Renters (Reform) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

The hon. Member is trying to press me for a specific timeframe, but I am unable to give him that commitment today.

I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling new clause 60. The tragic case of Awaab Ishak’s death has thrown into sharp relief the need for the Government to continue our mission to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants in this country. It is right that all tenants across both sectors should expect safe and decent homes from their landlords. However, our focus for the private rented sector is to strengthen the enforcement of standards by local housing authorities, as well as introducing new means of redress through the PRS ombudsman.

We do not consider it to be of interest to private rented sector tenants to introduce a further route for potential litigation and enforcement. Private tenants already have rights when it comes to repairs in their home and the safety of their home. Private landlords are required to make sure that their homes are free from the most serious health and safety hazards. If hazards are present, the local housing authority can issue an improvement notice requiring them to be remedied within a specific time. Landlords who fail to comply can be prosecuted or fined up to £30,000. Additionally, if tenants consider that their rented home is not fit for human habitation, they can seek remedy through the courts under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to which the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich referred.

Our focus is on strengthening the new system through the Bill. As I have just set out, we intend to introduce a decent homes standard in the private rented sector for the first time. The Government’s amendment to introduce the relevant provisions will place a stronger duty on landlords to keep their properties free from serious hazards, and allow local housing authorities to take enforcement action if private rented homes fail to meet decent homes standards. Through the Bill, we are also introducing a private rented sector ombudsman, which will be able to help private tenants to resolve repair issues quickly and for free if their landlord has not acted appropriately to remedy an issue within a reasonable timeframe.

Through existing legislation and new measures introduced by the Bill, private rented sector landlords will be held to account for providing safe and decent homes, and for providing timely repairs. We do not consider that it would be in the interest of private rented sector tenants to introduce a further route for potential litigation.

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

Before the Minister sits down, will he deal with the issue of licences? Those of us who deal with a large number of people in homeless accommodation know that those in temporary accommodation, whose accommodation is held under licence, often endure the worst conditions of all, and very little of this legislation currently applies to them. Will he bring something forward?

[Jacob Young]

I am happy to have that conversation with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich at a later date. If there are specific points that I have not addressed, I am happy to write to her, but I ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw the new clause.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

I am not in a position to give an example today. If an example comes to mind, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with it.

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

I just want to press the Minister on this point. It is right that there is an issue about balance, but by asking the Committee to accept that the detail will be brought forward in regulations—without our having any idea of where the balance might lie and what kind of exceptions we are talking about—the Minister is asking us to approve the clause rather in the dark.

[Jacob Young]

I reject the suggestion that the Committee is being asked to approve the clause in the dark. Obviously, any regulations will come before the House will be debated at that time. These things could breach someone’s human rights or affect their ability to protect their own data, therefore it is right that we properly consider them once we know what the portal actually looks like, and we have information recorded on it and so on.

I encourage the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown to withdraw his amendment. A landlord’s national insurance number or date of birth, for example, is key information that should remain private to a landlord and is not necessarily for tenants’ viewing. I respect the hon. Member’s points and the issues that he raised; as I say, we will consider them fully when we come to make regulations after Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

seemingly has not been taken forward in the Bill, and whether the Government plan to take any non-legislative steps to boost oversight of local authority enforcement strategies. I would also be grateful if he could let us know whether we can expect the Department to issue future guidance to local authorities on how the relevant provisions in the Bill can be most effectively enforced.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the variation in performance between local authorities. Enforcement in some of them definitely reflects a variation in interest and concern. Does he also recognise that there is also a fundamental issue of resource capacity for enforcement in local government? As this largely discretionary service is being squeezed by the pressures on local authorities, requiring extra duties from local authorities without resources is a recipe for inaction.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend’s point is extremely well made. As I have commented already, there is an issue about which local authorities prioritise these services, but precisely because they are a discretionary service, there is an issue of resources and funding. That is the second of the points I wish to put to the Minister.

In assessing why the approach of so many local authorities to enforcement is inherently reactive, one cannot escape the issue of capacity and capabilities. Not only are councils across the country under huge financial pressure at present but many are struggling, and indeed have struggled for some time, to recruit experienced officers to carry out enforcement activity. Yet the White Paper was entirely silent on the challenge of local authority resourcing and staffing. The provisions in the Bill that enable local authorities to keep the proceeds of financial penalties to reinvest in enforcement activity are welcome. However, the funds that will raise—not least because the Government have chosen to cap financial penalties at £5,000 and £30,000 respectively—are unlikely to provide the initial funding required to implement the new system, and even in the medium to long term will almost certainly not cover the costs of all the new regulatory and enforcement responsibilities that clause 58 will require local authorities to meet.

The White Paper committed the Government to conducting a new burdens assessment into the reform proposals it set out, assessing their impact on local government, and, where necessary, fully funding the net additional cost of all new burdens placed on local councils. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister can give us today a clear commitment on resources. Specifically, can he tell us whether the commitment to a new burdens assessment will be honoured and, if so, when it will be published?

Renters (Reform) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

I want to press the Minister on his thinking and on the motivations for widening ground 14 in respect of antisocial behaviour. I support the hon. Member for North Shropshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.

There is a continuing theme of the Government looking at this world as they want it to be, rather than at the rather messier reality. In respect of private tenancies, it is a world that they have quite deliberately created. No one likes being exposed to any form of antisocial behaviour or inconvenience. Some antisocial behaviour can literally ruin lives. Many of us will have dealt with casework relating to harassment; stalking; deliberate making of noise at antisocial hours; people running small businesses in flats, which can create noise; behaviour arising from the often illegal use of accommodation for short lets; people stealing post; and abuse, including homophobic and racist abuse. All those things can occur, and they can be extremely damaging to people’s lives.

One of the problems, which my hon. Friend addressed, is that these things are often not dealt with not because the threshold is too high for such cases, but because, in many instances, it is extremely difficult to gather the evidence. People are often extremely reluctant to act as witnesses and support evidence, and a lot of evidence is one-on-one and, to some extent, highly subjective.

Managing antisocial behaviour requires landlords to be part of the solution, and it is completely right that we are encouraging the consideration of that. Social landlords spend considerable time and resource trying to do that, with varying degrees of effectiveness, but in the private rented sector—with honourable exceptions—that often simply does not happen. The reduction in the threshold that the Government are proposing will make it even easier for landlords to choose to go down an eviction route or to hold the threat of eviction over the heads of households, in such a way that they themselves do not have to take a great deal of responsibility.

The Government must anticipate consequences from their change to the definition, or one would like to think that they would not have done it, but we need the Minister to spell those consequences out. Obviously, we must expect that more people will risk eviction for behaviour that is below the current threshold; that is a consequence almost by definition. In how many instances do the Government think that is likely to apply? Who might be affected by it, and under what circumstances not currently covered by legislation? What will happen to people who are at risk of eviction with a lower threshold?

[Jacob Young]

Does the hon. Lady accept that we cannot possibly know those figures? At the moment, landlords have the ability to use section 21 to remove tenants who are causing repeated antisocial behaviour. We are removing section 21, so we cannot possibly know what the impact will be.

[Ms Buck]

If the Minister is going to propose a change to the law, it is incumbent on him to have some indication of what the implications might be; otherwise, I am not sure why the Government would make the change. I do not understand that argument at all. It might be difficult to provide quantified figures, but the Minister has a duty to present to the Committee a sense of the type of instances that the change will apply to so that we can have some idea why it is necessary.

[Jacob Young]

Let me put to the hon. Lady—this goes to a point that the hon. Member for North Shropshire made earlier—what Grainger has said in evidence to the Committee:

“We welcome the strengthening of anti-social behaviour grounds for possession, which has been of particular concern to us previously.”

Does the hon. Lady not accept that that, in and of itself, is reason enough to proceed on this ground?

[Ms Buck]

I have a very large Grainger development in my constituency, and it is not an issue that has come to me at any scale. Obviously—the Minister is right—landlords are likely to want these powers. Of course, if a landlord is able to circumvent the abolition of section 21 by using powers of eviction in other ways, at a lower threshold or with a lower evidential base, then they are going to want to do that.

We are saying that a balance has to be struck between the genuine need to deal with serious antisocial behaviour and the consequences of that. It will mean additional pressures on households, on local authorities, which inevitably end up having to deal with the consequences of it, and indeed on the courts, which will be expected to make judgments with a much looser and more nebulous definition of antisocial behaviour. I am not sure that the Minister’s argument works there at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which we have made in connection with other grounds for possession, and I think it is worth putting on the record again. Lots of these notices that will be given will not go to court. We cannot rely on the courts’ discretion in all these instances. The tenant that my hon. Friend mentioned could be served with a notice, might not know the recourse that she has and might feel she has to go. The threat of the expanded ground will be enough in most instances.

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree. The sword of Damocles is hanging over the heads of lots of people just living a fairly ordinary life. Families with special needs children are a particularly high-risk category. A woman and her representative came to me recently to say that her current property is unsuitable. She lives with her non-verbal autistic 19-year-old son, and they have occupied the property for over 20 years. As her son has grown older, he has displayed more challenging behaviours, in line with those often associated with autism. The family has been subject to several complaints from neighbours in relation to the noise being made, but the mum states that it is near-impossible to have full control over her son, due to his increasing support needs.

There is one other category the Minister needs to address, which is what we do about families who have already been evicted from social housing. Clearly, families cannot be on the street. Getting landlords to provide accommodation to households in those cases is essential, but already extremely difficult.

[Jacob Young]

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that landlords should be forced to house tenants that were committing antisocial behaviour, simply because they have been removed from social housing?

[Ms Buck]

Of course I am not suggesting that landlords should be forced. I am saying that a balance needs to be struck. As I have said several times, the Minister is completely failing to recognise that the Government have chosen to use the private rented sector for housing, at scale, households who previously would often have been provided with social housing and supported. The Government have to recognise the consequences of that. There has to be proper provision in law. The abolition of section 21 is part of that, but as we keep arguing, by taking away other safeguards in the legislation, the Government are undermining something that we regard as very positive.

The proposed change will lead to more evictions at a lower threshold; it will lead to families leaving their property before going to court, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich says; it may lead to landlords actively avoiding tenants who may pose a risk; and it will lead to more applications to local authorities, which will then have to source more temporary accommodation, inevitably in the private rented sector, to house them.

The Minister has to ensure that there is a proper backstop. If the Government want to house people—particularly those with vulnerabilities and families—in the private rented sector at scale, as they do, getting the balance right is essential. The weakening of legislation in this respect is one way in which they are failing to do that.

