I right in thinking that there are about 4.6 million private tenancies out there?

Justin Bates KC: Broadly, yes.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q So if everyone does it, that is quite a lot of extra work. Even if 25% do it, it is 1 million papers-only cases a year.

Justin Bates KC: Yes.

Liz Davies KC: Of those where the landlord increases the rent. You are assuming an annual increase.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Just on that, every landlord—or the vast majority of landlords—increases the rent annually to take account of inflation and other issues. Is that not right?

Justin Bates KC: There is a famous housing benefit case, which the Commission on Social Security likes to remind us of, that says that Rachman is not the only model of landlord. It is entirely possible not to do that, or to agree sub-ones. Remember that the private rented sector is so difficult to pin down as a single, homogeneous beast. A landlord who lets to someone who is predominantly reliant on welfare benefits to pay their rent will not hike it beyond the inflation rate of the benefit, because all they would be doing is creating a situation in which the tenant cannot pay.

I do not think you are wrong to raise that spectre; I just struggle with how we identify how likely that is to play out, and what the numbers will be in any given period. I do not think, for my part, that we can safely assume that every landlord will go as high as humanly possible, or that everyone will be defended, but on your broad point that there will be a delay, yes, that must be right.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q I want to ask about condition and the decent homes standard. Will you elaborate on how you think that bringing the decent homes standard into the private rented sector can most effectively be enforced? What might you anticipate going forward from the way that the Bill is drafted?

Giles Peaker: What is envisaged is it being enforced by local authorities, and the powers of the local authorities appear to be great. The question, as with existing powers for local authority housing enforcement, is the very variable performance—or the extremely variable performance—between local authorities. Whether one wants to impose a duty on local authorities, rather than a power, would be an interesting question; I strongly suspect that funding demands would follow on from that. But the powers are there and could be very effective; it is a question of the will to utilise them.

We do not yet know what the contents of the proposed decent homes standard will be. It would be good to see a unified standard across social and private tenancies—there is no reason why there should be any distinction between the two kinds of accommodation. The social housing side, as I understand it, will be enforced by the social housing regulator, which is a slightly different situation, but the same standard would apply. Tenants, as it stands, will not be able to enforce the specific standard except by complaint to the local authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

Q You mentioned the planning system earlier. Do you see any risk, because of the perceived unattractiveness of the new system, that there will be an increase in short-term holiday letting? The Liberal Democrats want to see the use class brought forward for holiday lets. Would you support that in terms of controlling it in rural areas, so that councils and communities can control the amount of Airbnb-type short-term holiday lets in their areas?

Judicaelle Hammond: We recognise that is an issue in some areas of the country that are honeypots. If the proposals that were consulted on are implemented effectively, we see a need for them.

On your question about whether some properties would become holiday lets, I think if you had asked me a year ago, I might have said yes. There are other pressures on the holiday let market that make this increasingly unlikely. We hear from members that they are planning on selling full stop, which would probably be selling to people who want to be on the housing ladder rather than to people who want to take over their business of being private rented sector housing providers. That is a real issue and concern for us.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Building on that, we heard from a few of the witnesses this morning that one of the key concerns of the private rented sector is the delay associated with the recovery of property through the Courts and Tribunals Service. A moment ago, you said that some of your members are waiting 12 to 18 months, during which time they do not get any rent and it is an asset that is not working for them. I would like to drill into that a little further to understand fully why it is that landowners are already leaving the market and why that might happen in the future, and what impact you assess that will have on future rents.

On one side of the argument you could say, “Rents will go up as supply decreases.” Do you think that will be an unintended consequence of the proposed legislation? On the other side, which I invite you also to consider, is the question of whether, if you increase foregone earnings—that is, increase the losses associated with being a tenant—because the time required by court processes will be extended because of increased demand, that increased loss will filter into increased rents in the long run.

Judicaelle Hammond: I think the answer to both of your questions is that there is a risk. If demand and supply work in the way they are intended to, unless you increase the supply there is a risk that the rent would go up—to do exactly the two things you suggested.

What we see is broader than just renters’ rights reform, though: we are seeing, for example, the move towards minimum energy efficiency standards, and I totally understand why that is needed. At the same time, it is quite difficult for landlords to deal with some of the costs. Again, we are mostly talking about older properties in rural areas. The cost of maintenance and improvement, particularly since the Ukraine war and the surge in the cost of building materials, has not come down. It has stopped growing at the same rate, but the prices have not come down to where they were pre-pandemic, pre-Ukraine.