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

I repeat the declarations that I have made previously in Committee about the support I get for running the all-party parliamentary group for renters and rental reform, the rent I receive from tenants in my personal house, my work on the advisory group of a housing co-operative federation legal group, and my work as a trustee of the University of Bradford Union of Students, which has interest in Unipol housing, which offers housing for students. The list gets a little longer every time we talk about different things.

I rise to support what my colleagues have said. It is striking that the Government say in the impact assessment that the change will have no monetised or non-monetised impact on tenants, although—the changes to grounds are all clumped together—they list a number of positives and negatives for landlords. That seems rather odd. If the Government are saying that they need to lower the threshold to get rid of antisocial behaviour, there will be a cost to tenants and local authorities.

Now, perhaps that cost is worth it in order to stop antisocial behaviour; perhaps it is better that the local authority, opposed to the private sector, comes in and houses a family that might be causing a particular problem, because the family needs more wraparound support. I am more than willing to go along with that line of argument, but the Government do not make that argument in the impact assessment. They argue that there will be no impact.

I wonder whether the Minister really believes what the impact assessment says. Have he and the Department done the due diligence on the change? If they are genuinely saying that there will be no impact, what is the point of the change, other than to enable landlords to threaten tenants more? That is what it will be. If they are saying that, when a case gets to court, there will be no material change, what they are actually saying is, “Yes, in the court there will be no change, but we’ll be able to put the kibosh on tenants a bit more.” We need some clarity on that from the Minister.

Clearly, “likely to cause” is an extremely low threshold, but it still requires evidence. What I heard from Grainger and others was that it was difficult for them to gather evidence, because people did not want to come forward, and that in the end people wanted to move out of the situation rather than confront it. Even if we lower the threshold—it is a discretionary ground that we all agree on—there will still need to be evidence. I therefore do not see how changing the threshold—as opposed to, for example, changing court evidence guidelines—helps. The court guidelines could be quite easily changed to say that more regard can be given to diaries, recordings and other forms of evidence. I think we would all agree that we should ensure that landlords and courts can use and have more regard to all the evidence and technology that we have nowadays, such as Ring doorbells and so on. When such behaviour can be evidenced, people need to move out.

There is another problem. As the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople have said, there is a grey line between nuisance and antisocial behaviour. Let us be honest that that is a very grey area. Clearly, the most egregious forms of antisocial behaviour are horrible and nasty, and everyone can see them from a million miles away. Those are not the cases that are struggling in the courts at the moment; it is the grey-area cases where we are unsure. I am not sure that that helps the debate.

It would be much better if the Secretary of State accepted Labour’s new clause 55, which empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidelines from time to time on the levels, thresholds and evidential thresholds for antisocial behaviour. That would be much better, because it would also allow us to understand the changing nature of antisocial behaviour. It would help with problems of cuckooing and drug dealing. We know these kinds of behaviour change with legislation. It is a cat and mouse game with drugs and gangs. The danger with changing the threshold to “likely” is that we will not actually target those people correctly, but will end up bogging down the courts and people with things that are just nuisances, and we will not be able to pinpoint and get people on areas where we all agree real problems need to be targeted.

The Minister should either accept our new clause or say that he will go back and think about guidelines to frame the matter, so that it is clear. We have heard evidence from domestic abuse charities that they are deeply worried. I remember living opposite a lovely woman whose husband had been sent to prison for domestic abuse. On his release, every other night he was outside her house banging the door and shouting abusive expletives. Yes, the police were called and that was dealt with, but it happened repeatedly month after month. It was hugely antisocial for the rest of the residents, but clearly she should not have been evicted.

The problem is only changing the “likely” thresholds, rather than saying, “We will produce a comprehensive set of guidelines that will ensure and give security to those people.” In changing the threshold to “likely” in a vacuum, the Minister has created a lot of fear and panic in some of the sector, whereas that could have been closed down and the Minister could have been given more discretion. I do not say this very often, but on these matters, I am always in favour of giving Ministers more discretion.

I support amendment 131 on repeat visitors. We have all had situations where constituents or neighbours, particularly—dare I say it—younger people with parties that might have gotten out of hand, where they have had to eject visitors from their flat and in the process of doing so, it has created a great deal of antisocial behaviour. We do not want it to suddenly trigger a threshold when the tenant has done the right thing by trying to stop the problem but that has caused a disturbance. It needs to be when someone has repeatedly and voluntarily invited a person back into their flat to cause a disturbance. It also links to things like cuckooing, where the tenant does not have the capacity to resist that individual. Clearly other interventions, particularly by the police and social security, are needed.

I think the Minister is trying to do the right thing, and we all agree that we need tougher abilities to tackle antisocial behaviour. First, he should accept the amendment. Secondly, it always sticks in my throat that we create a whole different set of regimes for people in the private rented sector compared with people who own houses. We assume that people who live in the private rented sector are more prone to antisocial behaviour, but I must admit that I know lots of people who own their own homes who are darn antisocial as well.

I do not disagree that there should be cause to evict, sometimes and when needed, but it needs to be on a fair and equitable basis, and it should be based on guidelines that can change as the need changes, rather than just lowering a threshold of one word, which the Minister says in his own impact assessment will have no impact whatsoever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

I do not believe that it does, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify. Turning back to what I was saying, it asks judges to give particular regard to the effect of antisocial behaviour on other tenants within houses of multiple occupation, which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned.

[Ms Buck]

Will the Minister clarify that, if the courts found grounds to evict a tenant under this lower threshold—without certain circumstances, such as special needs, mental health, and so on—would a local authority find that household to be intentionally homeless?

[Jacob Young]

I will write to the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to confirm the status of that issue—I appreciate that question was raised in the last sitting as well. As I was saying, with houses of multiple occupation, it will make it—

Renters (Reform) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise to support the amendment —no surprise there. We have a crisis not only in our private rented sector, but with the burdens that local authorities are having placed on them, with people coming to them at short notice because they are losing their homes. Many Members will know that two months is just not long enough for many local authorities to assist the constituent or, in this case, tenant to find a home in time. They are put into emergency accommodation at great cost to the council and the public purse. As a result of section 21s and the short period people have to find homes, last year 24,000 households were threatened with homelessness and had to resort to their local council. That is a huge number, and our local councils are suffering. The emergency accommodation spending of Hastings Borough Council, just down the road from me, has gone from £500,000 to £5 million this year. How can a council find that amount of money in three years? Almost exclusively, the cause is the ending of private tenancies.

We all think that private tenancies will need to end sometimes. No one thinks they should not when there are legitimate reasons. The Conservative party manifesto said that the Government would end no-fault evictions. It did not say that they would end just section 21s: it said they would end no-fault evictions. Clearly, that has not happened. We all agree that there are some reasons why a no-fault eviction might be needed, but serving those no-fault evictions with the same terms and time limit as section 21 evictions seems to breach the spirit, if not the letter, of not only the governing party’s manifesto but the point that we are meant to be rebalancing and giving time for tenants to find properties.

We could choose any number and say it was suitable, but let us think about the cycle through which people find houses. It will often take a number of weeks just to look for a house. Then someone will have to raise the money to pay for a deposit in advance, which might require one or two pay cheques. The Minister has already dismissed my amendment on rent-free periods, so people will have to raise that amount from the money they are earning at the time, and that may take a number of months. For a lot of private renters, 60% of their salary goes toward rent, so the idea of having to raise a month’s rent in advance in two months is almost impossible.

There is then the need to ensure that contracts are signed and references are done. To go through all that process in two months, someone would effectively need to have found a property on day one of getting the order. Four months is a much more reasonable period for someone to be able to do all that, when there is no fault of their own. It is incumbent on the Minister to at least consider that idea, and if not, to ask what additional protections and support will be given to tenants and local authorities to aid that transition, which is currently not aided.

All that is without me even touching on children and the fact that they will need to move schools. Four months would also mean that a child can make a move between schools within term-time and half-term periods. That allows a parent to say to their child, if they are having to move, “At half-term you will be starting at a new school.” These are important things for raising families, and the cycles are not unrealistic.

Of course, there will always be need for quicker evictions. There will be fault evictions. There will be pre-notice evictions. My Front-Bench team is not proposing to change any of them; I think that that is a reasonable balance for everyone. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

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

I, too, urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is common knowledge that London is at the sharp end of the pressures in this respect, and the need for a more flexible approach is pressing.

The Government are missing a recognition that the private rented sector, and moves within it, are not as they were, as we touched on earlier. The profile of renters is now completely different compared with the situation a decade or two ago, so the needs of households need to be accommodated in the management of the sector. There are more families in the sector and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, we need to ensure that families with children are given sufficient lead-in time to move their children between schools. For families with two or three children, that can involve finding a way of moving children in primary school and secondary school and between nurseries. These are major logistical tasks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I rise to support the amendment, which is a pragmatic response to the current housing market conditions, which are particularly acute in London and the south-east, for those who are vulnerable and do not have buying power, such as young professionals. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister highlighted a rather startling figure from Shelter: 40% of renters with children wait way beyond the two months currently in the Bill.

Members have also referred to the cost ultimately to the Exchequer, but certainly to local authorities. We have 104,000 people—a record number—living in temporary accommodation, and the cost to local authorities is £1.7 billion. That is another startling figure, and maybe the Chancellor will respond to it tomorrow with changes to the local housing allowance. I think the amendment is pragmatic. It is about focusing on the families and vulnerable tenants most in need in a marketplace that has limited availability. I think local housing allowance covers about 5% nationally—

[Ms Buck]

indicated assent.

[Mike Amesbury]

Of course it is far worse in London and, indeed, other cities. I urge the Minister and the Government to do the to do the right thing with this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Jacob Young]

I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and other hon. Members who have spoken on amendment 137 and new clause 54. We all agree that it is vital that the Government keep such an important set of policies under review. We must ensure that the grounds for possession are providing adequate security to tenants and functioning effectively for landlords, too.

We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme. Our impact assessment for the Bill, which has been published online, sets out our plans for evaluation. That builds on the Department’s existing long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process, impact, and value for money evaluation in line with the Department’s recently published evaluation strategy. Setting an arbitrary deadline in law for that work might detract from the quality of evaluation and prevent us conducting as robust an assessment as possible. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment 137.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

Once again, the Government are falling into the trap of creating a system that will create problems for itself, because they refuse to accept the sheer complexity of real people’s lives. Making these grounds mandatory will prevent the courts from doing what they are so good at, which is considering the circumstances that prevail in individual cases. Not only will that inevitably lead to many families and individuals who are struggling with difficult circumstances losing their homes, but it will have a direct impact on local authorities, because this is yet another driver of homelessness and other pressures on local councils. This does not do away with the problem; it moves the problem somewhere else.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it causes another problem for those families, because hard-pressed councils might find them intentionally homeless? Generally, if someone is evicted for rent arrears, they are found intentionally homeless. Although reference has to be made to particular circumstances, I imagine that a court order with that result would lead to no landlord taking them on and to the council not helping them. There are then families floating around the system, with social services ultimately taking children into care.

[Ms Buck]

I agree with my hon. Friend about all this. In fact, tragically, my office is dealing at the moment with a family where the children have been taken into care as a consequence. These things can indeed happen; we have touched on that occasionally in the passage of this Bill, but I just wish that the Government had not rather short-sightedly removed things like debt advice from the scope of legal aid provision. If we had been able to intervene in many of these cases, we could have prevented these problems from ending up as a crisis. The solution to that is outside this Bill.

I concede that there are undoubtedly some people who persistently fail to pay their rent. That is absolutely the case, and it drives landlords mad—rightly so. I think the rumours of it create a much larger problem than actually exists, but there are people who do it, and it is essential that there are powers for the court to deal with that. The people who are doing that will frequently disappear before the case ever gets to court anyway, and will try their luck not paying their rent with another landlord. We need powers to deal with that, but so many of the people who end up in this situation do so because of a set of very, very difficult circumstances that have thrown them into chaos.

Here are just some of the cases that my office and I have dealt with over the course of a few months. There is the small shopkeeper and private tenant who was burgled; he lost his stock and his income, and it took him a while to sort out the insurance claim, during which time he got into very serious arrears. There is the young father on a zero-hours contract who found himself, several times during the year, expecting to have an income but finding that he was not called into work for two or three weeks at a time. Each time, it caused a set of problems.

The Minister may say that that is what social security and housing benefit are supposed to be for. I do not know whether the Minister has ever tried to claim universal credit or housing benefit on a variable income, with all the documentation that has to be prepared. It is an absolute living hell.

One of the safeguards in the Bill is supposed to be that the ground will not affect people who have a benefit entitlement that has been delayed, which, as we know, reflects a structural problem with universal credit. However, many of the difficult cases involve the entitlement to benefit being disputed in the first place, and that is a whole different ball game.

I had a case not that long ago in which a mother and her three children were days away from an eviction, not because they were deemed not to be entitled to benefit, but simply because after a relationship breakdown the benefit claim had for some reason not been transferred, despite repeated efforts. Over three years, that led to huge arrears. Each time, it was settled, but then the same structural problem occurred yet again, which left the family vulnerable. We were able to sort it out, but the case would not have fallen under the safeguards that the Minister will no doubt claim apply in this case.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the groups of people for whom it is most difficult to get housing benefit or universal credit correct is self-employed minicab drivers, because of the difficulties in assessing the costs involved in being self-employed? They regularly get a decision on their benefit claim only to have it change and have money taken back, while they remain on exactly the same income.

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree. It is an issue for the self-employed; the very small businesses operating at the margin; the people who, because of the structure of our labour market, dip in and out of employment and have highly variable earnings; and the people who are on zero-hour contracts. It is exactly those people who end up in difficulties. It would be lovely if the system had the competency and level of provision to help those people, but all too often it does not. Many young people and vulnerable people—for instance, after a relationship breakdown or a bereavement—do not know where to go for advice. They try to help themselves and fail to do so.

Ground 8A is both disproportionate to the scale of the problem and unnecessary, because there are powers in the system to deal with rent arrears anyway. It will inevitably lead to further evictions, which will be concentrated among those people who have the biggest problems, who will end up making claims for homelessness support from local authorities.

The Minister does not need to go down this route. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, if the Government do not want to go all the way to removing the reformed ground 8A, which would be the simplest way, there are layers of protection that could be built into the system. The Minister should trust the courts: that is what they are for. They are good at this, they are experienced at this, and they know how to tell a charlatan from somebody with genuine and complex problems. The measure will place an unnecessary burden on the most vulnerable people, and I genuinely believe that the Minister will have cause to regret its implementation.

[Jacob Young]

I think we can all agree that it is better for a tenancy to continue where possible, and we encourage landlords and tenants to work together when rent arrears arise. However, sometimes a tenancy cannot be sustained, and in such instances it is right that landlords have certainty. Ground 8A is intended to support landlords when a tenant is repeatedly falling into serious arrears. It will also prevent tenants from repeatedly paying down a small amount of arrears to frustrate possession proceedings brought on ground 8.

[Ms Buck]

As this point was raised with the Minister, can he share with the Committee the statistics that demonstrate the scale of that problem?

[Jacob Young]

I shall endeavour to write to the hon. Lady with such evidence, if there is any.

The Government have set a high bar for the ground. Tenants must fall into serious arrears three times within a rolling period of three years, which is already a significant financial burden for landlords to bear, particularly at a time of rising costs in the sector. Amendments 153 to 156 and 180 seek to narrow the ground. They propose that each instance of arrears must last two weeks, rather than one day, and must fall within a one-year period. That is simply too high a financial cost to ask landlords to bear. It would severely limit the availability of the ground.

The ground must also remain mandatory. As the Committee has heard, there is already a discretionary ground, ground 11, for persistent delays in rent payments, but that does not offer certainty to landlords. Ground 8A is intended to give certainty to all parties: a defined threshold that can lead to eviction. We therefore think that the ground strikes the right balance. I ask that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich withdraw the amendment.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mr Mohindra.)

Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

I rise briefly to reinforce the key points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and I share in our borough what I think is the largest private rental market in the country, so these issues are of particular concern to us. I am sure that she, like me, deals with consequences of section 21 evictions constantly.

We are all pleased to be here finally to recognise the principle that the section 21 evictions will end. However, I must also echo the concerns about the practice being dependent on a Government decision that in itself rests on agreement on court reform. That, as we heard in evidence last week, is unspecified and imprecise, which allows for the possibility that it will be some time before tenants see the benefits.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was asked in an intervention how many households had lost their homes since the Government introduced the principle of the Bill. The answer to that is 23,000 households since the commitment to the principle in the Bill. Even more worryingly, if the provisions of the Bill do not come into effect until the end of 2024, we are likely to see an additional 35,000 households losing their homes.

The consequences of losing a home are catastrophic for families. Many of us rented when we were younger, when we were students or young professionals, and moving frequently is a hazard of young life, but the private rented sector has been transformed in recent decades; it is now a home to families with children in a way that it simply was not a couple of decades ago. Therefore, the consequences for those families are at a level of disruption that is quite different, in particular in the impact on young people’s education.

One of the aspects that I deal with a lot, and that causes me great concern, is the number of uprooted families who have education and care plans. Children might be in the middle of special needs education—in particular, vulnerable children with autism or various disabilities—but they are uprooted and moved to different boroughs. That is also at considerable public expense, let alone the damaging consequences for the children.

We also have a growing number of older renters. Again, that was very rare a few decades ago. Those people have put down roots over decades.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Has my hon. Friend had the same experience that I have had? I see an ever-growing number of constituents over 60 who face section 21 eviction. In the 26 years that I have been the MP for Mitcham and Morden and in the previous 18 years that I was a councillor, or when I worked for Wandsworth local authority or the Battersea Churches Housing Trust, I have never seen that. It is a very new development.

[Ms Buck]

I very much agree. That is a new development, and it is extremely worrying and damaging to people’s quality of life.

The whole area of enforced mobility and frequent moves is an under-researched area of social policy, but it has massive implications. There is unfortunately far too little quality research, but from anecdotal evidence we know the negative impacts that frequent moves have on children’s education—I mentioned special needs, but there is an impact on children’s educational opportunities generally. I and, I am sure, other Members who represent areas with large renting populations have heard of children being uprooted in the weeks before they take public examinations, and being forced to commute to their schools, sometimes travelling an hour or more each way. We know that this is bad for educational prospects, we know it is bad for health, and we know that it correlates with low birth rates, infant mortality and serious mental health consequences.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

The guidance code on dealing with homeless families suggests that priority for local temporary accommodation should be given to children in their exam years. That is a great aspiration, but it is not being realised on the ground because local authorities cannot find accommodation, particularly for larger families.

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Westminster North replies, I must point out that although these are important matters, they are consequences of what we are discussing but not of the precise clause. We ought to return to the group of amendments before us.

[Ms Buck]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I was merely making the point that agreeing the principle in the Bill but not setting a date, or making the date consequential on an unmeasurable set of objectives, will have serious real-life consequences for individuals and public services.

Regarding court reform, the evidence we heard last week from the Law Society, the Housing Law Practitioners Association and other expert lawyers is that it is simply not a prerequisite for abolishing section 21. I hope the Minister will respond specifically to the evidence we heard that the median time between claim and possession has fallen back to pre-pandemic levels, meaning the courts are performing better than in recent years, so the assertion that they are incapable of dealing with the consequences of the abolition of section 21 is not a valid argument. As Shelter told us, the pressure is overstated, in part because most evictions are concluded with tenants vacating before court proceedings; demands on the courts are therefore not as presented. In addition, many possession cases under section 21 would not be legitimate claims under section 8.

We also heard evidence that court digitisation is, if anything, adding to the delays affecting the civil court system. The speed of transformation, the scale of change and the multiplicity of changes happening simultaneously may place an additional burden on the courts system, rather than facilitating speed over the next couple of years. The National Audit Office and PAC reports made much the same points. I argue that the Bill is being delayed because of a flawed and rushed digitisation processes, and unwillingness to recognise that the civil courts as they stand are perfectly capable of dealing with the consequences of the abolition of section 21.

I hope the Minister will respond specifically to those points. The Opposition are desperately anxious to get on with the abolition of section 21. We want families to have security and stability and the pressure on local authorities of homelessness to be reduced. We do not believe that the arguments advanced by the Government for failing to speed ahead with implementation are valid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As we have already discussed, clause 3 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, by means of the changes set out in schedule 1 to the Bill. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 sets out revisions to the existing mandatory ground 1. Under the existing ground 1, a court is required to award possession of a property if the landlord requires it to live in as their “only or principal home” or if they have previously lived in it on either basis. Under ground 1 as amended by the Bill, a court is required to award possession if the landlord requires the property for use as their only or principal home, but also if they require it for such use for members of their immediate family, for their spouse or civil partner or for a person with whom they live

“as if they were married or in a civil partnership”,

or for that person’s immediate family, such as the child or parent of a partner in those terms. Under the existing ground 1, landlords are required to provide tenants with prior notice that the ground may be used. This requirement is absent from ground 1 as amended by the Bill.