As a result of that, you will first have to wait for a void in your properties, in all likelihood, in order to do the kinds of work that will be needed. Those voids do not happen very often. Secondly, you need to get your hands on tradespeople, who might actually prefer to stick to their local areas, because they are within 30 minutes’ driving time and not an hour and a half’s driving time. That is something else that we hear quite a bit about. All that is bringing pressure on to the private tenanted sector.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q I am straying into my memory now, but I think the financial exemption was set at £9,000 for the costs of an upgrade, above which you are exempted as a landlord.

Judicaelle Hammond: It was proposed to be £10,000 in the last consultation. It is every five years.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q What has happened with that? If the level is £10,000, does that feel about right to you? Should it be higher or lower, or should there be an improvement in another way?

Judicaelle Hammond: I am afraid that the answer, which is probably for another day, is that it depends. For example, it depends where you are in the country and what kind of rents you are going to be able to charge. I was talking to a member this morning who said, “There is no way I can put the rents up. The people who are paying for it will not be able to cope with an increase in order to recoup that.” We need to look at that carefully and have either a ramp-up system or a different system for exemption, or indeed better or more suitable technology, which might well be coming. My plea on that would be: let us use the time we have before the standards are tightened to improve things like the energy performance certificate methodology and look at alternative technologies as well.

[Rachel Blake]

Q I want to come back to what the Minister said about condition and the introduction of the decent homes standard into the private rented sector. I want to understand this. I think you were saying there is an in-principle objection to the standard but a recognition that the actual standard has not been published. At the moment, the position you would take is to rely on the housing health and safety rating system and the homes fit for human habitation provision. My experience, and I am sure that of many representatives, is that it is difficult to drive up the quality of homes with the HHSRS due to how long it takes to force landlords to acknowledge where they are failing on a particular hazard. Could you elaborate on why you think relying on HHSRS, or even the homes fit for human habitation provision, would be more effective than the decent homes standard both for consumers—tenants—and for landlords in terms of the condition of their assets?

Judicaelle Hammond: It is a question of finding ways quickly to improve things, and using the current regulations. Again, I am not here to ask you questions, but I am really curious about the barriers that you see. If this was enforced properly, you would find ways of doing it. For us, it is a question of asking, “Well, there is legislation already. Why don’t we use it?”

On the decent homes standard, it is less an objection in principle. It is more about taking what we have at the moment and applying it without thought or adaptation to the private rented sector, where some of the conditions might be different. For example—going back to my argument about the availability of trades, maintenance staff, and so on—if you have a large portfolio, that might be doable, but if you do not, you really are in a different position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

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

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You mentioned unintended consequences, a topic that I have come back to repeatedly today. We heard evidence earlier that rents in Scotland have outpaced those in the rest of the United Kingdom quite considerably in, I think, the last five years. You mentioned the 2022 rent control legislation and the impact that that has had on rents. If you can strip that out in your own mind and give us an assessment of what impact rent reform has had on rents over the past seven years, can you give the Committee a flavour of whether rents have gone up as a result, stayed the same, or reduced?

Anna Evans: We show in the report that the rents increased at a similar rate to the rest of the UK until ’22. If you were trying to isolate why there was a more considerable increase since that time, you could probably fairly conclude that it was because of the 2022 legislation, but it is very difficult to isolate out. The range of legislation that has been implemented in Scotland is significant, but there was a tipping point in ’22 when rents in Scotland appear to have increased at a greater rate than in the UK. The key point was the 2022 legislation.

I should also caveat all of that—as we have in our report—by saying that the Scottish rent data is not as good. It is based on advertised rents rather than any survey of in-tenancy rents. The published data on rent levels and the hike in Scotland will be for new tenancies, and therefore, that will naturally be inflated compared with most tenancies, because we know that landlords do not tend to increase rents in tenancy. They prefer to keep them at a level that keeps tenants content and therefore they have a longer rental period. That evidence has to be considered with caution, because it is based on advertised rents.

[Lola McEvoy]

Q Just for the eradication of any doubt, are you under the impression that the introduction of rent controls has led to an increase in rents?

Anna Evans: As I said, I do not think it is possible to absolutely isolate this out, but on advertised rents—new advertised rents—there was an increase post 2022 when that legislation came in. But you must remember that that does not include evidence of in-tenancy rents, which would be lower. So we cannot say that all average rents have increased as a result of that—we cannot say that at all.