In turn, paragraph 3 of schedule 1 inserts a new mandatory ground 1A into schedule 2 to the 1988 Housing Act. Under this new ground, a court would be required to award possession, with limited exceptions, if the landlord intends to sell the property. We believe very strongly that there is a clear risk that both of these de facto no-fault grounds for eviction could be abused in several ways by unscrupulous landlords. I want to be very clear that we believe that only a minority of landlords are unscrupulous and may act in these terms.

In her evidence last week, Samantha Stewart, chief executive of the Nationwide Foundation, provided us with the example of just how these grounds are being abused in the Scottish context. She gave an example of a renter named Luke, who lived in a property with rats and maggots falling out of the ceiling. The landlord refused to act on the complaint but was eventually forced to do so by the Scottish tribunal. Shortly afterward, however, Luke was served an eviction notice using the new landlord circumstance possession grounds. As soon as the prohibited re-let period was up, they moved a new tenant in.

The risk of these grounds being abused is clearly not a point of difference between us and the Government. Ministers clearly accept that amended ground 1 and new ground 1A could be used as a form of section 21 by the backdoor, because the Bill contains provision to attempt to prohibit their misuse by preventing landlords from re-letting or re-marketing a property, or authorising an agent to do so on their behalf, within three months of obtaining possession on either ground. We will debate the adequacy of those no-let provisions when we get to clause 10 and press our amendment 140 to extend the proposed period, but it is enough to know at this stage that the Government felt it necessary to include such safeguards in the Bill. We can take it as given that their decision to do so is evidence of a clear understanding that there is potential risk of abuse along the lines I described.

In addition to strengthening the no-let provisions in the Bill, we believe tenants require protection from the misuse of grounds 1 and 1A in two other important respects. First, we believe there needs to be a greater burden of proof placed on landlords who issue their tenants notices seeking possession on either of these grounds. As the Bill is drafted, at any point after the protected period is ended a landlord can simply issue their tenant with a mandatory ground 1 or 1A notice, and a county court would be required to award them possession. When it comes to expanded ground 1, there is no requirement for the landlord to evidence whether they actually require the use of the property for themselves; or, if they do not, which family member or members or person connected to them does.

Similarly, when it comes to new ground 1A, there is no requirement for the landlord to evidence that they are trying in good faith to sell a property after possession has been awarded. The risk to tenants should be obvious: six months after the start of a tenancy, when the protected period ends, a model tenant who is not at fault in any way—but who, for example, complains about damp and mould in a property—could be evicted with just two months’ notice using these grounds, without any need for the landlord to verify through evidence that they are using these landlord circumstances legitimately.

As the chief executive of the Legal Action Group and chair of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, Sue James, argued in her evidence last week, there is no indication at present that landlords will have to provide much, if anything, in the way of evidence. Although the Government have made noises to that effect, as things stand we do not know what that evidence might consist of.

The case for requiring landlords to provide evidence is obvious. As Samantha Stewart argued in her evidence,

“landlords using grounds 1 and 1A—moving in and selling—should be required to provide adequate and appropriate evidence”.––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 127, Q170.]

Amendments 138 and 139 are designed to address that deficiency by requiring relevant evidence to be submitted both prior to an eviction and after one has taken place. Amendment 139 would require a landlord seeking possession on the grounds of occupation or selling to evidence and verify that they are doing so in advance of a possession order via a statement of truth or, in the case of sale, by means of a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent. That mirrors provisions in the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, which require the landlord to provide specific evidence proving his or her intention to sell.

Amendment 138 would require a landlord to evidence progress towards occupation or sale of a property obtained under grounds 1 and 1A no later than 16 weeks after the date of the order, and to submit that to the court and—most importantly, because they will be the enforcement bodies under the Bill—local authorities.

The clear benefit of amending the Bill to include those evidential requirements in respect of grounds 1 and 1A would be their deterrent effect—the consequences to any landlord of being found guilty of lying to a court, in terms of litigation and potential liability for damages. At present, after an eviction takes place on either of those grounds, either because of the tenant leaving voluntarily or the court issuing a possession award, the Government are proposing only two means of redress: local authority enforcement action or a compensation award, issued by the new ombudsman. The Bill provides only a framework for the new landlord redress scheme, so the ombudsman is still largely an unknown quantity, and there are well-known issues, attested to in the evidence that several witnesses gave last week, about the efficacy of local authority enforcement.

We believe that rent repayment orders have a role to play, but those evidential requirements and the deterrent effect they would have on unscrupulous landlords seeking to abuse grounds 1 and 1A would strengthen the Bill and ensure that tenants are better protected. We urge the Government to give them due consideration.

Secondly, we believe that the proposed protected period of six months during which a tenant cannot be evicted under either of these grounds is insufficient. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state that the protections mirror those that tenants currently receive. That is true, but the current protections, as Liz Davies KC made clear in her evidence to the Committee, reflect the assured shorthold tenancy regime, which the Bill is abolishing. The decision to mirror the current protected period also fails to take into account the fact that ground 1A is a new mandatory ground, and that ground 1 has been amended such that the previous requirement to serve a notice that it may be relied upon prior to the start of the tenancy has been removed. As the Bill is drafted, a landlord can let a property to a tenant, provide them with no prior notice whatsoever that they may in future wish to rely on either ground 1 or 1A, and then serve them with a notice at four months.

We believe that any landlord likely to use ground 1 or 1A in good faith will have some prior awareness that they or a family member may need the property for use at some point in the coming years, or that they may wish to sell it in the near future. As such, and because the Government have chosen to remove the prior notice requirement that currently applies to ground 1, we believe that there is a strong case for extending the protected period with respect to grounds 1 and 1A from six months to two years, allowing landlords to first serve notice under either of them 22 months after a tenancy begins. Taken together, amendments 143 and 144 would extend the proposed protected periods accordingly.

These four amendments, while retaining mandatory grounds 1 and 1A as the Bill proposes, would go a long way to preventing and deterring abuse of the kind that we fear will occur fairly regularly if these possession grounds remain unchanged. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them as well as further information about the four Government clauses.

[Ms Buck]

I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendments, which seek to address two key themes. One is that tenants start disproportionately from a position of lack of power, and a large minority of tenants are in a position where they are limited by their access to advice and representation and a lack of alternative accommodation. They are frequently unable, without stronger legislative protection, to exercise their rights against the landlords who abuse their role.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Simon?

Simon Mullings: I have nothing to add on that.

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

Q Can I ask for your views on the Government’s intention to delay the abolition of section 21 pending court reform? You are all litigators. Is that necessary, given the present state of play? What do you think the delay might entail? What reforms would be required in order to ensure that the courts were meeting the standard that the Government are setting?

Simon Mullings: No, it is not necessary.

[Ms Buck]

Short answers are fine.

Simon Mullings: We are lucky because we have had very recent statistics. The timescales for the various stages of possession and litigation are exactly as they were in 2019, when this Bill started its slow journey to where we are today. There is no doubt that there is a need to improve processes through the courts. What we have at the moment is an extremely good network of county courts, with a very evolved set of civil procedure rules that deal with possession claims very well. What we lack is resources for the county courts for both the physical estate and the personnel in the court to be there to provide the sort of first-class service that you would like to see in possession cases.

HLPA members have been campaigning on court reform and improvements to the court system since around 2015 or 2016, so we are all for it. I echo what Shelter’s director said earlier in the week: it is so important that we move forward with the Bill and the abolition of section 21, which is a key driver of homelessness and of misery, particularly for families with children in schools, who want the stability of knowing that the children can go to the local schools. Section 21 is also a driver of rent increases in various ways—I am telling you things you all know. I do not think there should be any further delay whatsoever.

Giles Peaker: I do not think it is necessary. I am reluctant to think that the process of legislation should be based on whether the courts are functioning as they should be. I agree with Simon: the actual process of possession proceedings is probably one of the quicker processes within the county courts at the moment and is fairly well honed. I would add that the current time from issue to a possession order under the accelerated possession proceedings—an “on the papers” process, without a hearing—is roughly the same as under the section 8 process with an initial hearing. There is no great time lag for the section 8 process as opposed to accelerated possession proceedings. Most possession claims will go no further than first hearing—if there is no defence, that is it. There would not be such a significant impact on the courts’ functioning to make this a concern that should cause further delay.

[Jacob Young]

Q We heard evidence this morning that suggested that the courts are currently overwhelmed and that the abolition of section 21 would increase contested cases. That is not your assessment?

Giles Peaker: I do not see that it would necessarily increase contested cases. It would inevitably involve the process that leads to an initial hearing—those are 10-minute hearings on a list day. I really do not see why it would increase the number of contested hearings, because unless there is a defence, the possession order is highly likely to be made at the first hearing. On at least some of these new grounds, if the ground is made out, there is no defence. So I am unsure of the amount of additional burden.

Liz Davies: I think that is the point. Currently, under section 21, landlords can get possession on the papers. There is no court hearing: the papers go in; the tenant has the right to respond; the district judge considers on the papers whether or not there is a defence. If there is no defence, the possession order is made; if there is a defence, it is put over to a hearing. Once section 21 is abolished, the starting point is that there will be a five or 10-minute hearing, which is usually about eight weeks after issue. That is about the same period of time as for the paperwork procedure I just described. At that hearing, the question for the court is, “Is the case genuinely disputed on grounds that appear to be substantial?” That is set out in the rules.

The great thing about that hearing is that there are housing duty solicitors at court. If a tenant does not have legal advice or advice from a citizens advice bureau beforehand, they turn up and talk to a duty solicitor—I am sitting next to one of them. Duty solicitors give realistic advice. If there is a defence—if the landlord has got it wrong—the duty solicitor will go in front of the court and say, “Actually, there is a defence,” and it gets adjourned for a trial, and that is right and proper. But if there is not a defence, the duty solicitor will say, “I’m sorry, there is absolutely nothing that can be said legally to the court,” and a possession order will be made.

One of the important things about advice, and indeed early advice, is that tenants get realistic advice, so they know whether they have any realistic chance of prolonging the proceedings, and so forth. In many ways, a hearing with a duty solicitor will be beneficial to landlords, and, as Giles says, it takes about the same length of time. There is lots to be said about county courts’ efficiencies and inefficiencies, but I do not think that is the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Can I ask about the portal? At the moment it is a broad framework of powers, and we think that there are requirements that should be woven into it. I am thinking, for example, of all the preconditions and requirements surrounding section 21 that will fall away. Do you think there should be other information as a condition in that portal that goes much further, such as previous applications for grounds of possession, or even rent levels under previous tenancies? How much information should be transparent and available to tenants, in your view, on the portal?

Simon Mullings: I am tempted to say, “As much as possible.” For example, with ground 1 or 1A, if it were decided that post-possession order information was needed to ensure that they operate correctly, the portal is an ideal way of dealing with that. Very often, information relating to tenancies is a cause of disputes in possession proceedings—all the time. You have mentioned the conditions that attach to a section 21 notice at the moment; it will be extremely advantageous to landlords and to tenants, in an information and communication sense, to be able to essentially deal with those through a transparent portal.

Giles Peaker: To very quickly follow up on that, there is certainly the dropping of consequences for not providing gas safety certificates, energy performance certificates and so on. Everything except the deposit has effectively been dropped. Those are very important documents that are important for maintaining housing standards, so there need to be some consequences, other than a hypothetical prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive, for failing to provide that. Those kinds of things do need to be in there.

[Ms Buck]

Q I want to ask your views on the amendment to ground 14 on antisocial behaviour. What safeguards do you think would need to be incorporated to ensure that, for example, that does not lead to vulnerable people—people with mental health problems, or those experiencing domestic violence and so forth—being at risk?

Liz Davies: The change from “likely” to “capable” is a worry. Ground 14 remains discretionary; I made the point about the wisdom of the courts, and one would hope that, where it is a case of domestic abuse, or a case of mental health, and so forth, the courts would have the wisdom to see that that person was not at fault. However, I do not see any need to reduce the threshold. If antisocial behaviour is such that a private landlord needs to get their tenant out because of the effect that that behaviour is having—usually on the neighbours but sometimes on the landlord themselves—then it is going to cross the threshold of “likely to cause”. I do not see the point in lowering it.

[Jacob Young]

Q Thanks for that, Liz. We heard evidence this morning to suggest the contrary, as some build-to-let landlords were having to evict six or seven properties because of one that was causing antisocial behaviour. I guess that the whole thread through this Bill is about creating a system that is fair and balanced. Do you think that it is fair that a landlord would have to put up with a tenant creating antisocial behaviour and would potentially have to move other tenants on because they could not get that tenant out through the court process?

Liz Davies: No, clearly that is not fair, but the current ground 14 allows for a possession order when the tenant or somebody residing in or visiting the tenant’s property

“has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance”

to other people residing, living nearby or next door, visiting, and so on. So, that test is there. There is an antisocial behaviour ground for possession. It is discretionary, but the Bill will continue it as a discretionary ground; it simply lowers the threshold by a small amount from “likely to cause a nuisance” to “capable of causing a nuisance”. I really cannot see the circumstances in which a very difficult tenant who has been causing the sort of antisocial behaviour that you have just talked about will not meet the threshold of “likely to cause” but will meet the threshold of “capable of causing”. It is a very narrow distinction.

The point is that antisocial behaviour grounds are there—they really are—and courts use them. At the moment, they are used only by social landlords because of section 21, but we can all tell you that courts are very heavy on antisocial behaviour, and it is impossible for a tenant to remain in possession unless the court is satisfied that that behaviour has stopped and will continue to stop. Courts do not allow tenants to remain in possession under the current test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q To explore that final point you made about not charging rent having issued a notice to vacate, when someone has gone through that process, for a landlord that would mean two months of not getting rent from the property plus three months when the property could not be let again through one of the section 8 grounds. In the event that the landlord was intending to sell the property, but was unable to sell it and had to go back to market to re-let it, they will have gone five months without rent. Do you think that is fair? I appreciate that we would both agree that we want to stop bad landlords, but for a good landlord who wanted to sell their property but was unable to, is that fair, to be in the situation where they have five months’ rent withheld?

Ben Leonard: I think it is fair to place a reasonable barrier to the abuse of those grounds. These things are always a balancing act. Would it be fair for someone to have to continue paying rent while having to uproot their life and sort things out? They are not really getting what they are paying for in those two months, because those two months are spent preparing to leave, moving their children’s schools or saving for a deposit. They need to pay for all those sorts of things.

For the landlord, it comes down to the cost of doing business. Landlords make a hell of a lot of money on those properties, and I think it is reasonable that sometimes there are times when the amount of money they are getting in will dip because of such things. If it is a choice between landlords’ profits coming down for a series of months and tenants potentially being impoverished, I would choose the former.

[Ms Buck]

Q I want to ask you about the decision not to proceed with the proposal in the “A fairer private rented sector” White Paper on limiting the amount of rent that the landlord can ask for in advance. Is that an experience you found with the people you work with? You talked about frequent moves being very inconvenient, as well as extremely expensive.

Ben Leonard: Yes, absolutely. The limit on deposits was a huge step forward, but they are going by the back door, so not much has changed, because people ask for rent in advance. I can speak from my own experience: I had to pay six months’ rent in advance before moving to my current flat. A lot of the people I know and work with do, and often they are borrowing money to do it, because not a lot of people have that kind of money lying around. In a way, it is often discrimination—it is a way of saying, “Well, you might be able to afford the rent, but we don’t like the look of you. Let’s see if you can stump up this much cash up front.” It is totally unjust, basically. If you are earning enough income to pay the rent, the property should be available to you. That is the bottom line; extra barriers should not be put in the way, such as rent up front.

Bidding wars are a big thing as well. Something should be done about landlords pitting tenants against each other to drive up rents. If a landlord wants more rent for a property than it is on the market for, they should have listed it as that in the first place, because again tenants end up chasing properties for months at a time, because everything they think they can afford suddenly goes up £300 or £400 a month by the time they can actually let something. It is an absolute nightmare. Imagine you have been evicted, then you are put in a situation of rent in advance and all that. It just doesn’t work. It is a broken system.

[The Chair]

Very quickly, Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

Q Do you think that that will change under this?

Samantha Stewart: Not without a significant increase in safeguards around the new grounds for possession.

Linda Cobb: In the 2021 Chartered Institute of Environmental Health report, 56% of local authorities reported vacancies in their teams, so that phone call is going to go unanswered, and that email is going to go right to the bottom of the pile, even if they did complain. Then people will say, “My auntie complained to the council and nobody got back to her”—that sort of mentality—and they will not feel that they will be listened to. The report also said that 87% were relying on agency staff to fill that gap, and they are obviously expensive, so you can have only one of them as opposed to two full-time equivalents.

We are looking to stem that bleed with local authorities, and we are looking at ways to increase the training in the industry. We are losing very good local authority environmental health officers, because they are either retiring or leaving the sector because they are tired of it. We want more of the one-year private rented sector enforcement training courses, so we are working with our local university and training providers to get those up and running. We also want an apprenticeship-levied housing practitioner training course, which would help with these multidisciplinary teams. The team could then deal with all aspects—as well as physically going out, it could offer information about what the tenant can do themselves.

Samantha Stewart: I will just finish by saying that we also fund seven organisations across the UK that are working with tenants, particularly in the more vulnerable part of the sector, to help them strengthen and increase their voice. One of the reasons we are doing that—helping them to enact and effect these changes themselves, speak up for themselves and know their rights—across the UK with very different types of organisation is so that we can learn what works best and then use that evidence to inform policy.

[Ms Buck]

Q Can we go back to the issue of illegal evictions? Roz, you said that there is a lack of data in that area, which is absolutely right. Your organisation, probably more than almost any other, has a wealth of anecdotal information about what is happening. What can you tell us about the trends and characteristics? Is there any sense that some people pursue that route because of the problems in the court system? We have had quite a lot of discussion—other witnesses may have a view on this—about the proposed delay because of the problems in the court system, and some witnesses were very clear that there are no justifications for delay. What does your experience tell us about that, and what have you picked up about the reasons for such evictions?

Roz Spencer: Thank you for asking. You heard it here first: the safer renting count, which was first established in 19—sorry, 2021; I am showing my age—established a methodology that looked at five different sources of data that could be collected on an established, reliable basis, and did not involve any significant overlap between the data points, and we have just updated those figures from 2021 to 2022. The trend between those two years is an 18% increase in reported offending under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977—so, those are illegal evictions and cases of extreme harassment likely to give rise to the loss of a home. That 18% uptick is of significant concern. I have no evidence to suggest that the performance in courts has had any bearing on that, and I would be surprised if it had.

There is another figure that is interesting—I think it is buried in the Government’s H-CLIC data. All local authorities report on trends in Protection from Eviction Act offences leading to homelessness. That is a very big, stable and reliable time series for the data. Interestingly, during the pandemic, when there was a ban on section 21 and a subsequent inability to use bailiffs to enforce lawful evictions, there was a substantial drop in lawful evictions between 2020 and 2021. There was no such drop in the number of unlawful evictions. In fact, those numbers held up, sadly, at more or less the same level. As a proportion of evictions leading to homelessness, the figure came close to doubling.

The interesting suggestion buried in that statistic is that it is so important, when you are quite rightly considering replacing section 21 with new grounds for possession, that you avoid the unintended consequences of those changes in access to lawful eviction increasing the number of landlords who feel that they can get away with just doing it anyway.

I have another statistic to offer you. If you look at our count of what we think is a very conservative estimate of the number of unlawful evictions and the Ministry of Justice statistics for the number of convictions in a year, the figures show that in more than 99 out of 100 offences, the person who commits the offence, the landlord who undertakes the unlawful eviction, walks away scot-free, so it is little surprise that people do not regard the enforcement of the law as adequate.

Your clause 58 in the Bill is so important because it corrects one of the major defects in what is a 46-year-old piece of legislation, the Protection from Eviction Act, which does not do what it says on the tin. It has not been preventing evictions because nobody has a duty to enforce it. That is a very long answer to your question, but there is a lot of support for what I am saying in those data.

[Jacob Young]

Q We have spoken a lot about data and the portal in this session. How do you think we can use that data to judge the effectiveness of the reforms? Going back to our discussion about lessons learnt, in 10 years’ time we will need look back on this and are, “Where were the improvements that we could have made differently?” How do you think we can use the data to help to shape that thinking?

Roz Spencer: Our count report is in the House of Commons Library. It argues strongly that the Government need to start counting the data. I would not have thought it would be problematic for the Government to introduce their own mechanism for counting, and we talk about the methodology at some length in the report. I would advocate that you start showing, as Government, not only that the law and enforcement matter, but that you understand that the impact assessment needs to be based on data that you simply do not have at the moment.

Samantha Stewart: I am not saying that we are going to fund this, but we should all think about something similar to what we are doing with funding in Scotland. If you want to really understand how impactful the legislation is, we should start tracking it pretty soon, using the data and everything else at our fingertips.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Third sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

Q Your point is specifically around digitisation, so it is not necessarily about court reform as a whole. Specifically on digitisation, do you think that we could do section 21 before that?