Renters' Rights Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds]

The amendments relate to the role of the tribunal and the tribunal process. One of the concerns that was extensively aired in debate, and about which we have heard a great deal of evidence, is the impact of a process whereby from a tenant’s point of view, going to tribunal is a no-lose situation because the only possible decision the tribunal can take is to reduce the rent they would pay. That would mean that it would essentially always be in the tenant’s interests to go to the tribunal, because it would at worst defer the point at which any higher rent took effect. We have very significant concerns about the tribunal’s capacity to absorb that level of work and about the fact that to be fair to landlords as well, we should not have a situation where a tribunal can operate in only one direction. By proposing these amendments, we seek to make it possible for changes in rent to be backdated.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

We are talking about perverse incentives here. One way to tackle that would be through a costs regime associated with the tribunal. Is it my hon. Friend’s understanding that the current intention is that there would be no adverse costs orders awarded against a tenant, should they go through a tribunal process and not be successful in reducing the level of rent?

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend raises an extremely good point. As he outlined, this is very much about perverse incentives. We do not want to create a situation in the market where it is always in the interests of the tenant to push this to the tribunal. We need to make sure that that point is effectively addressed, and the amendments seek to do that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 8 amends section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, and the amended sections set out the circumstances in which a tenant can submit an application to the tribunal to challenge the rent amount either in the first six months of a tenancy or following a section 13 rent increase notice. Amendments 50 to 53 seek to alter the process for challenging initial rents and rent increases at the tribunal.

I must stress that, in the first instance, under this new system, the Government strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what adjustments to rent are sustainable for both parties. Where an agreement cannot be reached, the Government are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe that a rent increase is above market rates. Such rises may represent an attempt by the landlord to exploit a tenant who simply wishes to remain in their home, or they may be an underhanded attempt to remove a tenant without pursuing the very clear possession grounds laid out in schedule 1. That is why we think clause 8 is so important.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I understand that the Government’s intention is that tenants should not go to the tribunal unless they are clear that the asked-for rent is too high, but what prevents them from gaming the system, as we discussed?

[Matthew Pennycook]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I will expand upon my argument in due course—is that I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take a case to the tribunal. That is why we are seeing such low numbers of tenants going to the tribunal. It is an onerous process; we need to provide support and guidance about how to do it. I do not take his point that we will see a flood of tenants taking rent increase cases to tribunal.

To be very clear—I have said this on previous occasions—the Government want more tenants to take their cases to tribunal. We think the tribunal has an important role to play in setting the effective market rate for any given area, so we want to see a proportionate number of cases go through it—we obviously do not want to see it overwhelmed. However, I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the onerous nature of taking a case to tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that, and that it is a no-lose situation, but I recognise the incentives at play on both sides. I will expand upon what I mean and why we have come to this decision in relation to this particular clause.

The shadow Minister proposes in his amendments that rent increases, where they are challenged at the tribunal, should be backdated to the date the landlord first proposed. That would mean tenants possibly facing significant arrears immediately after the tribunal hearing. That is an incentive in the other direction, which we fear would, if introduced, see no tenants taking their case to tribunal. We have just had an extensive discussion about the need to address the affordability pressures to ensure that landlords are not exploiting the system with large, completely unreasonable within-tenancy increases. We have to take that into account as well.

Tenants should not be thrust into debt simply for enforcing their rights. As such, the Bill proposes that rent increases should apply only at the beginning of the next period after the tribunal determination, or up to two months later, in limited cases of undue hardship.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to develop my argument after his intervention, I am sure I will get to his points.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful—I am not intervening for the sake of it; there is an important point here. The Minister says that it would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and a backlog after the determination of the tribunal, but that is rent that ought properly to have belonged to the landlord and has been unjustifiably denied them for the period of the process. Why is it fair for the landlord to be denied a just rent as a result of the delay in the process, yet it is for some reason not fair for the tenant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Many of the 11 million people living in the private rented sector would love to own a pet but have difficulty finding a property that allows them to do so. We want tenants in the private rented sector to enjoy the joys of pet ownership, just as homeowners do. We know the benefits of pet ownership for mental and physical wellbeing. I declare an interest: I have a dog named Clem, who I referenced in the debate on the previous Government’s Bill, and he is, as I know to be the case for many pets across the country, a valued member of the family.

We have heard the calls from animal groups for more protection for pets living in rented homes. In its written evidence to the Committee, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals highlighted the plight of renters forced to give up their pets because they cannot find a home that will allow pets. I am delighted that the RSPCA, as well as the Dogs Trust, Battersea, and Cats Protection, support the action the Bill takes in this area.

On how we support pet ownership in the private rented sector, clause 10 introduces a new implied term that allows tenants to make a request to keep a pet, which landlords cannot unreasonably refuse. That stops landlords utilising a blanket “no pets” approach and ensures that each request is considered on its merits. We understand that not all properties or situations will be appropriate for pets. Landlords will not have to accept their tenant’s request where it is unreasonable, such as where housemates have allergies and might be detrimentally affected by pet ownership.