Richard Miller: That’s right, yes. Digitisation is absolutely necessary. It is disappointing, but we understand the reasons why it has not happened already. It is a major project and we need to have the system that will be in place for the foreseeable future before we start building the digital systems to cope with that system.

Nimrod Ben-Cnaan: On your point about the ombudsman, Minister, there is little to comment on in the Bill. The shape outlined in the Bill is just that: an outline of an idea that has been suggested by various parties. You have heard some of them in previous sessions, and that might be useful in their own terms. Our concern has always been that the ombudsman would be used to displace, specifically, tenants’ access to the courts when they need it, and through that to displace the provision of legal advice that would otherwise be available for them. We would like to ensure that tenants have a good, reliable source of information and advice about their rights, what they can act on, how they can act on it and the support to do so. On the ombudsman, well, let us see that idea get fleshed out in detail.

I was heartened to hear from the Department’s officials that the intention is not to have the ombudsman somehow displace access to courts, for example, with disrepair claims, which would be so important to us. The court still does, and can do very well, the kinds of things that the ombudsman cannot do at all—be that through things such as establishing fact, applying the law, interpreting the law and sometimes being able to issue injunctions when there is, for example, an unlawful eviction. A law centre would normally be able to step in and stop that right there and then, in a way that the ombudsman would not even have the power to do so. Actually, we have a lot going on with the courts at present, and we should resource them and resource the allied measures to make the most of them.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Most of the grounds at the moment are non-discretionary or mandatory, and a few are discretionary. Is that balance correct, or should tenants be able to make specific hardship claims around financial issues, for example, or delay an eviction based on selling the house? For instance, if the tenant were receiving cancer treatment, they might seek a delay for a few months. Could you tell me about that distinction? Would that create more work or less?

Jacky Peacock: We think that all the grounds should be discretionary. There is no more draconian decision that a civil court could make than to deprive someone of their home. The thought that they will be prevented from looking at all the circumstances before making a decision seems, in principle, unfair. Judges are not soft. If they have discretion, they will still grant possession in the majority of cases where the evidence is there and it is the fairest thing to do. But to deprive them of being able to look at every single circumstance in any of those cases before taking someone’s home away is not justice. It does not deliver justice. I have seen many cases of possession orders being issued against the tenant that have been grossly unfair for all sorts of reasons but, technically, the decision was mandatory.

[Ms Buck]

Q Some tenants are keen and able to exercise the right to purchase. What are your views on how that relationship might work in terms of when grounds are sought for a property to be put up for sale?

Jacky Peacock: I should first of all say that we are not happy with the sales ground. If a landlord wants to sell the property, we think that there is no reason that it could not be sold with the tenant in situ. Obviously, if it is sold to another landlord, that is a big advantage because they do not have to have any void periods while the property is going through the process of sale.

I also suggest, whether or not that remains a ground, that tenants should be given the right of first refusal. There is a precedent for that under the Rent Act 1977. Qualifying tenants—in other words, Rent Act tenants and/or non-leaseholders—have that right at the moment under certain circumstances. I will not tire you with the details of that, but as far as I am aware, all the parties are in favour of increasing owner occupation and this seems to be a very sensible way of doing it.

Even if individual tenants could not afford to buy, they may well have a relative that could buy it for them and they could own it eventually or it could be offered to the local authority, a housing co-operative, a housing trust or whatever. I hope that is something that is given serious consideration. It also means that the property is not being lost if landlords leave the sector. Certainly, if we have the portal as we would like to see it, a lot of appallingly bad landlords will be leaving the sector—good riddance—and that property could be bought by someone else, such as the local authority.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Someone going through a no-fault eviction must pay the cost of moving. Should there be some sort of recompense? Earlier this week, it was suggested that the tenant could be exempt from paying, say, the last two months’ rent.

Jacky Peacock: Yes. I have not given a lot of thought to the way the legislation could cover that. To be honest, it is not unusual. We had a case recently where tenants were sharing with another family, but the landlord wanted the other family to move out. The families were sharing the rent and the landlord therefore approved £20,000 rent arrears. We were able to negotiate a date by which they would move; the landlord would not have to go to court to ask for possession, but he would not pursue the arrears.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

Q You mentioned the decent homes standard. Could you elaborate on your thoughts on that?

Ian Fletcher: As I say, the stock of build to rent has been developed over the past 10 years, so it is unlikely not to be meeting the decent homes standard. Equally, the management of the property is done to a very high standard. That is something the sector is very proud of. I do not see any challenges in introducing decent homes into the sector from a build-to-rent perspective. We have sat around a number of tables with the Department as it has worked through the specifics of how the standard would impact the private rented sector, and I have not heard many dissenting voices in terms of this being introduced into the sector.

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

Q When the Bill was first presented, the British Property Federation indicated some concerns about the relationship between a minimum tenancy period and the growth of the short lets sector and that this might be an additional boost to it, and I just wonder where that came from. What is your evidence for that? Indeed, have you conducted an analysis of the growth of short lets, the factors driving that and the connection between this and the legislative framework?

Ian Fletcher: It is something that we have been continually concerned about. In a London context, the removal of the planning constraints on the short lets market affects property across not only the rental sector but the leasehold sector.

It is a concern, I suppose, in terms of members. At the moment, you obviously have to take a minimum six-month tenancy, but what members often find is that you do not want to restrict subletting, because often that is helping the ultimate tenant, if they have to move for various reasons. You are finding that quite a lot of people are moving into these premises and then subletting to somebody who will take it on a short-let basis, so these are portals and things of that nature that, to some extent, are exploiting that situation.

[Ms Buck]

Q I appreciate that that is your view. Is it actually based on research that you have done, or on an evidence base, or is this mostly anecdotal? Do you have other ideas as to how the different sectors might be able to bear down on that problem, particularly the illegal element of it?

Ian Fletcher: Clearly, the Government are taking forward reforms, particularly planning reforms, and talking about licensing. In the context of this Bill, we would like to see a minimum tenancy length of six months—four months plus the two months’ notice. However, we are mindful that there are good reasons why tenants might have to leave within that six months: they have been mis-sold a property or the property is substandard. In those circumstances, we suggested that the solution might be to allow them to appeal to the ombudsman to be able to break the tenancy.

[Ms Buck]

Sorry to gently push you, but I ask again: is your view based on an actual report or evidence base, or is this anecdotal?

Ian Fletcher: It is anecdotal; there is no empirical evidence that I can give you.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

Q I have visited probably only four build-to-rent sites, but it feels to me that you are pitching slightly above the median. It also feels to me that, exactly as you described, the quality of the product is pretty good and therefore the opportunity for there being any mis-selling of what you are getting feels more limited than in the rest of the market, where I have seen egregious cases of people being mis-sold something.

It feels to me that it is likely that your tenants will stay and all the people who I have spoken to who provide this type of accommodation give me the feeling that the type of people that you are attracting and the type of property you are offering means that people do not walk in and walk back out again very quickly. I would imagine that lots of your tenancies last considerably—when I say “lots”, I mean that a very significant percentage of your tenancies last over a year.

Ian Fletcher: You were very welcome when you visited a build-to-rent building in Newcastle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

Q Apart from probationary tenancies, most social housing tenants have secure tenancies. You will be aware of the Bill’s amendments to ground 14 on antisocial behaviour. Given the experience of dealing with antisocial behaviour with secure tenancies, can any lessons be learned from the work that you do in the social sector?

Kate Henderson: Housing associations take reports of antisocial behaviour very seriously, and we will always investigate them thoroughly. Many of our members have in-house teams dedicated to managing and resolving ASB that often work extensively with the police and local authorities. For any housing association, although eviction is sometimes necessary, it will always be a last resort. There are many actions that housing associations will take to resolve an ASB case prior to its reaching the point at which a tenant might face an eviction.

The Bill’s changes to ground 14 propose a widening of the definition of ASB in the ground from any behaviour “likely to cause” to any behaviour “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance. The word “capable” is really open to interpretation. For us, it is all about clarity: what, exactly, constitutes a legal ground for eviction under the new definition, and how will it work in practice? Eviction is, of course, a last resort. It is incredibly distressing to deal with such cases, particularly if they are having an impact on multiple residents. It is really important that we do everything we can to resolve a case before it gets to an eviction.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Ground 14A relates to the situation in which a social landlord wishes to evict the perpetrator of domestic abuse, where the partner has fled. Very often, it requires the partner, not the perpetrator, to leave. Is the wording sufficient, or should there be some wording to allow possession even if the partner has not fled, and reallocate it to the partner? Very often the tenancy is in the name of the perpetrator.

Kate Henderson: This is an area on which I would like to see further evidence. I am a member of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s strategic reference group on perpetrators. In that scenario, where the victim does not want to leave the property, how can we ensure that the tenancy is in their name but the perpetrator is removed? I would like to seek the expertise of those who are working at the forefront of domestic abuse before giving you a direct answer on the strength of that ground, but I would be happy to follow that up with the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q It would be interesting to know your thoughts on the portal, and on how we can make the most use of it to support councils in taking enforcement measures.

Dr Dawson: The CIEH is very happy to see the portal introduced. I am based near Wales, and I sit on the advisory panel for Rent Smart Wales on behalf of the CIEH. We have seen the portal brought in, and it has been very effective. It provides a lot of data on where rental properties are, and who their landlords are. Local authorities have quite a hill to climb in trying to find that out independently. It will be a very useful source of information. It is also a good source to look at when collecting certificates on properties.

However, we find that the portal has limited impact with regard to the condition and contents of properties, and management practices. It is an information-gathering tool. It has the potential to be a central information portal that landlords and tenants can refer to—a sort of single source of truth. On very small landlords registering with landlord bodies, 85% of landlords own one to four properties, and we are finding what an author referred to as a cult of amateurism. These landlords have differing levels of expertise, and of knowledge of a complex legislative environment. The portal can be a central reservoir of information for them, with quite a bit of scrutiny behind it.

As I say, we welcome the portal when it comes to providing data on where the properties are and who the landlords are, though the more unscrupulous operators will still try to avoid the register so as to evade their duties. I would not go so far as to say that it will make a significant impact on the condition and contents of properties, or the management practices of landlords in the sector.

[Ms Buck]

Q Can I go back to the decent homes issue? The repair and maintenance of properties is central to the issue of the security of tenants who are seeking to enforce their rights, and who sometimes have landlords act against them. How do you see the decent homes standard being enforced? How do you see the decent homes standard interacting with other overlapping measures and standards in law, and the tools available to environmental health officers?

May I also ask a question about enforcement, which is central to this issue? As we know, the enforcement record is very patchy in local government. In your view, why is that?

Dr Dawson: With regard to the use of the decent homes standard in the sector, I have found through my personal research on the sector that there is a lot of variation in the licensing conditions and standards set for private landlords in different sub-markets up and down the country. It is only right that local authorities tailor their approach to suit their local market, but there is great need for more consistency between the licensing conditions that they set and what they require in their area.

If we were to bring in the decent homes standard across the sector, licensing standards could be revised to accommodate that new duty and any updates made to the decent homes standard. That would provide a fairly common set of grounds for properties nationally. Then, local authorities need only make small changes to what they require of properties in their area to fit local peculiarities of housing; for example, northern back-to-back houses are something to burden yourself with only if you need to be aware of the issues that they present. You get steel-framed houses in some areas and concrete houses in others. Local authorities need to be able to focus their approach and the standards that they require to fit what they have going on in their area.

We still have the opportunity to use the housing health and safety rating system under the decent homes standard. The updates to the HHSRS will come through fairly shortly; we will welcome their being brought into practice. Use of the HHSRS would remain a common requirement during the inspection of properties, to satisfy the requirement on properties not to have serious hazards.

A whole range of factors influence levels of enforcement in local authorities. At the moment, we have about 2.2 qualified environmental health officers for every 10,000 private rented sector dwellings, so that is already a pretty low rate. Where we have larger authorities and significant political backing, we see more environmental health officers, with better recruitment, better political backing and more funding for those officers, which is key, so you start to see a collection of experience building up and the legal backing behind it. For example, Newham has something like 100 environmental health officers or enforcement staff in its departments, and they can move their way through more than 200 prosecutions in a year. In contrast, a rural authority may have one or two environmental health officers, who must share their duties across all the regulatory functions of environmental health, including food safety, health and safety, environmental protection and public health.

One of the profession’s big problems is ensuring consistency in funding. When funding is renewed annually and you are looking at changes each year, it is very difficult to do succession planning. We have seen a gradual reduction in the number of people coming through university environmental health programmes in order to support the profession and provide a reservoir of expertise for the inspectorate. We are also seeing more of them going off to private sector employers, rather than the public sector.

A range of issues are affecting the sector, and the sustainable and predicable funding such as we get with Housing Act 2004 licensing has been a real lifeline for the sector. Where we have big schemes going, it has managed to keep the nucleus of staff that is required for the expertise and the momentum to move large-scale enforcement forward. My apologies—that was quite a long answer.

[Jacob Young]

Q You touched on your experience in Wales. We are aware that there are similar, but not necessarily identical, reforms in Wales. What lessons can we learn from the reforms implemented there?

Dr Dawson: When Wales first implemented the scheme, about 196 penalty notices were given out in the first couple of years and there were about 13 prosecutions. The main reason, from the Welsh Government’s own analysis, is that they did not set up clear systems and processes for liaison with local authorities ahead of the formation of Rent Smart Wales.

There is a process whereby local authorities are expected to carry out enforcement functions and can then bill Rent Smart Wales, through an agreement—a memorandum of operation—that they have all signed up to. However, because they are trying to account for small amounts in hours and tasks, it is very difficult for local authorities to predict the workload and allocate officer time against it. That has become somewhat of a Cinderella to local authorities’ other duties.

One of the higher impact areas is that, although Rent Smart Wales provides licensing and can therefore enforce conditions, it also has a separate registration function, which is purely information gathering and gives it the ability to send out mailshots to landlords and letting agents about changes to the law and training courses that are available. However, landlords have the opportunity to exempt themselves from those communications, and a very large proportion did so at the point at which they registered. Therefore, they receive no communications and no updates, so they are none the wiser, despite the benefit of having registered and made themselves available to get that information. That was a sad loss, and there is not much you can do about it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q Thank you both. First, could you clarify your initial points? What effect do you think the reforms we are proposing would have on supply in the private rented sector? On a different tangent, what are your views on how we should strengthen councils’ enforcement powers to crack down on criminal landlords?

Dr Rugg: On the issue of supply and section 21, counterfactually, a lot of landlords let because of section 21; they do not evict people because of section 21. Section 21 gives them the confidence that, if they run into severe difficulties, they will not have to go through a protracted court process in order to end a tenancy. This is particularly pressing for smaller landlords, who might find themselves paying two or three mortgages at the same time, with tenants that are problematic. You can understand the reasons why risk is hugely important to landlords a lot of the time. Antisocial behaviour is really problematic. If there is a tenant causing lots of problems in the neighbourhood, the landlord wants to get that situation to a close as fast as possible.

Abolishing section 21 would increase landlords’ perception that there is risk in the market. An area that will be problematic is that landlords who come to the sector with property—perhaps they have inherited it or they have started a partnership and there is a spare property—will think very hard about whether to bring that property to the market. I think that is one of the consequences we will see. The market does not look like a very friendly place to landlords at the moment, and that is the big issue we have around supply.

How we help local authorities deal with criminal landlordism is something that I am particularly concerned about at the moment, because it is part of a big project I am working on. Local authorities have very different approaches to dealing with enforcement action in their area. One of the issues is that there is an awful lot of variation in political—i.e. councillor—attachment to the notion that this is something they should be dealing with, so councils invest at different levels in their enforcement activity. That is a democratic issue, and that is something we cannot do anything about, but I agree with the notion that Dr Dawson introduced that we really need some baseline standards that everybody can expect to adhere to.

One thing we have not really mentioned is the use of letting agents. They cover an awful lot of property in the market, but we do not expect them to show responsibility for the quality of the property they are letting. In a sense, I think that is soft policing, if we think that letting agents should have greater responsibility for ensuring that the properties they have responsibility for meet the standards that we set for the sector. In some ways, that would relieve local authorities of some of the burden of inspecting all properties. At the moment, local authorities are obliged to inspect only a certain proportion of properties that sit under licensing regimes. An awful lot of the sector sits outside that and is covered by letting agents. I think we are missing an opportunity to think about how we skill up different parts of the market to improve property quality.

Professor Gibb: I think one of the reasons I am here is that yesterday my colleagues and I published an evidence review for the Department for Levelling Up on the question, “Is there evidence that increasing non-price regulation has led to disinvestment in the private rented sector?” That is clearly a very important question for the kinds of policies being proposed here. In producing the review—it is an international evidence review over the last 20-odd years—we found that it is very hard to answer that question, because there is very little research that directly speaks to it, but you can infer from some of the peer-reviewed literature, and there is actually very little evidence that that is the case.

In other words, we believe that there is probably a constellation of factors that drive disinvestment in the sector, and it is very hard to identify whether increasing regulation, per se, is behind that. The fact of the matter is that in England, there was increasing regulation in the last 20 years, while the sector was growing. There is also evidence internationally that where regulation has increased in the short-term lets market, there might have been a short period of disinvestment, but there has not been disinvestment in the longer term. In the longer term, investment tends to have stabilised and continued to grow.

So we have been quite struck that there is very little evidence to that effect. That is not to say that there is not disinvestment going on, but it is a much more complicated thing. Another problem is that often we have several regulations being introduced at the same time, and it is quite hard to unpick the causal forces of individual things. The bottom line is that we found it quite hard to identify that increased regulation was causing disinvestment or was correlated with it.

[Ms Buck]

Q Julie, your report from a few years ago was helpful in encouraging people to think about the private rented sector not as a homogeneous whole, but as having different markets within it. Given what you said, and with the Government—rightly, in my view—going ahead with abolishing section 21, I wonder what you think the impact will be on the different markets. What are the warnings there that you have just given us, in particular on the most vulnerable, at the lower end of the market? What safeguards could be introduced to ensure an adequate supply of decent accommodation for people entering the different layers of the market?

Dr Rugg: I am better able to speak about the lower end of the market, because that is the area that I specialise in. We had some comments earlier about build to rent, and there are some concerns about the build-to-rent sector, but I will not go into those here.

Thinking about the lower end of the market, the proposed regulation seeks an end to “No DSS”, as a catch-all. I do not think that that will necessarily work particularly well. Landlords seek not to let to people in receipt of benefits for two reasons: first, because they might have some prejudiced view about the people who tend to be in receipt of benefits, and that is something that is certainly not right; and the other set of reasons sits around frustration with the benefits administration and the level of benefits being paid.

I have researched landlords and housing benefit for many years—too many to mention. In the past, landlords who routinely let in the housing benefit market enjoyed quite good relations with their local authority and they worked together to deal with problems that their tenants might encounter in the benefits market. The introduction of universal credit has completely taken that link away. A lot of landlords are feeling quite exposed now: they have tenants with quite high needs having problems with their benefits, and they simply cannot do anything about it. That is a problem that we need to think about.

One of the earlier speakers referred to the rent control that sits in the local housing allowance system. That is hugely problematic. It means that tenants who receive local housing allowance simply cannot shop around the market, because the rent levels are far too low for them to act as effective consumers. Essentially, they are having to shop where they can, and some landlords are definitely exploiting that situation, letting very poor-quality property on the understanding that the tenants do not have very much choice.

Professor Gibb: I do not have much to add, except to say that I completely agree on the local housing allowance. We have just been doing some research in Scotland that suggests that the levels are far too low to be effective for the great majority of people. It is really welcome to think about the market rental sector as a series of segmented markets. We should therefore not expect regulation that covers the whole area to have equivalent effects in different parts of that area.

The only other thing I would say is that we also need to think as much as we can about housing as a system, recognising the importance of social and affordable housing alongside the bottom end of the rental market, and thinking about how those things can connect together and about the value that increasing investment in social and affordable housing would bring.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Dr Rugg, I want to follow up on the maladministration of universal credit, and some of the difficulties that landlords have had since the introduction of universal credit and the local housing allowance going from 50% to 30% and now probably to sub-20%, because of the cuts. We know that possession grounds 8 and 8A are about the failure to pay rent and about rent arrears. There are some weak protections around universal credit in that, but they are non-discretionary grounds in a court, so do you feel that that goes far enough to build the relationship that you were describing between landlord, universal credit and tenant, or could more be done in the legislation?

Dr Rugg: I think we need to re-establish a relationship between landlords and the universal credit system, so that landlords who are encountering problems can talk to someone in detail about those problems. It is a very basic requirement that some landlords have, that when there are individual tenants who might be falling into difficulties they need to talk to somebody about that case, and about the specifics of the case of an individual who might have high support needs. Thinking about how we support landlords through those cases—and we are talking about specialist landlord lines within the universal credit system, so that landlords can seek advice for particular cases—that is not unreasonable; that is the kind of support that we need to re-engender, so that landlords feel that, when they have difficulties, they know exactly where to get advice from.