The clause makes it clear that landlords will always be justified in refusing a request if their own superior tenancy agreement prohibits pets. That will ensure that the law is consistent and that landlords will not be put in a position where they are forced to breach the terms of their own superior lease. However, to ensure that the provisions have teeth, tenants will have the right to challenge refusals they think are unreasonable via the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman or in court. The ombudsman or court will be able to take an unbiased view on whether the landlord has reasonably refused a request.

Clause 10 also gives landlords an ample 28 days to respond to requests, with an additional seven-day window if the landlord requests more information from the tenant within the initial 28-day timeframe. I make that point because the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill proposed a 42-day response window. The animal welfare charities I mentioned were concerned about that duration, especially as it would mean tenants finding it hard to adopt a pet or the charities needing to keep animals for a long time while landlords made a decision. I share those concerns and I am pleased to say that we have made an improvement by bringing down the timeframe in this Bill.

Finally, clause 10 provides reassurance to landlords by allowing them to require pet damage insurance, either by charging the tenant for it or by asking the tenant to take out an appropriate insurance policy. These measures encourage responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector while providing landlords with assurance.

Turning to clause 11, although it is right that tenants can make the house they rent their home by having a pet, I understand that some landlords will be concerned by potential damage caused by pets to their property. The Committee has discussed the joys of pet ownership, but we all know that many pets can be active and at times destructive. That is one of the joys of pet ownership, but also one of the realities, particularly when it comes to some types of animals.

Clause 11 builds on changes made by clause 10 and amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to permit landlords to require tenants to take out an insurance policy to cover any potential damage caused by a pet or to charge the tenant the cost of such a policy. When granting consent, the landlord will be able to decide which insurance option best meets their needs. That underscores our commitment to ensuring that the private rented sector provides secure and stable housing. We recognise that pet ownership plays a crucial role in achieving that mission.

I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for amendment 55, which seeks to ensure that suitable insurance products are available before landlords are allowed to mandate that their tenants purchase them to cover pet damage. We know that one of the reasons landlords are hesitant to take on tenants with pets is a fear that those pets could cause damage to their properties, which the tenants’ deposits might not be sufficient to cover.

I recognise that not a lot of insurance companies currently offer products designed to cover damage from pets. It is understandable that in the current climate, in which landlords have discretion over whether to accept or refuse pets, there is no demand for insurance and therefore the market is limited. We believe, however, that by creating an enabling environment for the industry, the Bill will cause the insurance market to adapt. I am sure that, as firm believers in the free market, the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Broadland and Fakenham share that view.

I hope the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will also be reassured that my Department has already had discussions with the insurance industry regarding such products. The discussions have been promising and I am aware that there are products in development to meet his concerns.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister is quite right; I am a believer in the free market and I am sure the market will respond. Does he have an indication from his discussions with the insurance industry of the kind of price and the surcharge that will be required to fit the need?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We have not considered extensively the range of prices in the Department’s discussions, but I am sure the market will respond. I do not see any particular concern that companies will charge excessive rates for pet insurance, but that is something we will monitor as we bring the relevant parts of the Bill into force.

In the light of those points, I hope the shadow Minister will consider not pressing amendment 55 to a vote.

Renters' Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Minister identified other legislation that already make discrimination illegal, and went on to make the point that proving discrimination is very difficult, so my question is twofold. First, if we have already outlawed that kind of behaviour, why do we need further legislation to do exactly the same thing? Secondly, if we do require further legislation, how is the evidential burden going to be passed more easily under this clause than has been the experience under previous provisions?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his two reasonable questions; I will come on to answer them both in my remarks. If he feels that I have not sufficiently explained the matter, I am more than happy to give way to him again, but I will address both those points. The first I have already touched on: despite it almost certainly being unlawful under the Equality Act, discriminatory conduct of the kind that we are trying to bear down on happens fairly routinely, so it is evident to the Government that the existing legislation does not allow us to bear down on the problem effectively in practice. We think the Bill’s provisions will allow us to do so. I will pick up the hon. Gentleman’s point about the evidential burden and how local authorities make that judgment in due course.

In contrast to the approach on which I challenged the then Minister in the previous Parliament, the advantage of the approach taken in the Bill is that, first, responsibility for enforcement lies with local authorities and not tenants, and secondly, breaches can be addressed relatively easily, in the English context, via a civil offence with a lower burden of proof than a criminal one.