Renters (Reform) Bill (First sitting)

Karen Buck Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we go on, may I reiterate that we will finish at 10.10 am precisely, even if someone is mid-sentence? Questions and answers should both be brief and to the point.

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

Q The abolition of no-fault eviction will mean that there are other grounds for possession. Can I ask whether you consider that the wording of the Bill is sufficient to ensure that the grounds that exist will not lead, in some instances, to de facto no-fault evictions? In particular, can you tell us your views of the exceptions in relation to antisocial behaviour? Are the measures robust enough to deal with such behaviour, as well as making sure that people are not evicted wrongly on those grounds?

Dame Clare Moriarty: I will leave the question of antisocial behaviour entirely to Polly, but on the question whether we think there is a risk that there could be no-fault evictions by another route: yes, we definitely do. There were two time limits in the original consultation, including one for the period before which grounds 1 and 1A would apply, for people reclaiming a house to move family into it or in order to sell it. There was an initial period of two years before that could be effected, which has been reduced to six months. The original consultation also included a period of 12 months after those grounds had been used before the property could be re-let. That has been reduced to three months.

Both of those are problematic for different reasons. First, even the most exemplary tenant could rely on only six months before they might be removed from their home on a no-fault ground. That does not deliver the security that the Bill is designed to give people. Secondly, if the grounds are invoked and people are moved out, saying that the property could be re-let three months later does not give the impression that this is being taken seriously. If the ground is only ever used for people to move family in to sell the house, there should be no question about the property being back on the market. There may be circumstances in which that happens, but three months is not enough for people to feel that this is a serious intent. I am not saying that this is something that people would be looking to get round, but if there is only a three-month empty period before they could re-let the property, that does not give confidence that this is a piece of legislation providing that security.

Polly Neate: I absolutely agree with all those points; I will not bother to repeat them. The antisocial point is really important. I absolutely understand why landlords are anxious about antisocial behaviour, but it is already covered by two different grounds for possession under section 8. Those will continue to be grounds for possession once section 21 is scrapped. Without the proposed changes, landlords would still be able to evict tenants engaging in antisocial behaviour—and they should be able to.

The big worry is the wording change from “likely to cause” nuisance to “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance. That widens the definition of antisocial behaviour. There is a real worry—and I have seen this in several roles in my career—that domestic abuse, serious mental health issues and some forms of learning difficulties can easily be misinterpreted or targeted as being antisocial behaviour. There is a real risk with this change that people will be evicted unjustly, when what they really need is help and support; they are not antisocial tenants. That is the worry. We would say that there are already ample means to be able to evict for antisocial behaviour, and it is quite right that that should happen, but we really need to not risk widening that net and catching people in a wholly unjust and even dangerous way.

Darren Baxter: I have just a couple of points. On the ground that Clare mentioned—selling or moving back in—we need to recognise that this Bill is about improving security for renters. There is legal insecurity that comes from section 21; there is also a structural insecurity, which is that the sector is made up of lots of small-scale landlords churning in and churning out. That leads to people being kicked out because landlords sell. It is the most common reason why section 21 is used, and it is the most common reason why a no-fault eviction leads to homelessness, which has a huge impact on households and on councils’ finances, public spending and so on. We should be using this Bill to think about different forms of security, and the amendments that Clare mentioned would not only address the abuse of that ground, but give a more general security to tenants.

The other risk is no-fault evictions through the back door, through rent rises or so-called economic evictions: jacking up the rent to an unsustainable level, which then forces a tenant out so the landlord does not have to use the court process. We think you could amend that by having a limit on in-tenancy rent rises, capping at, say, the consumer prices index or wage growth—whichever is lower in any one year. That would stop landlords using that as a route for driving tenants out.

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

Q Building on what Mr Baxter was just saying and what Ms Neate said in her first comments, Shelter says that it has seen a huge rise in section 21 no-fault evictions over the past year or so. Is there a particular reason given by tenants for their evictions? Are you seeing a trend that is being used at this moment on section 21?

Polly Neate: May I start, as you specifically mentioned Shelter? What we are seeing is an overall increase in no-fault evictions, partly because of deteriorating standards within the private rented sector. We are seeing tenants who complain about the poor conditions in which they are living then being subject to a no-fault eviction. As standards are becoming worse in the sector, we are seeing that happening much more.

There is also an increase in no-fault evictions because the landlord wants to put the rent up. Again, that is partly because of the shortage of accommodation. It is partly because there is now such overwhelming demand that that is possible. We hear a lot in the news about how many hoops tenants are being required to go through, even including bidding wars for properties. If a landlord believes that there is an opportunity to make a lot more from a property, there is a temptation to get the current tenants out in order to be able to do that.

Those are two of the main trends that we are seeing. The point about standards is particularly important, because this goes to the root of the greater security that the Bill is intended to introduce. It is not only about no-fault evictions being used when tenants complain; there is an even bigger problem, which is that the threat of a no-fault eviction stops tenants complaining about poor standards in the first place. That increases the risk of poor standards within the sector. It stops people complaining. It means that more and more families are living in conditions that are potentially damaging to their health. Part of what this Bill is intended to do is improve the entire sector. The point about the relationship between no-fault evictions and poor standards is really central to that aim.

Dame Clare Moriarty: In terms of data, we are seeing larger numbers of section 21 evictions. It is a big increase, with 45% more people coming to us for help than at the same time last year. In terms of homelessness issues generally, we have seen a steep rise—a really consistent rise from early 2020, which amounts to about 25% year on year and 35% year on year for people in the private rented sector. It is worth recognising that there is a real increase in homelessness. There will be lots more data, which we will be happy to share with the Committee afterwards.

As for reasons why people are coming to us for section 21, I do not have detailed data at my fingertips. I will certainly ask whether there is more that we could analyse and share with you. I completely agree with Polly: we certainly see what are called retaliatory evictions. We are helping about 180 people a month who are being evicted after they have complained about conditions. We are certainly hearing from people the pattern that when the landlord presents a rent rise and people say, “We can’t afford that—a £500-a-month rent increase is just not absorbable,” they will then be threatened with section 21 eviction. As I say, I am happy to dig out more from our data to see exactly what is going on.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Karen Buck Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is genuinely hard to overstate the scale of the housing crisis that we are in, in 2023. Every element of this crisis interacts with every other element, and they all feed off each other, driven—I agree with the right hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on this one point—by the failure to build enough homes, as well as: the decline in home ownership, particularly among the young; the shrinking of the social rented sector; the growth of the private rented sector, especially, as has been pointed out, given the many different housing markets within the private sector; the growth of the private rented sector for those who are least able to afford that; the growth of homelessness; the pressures of housing costs, driven particularly by the shortfall between the housing element of the social security budget and actual housing costs; the collapse in legal aid and the advice sector; and the pressures on local authorities across the board. That has led to a perfect storm, at the sharp end of which is homelessness.

It is a relief to have this Bill with at least the promise that section 21 will end, because the section 21 powers are used for the most vulnerable and poorest and drive people directly into the homelessness sector. As an MP whose borough has the largest proportion in the private rented sector anywhere in the country, I feel strongly about that. It is profoundly worrying to hear that the Government have backtracked four years after they first promised to abolish section 21. The caveat we now have before us will mean in effect that there will be no progress on protecting tenants over the coming years.

It will be years before those powers are brought into effect, because one of the other elements of this omni-crisis is the shambles that is the courts system. We know that the Ministry of Justice took the single largest proportion of all spending cuts in the post-2010 austerity budget, and it is struggling to cope with the current system. The sector has no plans and no provision to make the changes that the Secretary of State is relying on as a preliminary for abolishing section 21. Every day that goes by means that more people—many highly vulnerable—will face eviction.

On average, 290 London renters a week have faced no-fault evictions since the Government promised to bring an end to them in 2019. Citizens Advice said that it has helped 10,600 households with section 21 cases since this Bill had its First Reading. A six-month delay would mean almost 15,000 more Londoners facing no-fault evictions, and a third of all no-fault evictions in England in recent years have been in the capital. It is London—the most expensive place and the place with the greatest homelessness crisis—that will bear the heaviest burden as a result of further delays by the Secretary of State.

At the heart of all this is the tenants themselves. For many people, insecure tenancies are a nuisance—often an expensive one—that keep them in a state of permanent instability. High levels of population turnover are not good for strong communities. They are linked to low levels of participation at every level of civic society, and they place a particular strain on public services such as GPs and schools. For the most vulnerable, the private sector is a living nightmare, damaging their physical and mental health. All too often, insecurity, unaffordability and poor standards of accommodation come as a single package, placing the greatest strain on those who can cope with it least.

My casework—like that of many other Members, I am sure—is full of examples like these. One constituent wrote to me:

“We have been issued with a section 21 eviction letter by the landlord. I suffer from severe depression and recently had a cornea eye transplant and am still undergoing treatments. My son has autism, asthma, is non-verbal with severe sensory needs and also struggles with change, and we have both suffered serious mental health breakdowns due to our current living conditions.”

These constituents have to wait until the court issues a bailiff warrant for them to be moved into alternative accommodation, but due to the high level of backlog that the courts are experiencing, that will not be any time soon. As she writes:

“This whole process has been severely detrimental to my mental health… My concern is that our current property isn’t safe as the kitchen ceiling is about to collapse in on us”.

Another constituent wrote:

“This miscreant of a landlord sent me a section 21 notice for possession of my apartment. I have been a tenant there in good standing for three years. Rent is always paid on the due date. Rent is £850 for a tiny room…with a shared toilet and shower with 17 other tenants. The landlord informs me today that he wants to raise the rent to £1,516…an 80% rent increase out of the clear blue sky!”

A third constituent wrote:

“Today my wife and I were served with a no-fault eviction…principally for refusing to agree to an almost 20% rent increase. This was particularly galling, because in February we had already had an increase of almost 10%. We now have just eight weeks to find a place to live, but as you…know, there is a dearth of properties…not just in this area but other parts of London.”

They think it highly unlikely they will be able to find somewhere to live. They continue:

“I am utterly disheartened that we live in a country where this is possible. It is nothing short of an outrage.”

There is much in this Bill that is good. There are elements promised for this Bill that are not here and that we will want to press on, and there are a number of concerns we will want to press on in Committee to probe the Government. The central point is this: tenant insecurity is extremely damaging. It is bad for mental and physical health, it is expensive and it places pressure on local authorities. The longer that measures are delayed, the worse it will be. The Government have broken their promise, and we will be holding them to account for that failure.