Clauses 32 and 33 directly and expressly prohibit discriminatory bans and restrictions on the letting of private rented sector properties on the basis that children would live with or visit a person at the property, or to persons in receipt of benefits. They also prohibit any conduct that might otherwise effectively constitute such bans or restrictions. In other words, the provisions are intended to deal with both direct and more subtle forms of discrimination. It is important to note that landlords and agents will continue to have the final say on who they let their property to, and they will be able to continue to carry out referencing checks to make sure that tenancies are sustainable for both parties.

It is also the case, as clause 40 makes clear, that nothing in this chapter will prevent landlords from making a final decision based on an objective and fair assessment of whether the prospective tenant can afford the rent, nor will it force landlords into entering into unsustainable tenancies. The majority of landlords—those who already act fairly and conscientiously and treat applicants equally, assessing their suitability on a case-by-case basis—have absolutely nothing to fear as a result of the introduction of the new rental discrimination framework.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister made reference to the burden of proof under the clause being the civil burden, and compared that to the Equality Act. I just had a quick look at that Act—I stand to be corrected because it was a very brief look—and the burden under that Act appears to be a civil burden and also one where the maxim res ipsa loquitur can be applied. If that is the case, what is the difference between the burden of proof in this clause and that of the Equality Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I appreciate and understand that point, and the shadow Minister is right to say that we need to bring the requisite level of clarity in this area. He has asked a series of questions in Committee on insurance products more generally and I will attempt to give him a more comprehensive answer in writing so that we can draw a line under some of his concerns.

The shadow Minister asked specifically about no recourse to public funds and care leavers, which again is a specific subset of issues that he is right to raise. I will come back to him on those as well.

On civil penalties and whether they can be proved, we have taken a different approach in the Bill from Scotland and Wales where the situation is different. While they seek to enforce discriminatory provisions through a criminal offence, we have deliberately taken the civil route because of the lower burden of proof required for local authorities, and the ease with which they will therefore be able to take enforcement action against cases of discrimination where they have sufficient evidence.

[Jerome Mayhew]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

If I have answered the shadow Minister’s point, the hon. Gentleman can come in.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister will be aware that, although there is a civil burden of proof under English and Welsh law, the level to which the courts hold that burden of proof varies substantially, depending on the nature of the tariff or the consequence of that finding. Given that councillors will be seeking to impose what looks quite like a criminal fine under clause 39—a fine of many thousands of pounds—is it the Minister’s understanding that, although the burden of proof required is civil, it will be a high hurdle when applied by the courts?

[Matthew Pennycook]

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

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

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

Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

Clause 133 gives local authorities the powers to investigate breaches of client money protection regulations, which they are not currently able to do.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I apologise for being rather slow on the uptake, but may I take the Minister back to clause 124, “Duties where occupiers are on residential premises entered without warrant”? Subsection (1) states:

“If an officer of a local housing authority enters premises under section 123(1) and finds one or more occupiers on the premises”—

in other words, if there are people there—

“the officer must produce evidence of the officer’s identity and special authorisation to that occupier or (if there is more than one) to at least one of them.”

That is very sensible—it means that the person must demonstrate who they are to the people in the premises—but subsection (2) states:

“An officer need not comply with subsection (1) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so.”

If we have already identified that an officer is entering premises that are occupied, what are the circumstances in which it would not be reasonably practicable for him to identify himself?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a very reasonable question. If the hon. Member will allow me, I will come back to him via written correspondence. In drafting the clause— I am raking my memory for our discussions about it—we thought that there would be certain circumstances in which the reasonability test might not need to be met. Some of the clauses have been developed following exchanges with local authorities. I will come back to the hon. Member on the specific point about whether we have met the test for it being necessary to include the subsection in the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The difficulty is that the Minister is asking us to support the wording of the Bill now, not subsequently to a letter being received. It is hard to support a clause that suggests on the face of it that an officer could come in and decide that it is not reasonably practicable to show their authority to somebody who is in occupation of their own residence. This is not an office building; it is where people live. I invite the Minister, who has his officials with him, to provide a more substantive answer in his next comments, because it is difficult for someone like me to support the clause as drafted.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will happily try to do so: I will take away the point and try to get the hon. Member some reassurance in short order. I reassure him that we have drafted the clauses carefully, following extensive dialogue with local authorities and local authority stakeholders. We do not take the power lightly. If I understand him correctly, he is putting to me the reasonable point that such a power would never be necessary. If, in the course of our ongoing exchanges, I can give him an example in which it might be necessary, perhaps he will be reassured.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 112 to 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134

Interpretation

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