Renters (Reform) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Karen Buck and Nickie Aiken

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Renters (Reform) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Karen Buck and Nickie Aiken

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

Debate between Karen Buck and Nickie Aiken

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), I woke at 5 am on that terrible night to phone calls from friends and colleagues who were at the scene of the fire. They were watching events that they had never imagined could happen in one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the world. Those calls came partly because mine is the neighbouring constituency and Grenfell Tower is only a few hundred yards from the constituency border, but also because Grenfell Tower was in my constituency before the 2010 boundary changes and I obviously knew it well. We have a shared community across much of north Westminster and north Kensington.

We must make sure that, with the passage of two and a half years and a new Parliament, we never forget the sheer horror of what people saw and experienced. Tribute has rightly been paid to the dignity and courage of the survivors, the families and the community, but we must never forget what happened. We must not let the passage of time dull that experience, and we should not lose our sense of urgency.

Some of us gathered only 24 hours after the fire, even before Parliament had properly reconvened after the 2017 general election, to discuss what action needed to be taken. There was a palpable sense of urgency, including from the Government, about what must be learned from the fire and how similar events must be prevented. As has been acknowledged, including by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), that sense of urgency has unfortunately faded.

The steps that needed to be taken, either to serve the survivors in their desperate need for rehousing or to protect the interests of the thousands of people who live in high-rise blocks, both private and social, across the country, have not been implemented. Although it is completely right that the inquiry has to take what time is necessary to be sufficiently rigorous and make sure that the lessons learned are the right ones, there are steps the Government can take, and should have taken in that intervening period. They have failed to do so. We must demand and require that the Government act quickly where they can.

I wish to make three quick points, because many important points have already been made and I do not want to replicate them. The first relates to the issue of sprinklers, which has been referred to in this debate already. We know from the recommendations of the Lakanal House coroner’s report that sprinklers can be supported and should be implemented. We know from the Government that the installation of sprinklers in new builds is being encouraged, and that the height requirement for sprinklers to be installed in new builds is rightly being reduced. That is good and I support it, but why is that same approach not being applied to the retrofitting of sprinklers in existing blocks? How can this be justified? Why are residents in blocks that already exist not being awarded the same level of protection, given that we know from the experience in Australia, where a broadly similar fire occurred, that sprinklers can be effective?

Progress on implementing the retrofitting of sprinklers, left to local authorities, has become mired in complications. We know that Wandsworth Council’s decision to go ahead with sprinklers was overturned in the first tier tribunal only a couple of weeks ago. Unusually, I give credit to Westminster Council—its former leader, the new hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), is in her place—as it was intending, and still potentially is, to go ahead with the retrofitting of sprinklers in high-rise blocks. That has been delayed because of the complexity of multi-tenure property.

I raised that issue yesterday during the statement and I wish to expand upon it for a moment today, because I think the Government fail to understand that there is not a binary division between private blocks and social housing blocks. The latter are, almost without exception, multi-tenure. There are 15 high-rise social housing tower blocks in my constituency. Those blocks contain within them at least a third—sometimes a half or even more—properties that have been sold under the right to buy. Some of those properties are now in the hands of management companies or corporate landlords, and some of them are owned by overseas companies. Some of them are privately tenanted and some of them are owned; some of them are still owned by those who had the original right to buy. Almost all of them have different leases. So there is massive complexity there and at the moment the legislative framework simply does not allow local authorities to go ahead, even if they wish to and have put the money aside to do so, with carrying out the necessary works to retrofit sprinklers and, in some cases, fire doors—reference has also been made to alarm systems. That has to be sorted out. Two and a half years on, it has not been. So even the local authorities that are willing are not able to go ahead with that work. The Government simply must understand that and take necessary action to move this forward.

The second point I wish to make concerns the issue of evacuation and stay put. The Government are proceeding with a review of that policy. I understand that policy and the issue about compartmentalisation. The question I have to put to the Government is: do they understand what the behavioural impact is on those residents who watched Grenfell burn, be it on TV or from the 15th and 20th storeys of the tower blocks in my constituency overlooking Grenfell? Do the Government understand how people will react in real-life situations if a similar fire occurs now? Two and a half years later, we are still not clear exactly what policy we are adopting. That policy may be different in different circumstances. The Government need to be really clear about how they are going to advise residents—fast-changing residents, residents in different tenancies and residents in private residential property, as well as long-standing tenants—to respond if an event occurs.

It is absolutely right that the policy of the fire brigade in these circumstances is central, but I put it to the Government that people have been advised by a Government Minister that it was lacking in common sense to stay in a burning building. How will those people react? How will the Government make sure that people are properly advised and informed about the latest policy?

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

I wish to reiterate what the hon. Lady has said, having been the leader of Westminster City Council and very much involved in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy, helping to run the response centre. She is absolutely right about the confusion of the different tenures in many blocks. I am proud that in Westminster we have put sprinkler systems into our social blocks. Glastonbury House in my own ward in Pimlico is purely social tenure—it is an old people’s home—and we have put in sprinklers and that issue is now over, but she is absolutely right that we have this confusion.

We also have confusion about being able to go in, as the local authority, to check the fire safety of homes that have become privately owned under the right to buy. There has to be legislation that takes that into consideration and gives local authorities powers to go in and look at the fire safety of all tenures—not just social rented but also shared ownership. As we move on to more shared-ownership schemes to house more people across central London in particular, there will be an ongoing issue, so I ask the Government to act and I back what the hon. Lady says.

[Ms Buck]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention and hope that Ministers are listening, because that is cross-party consensus among people who have more experience than most of representing areas with multiple high rises with high levels of tenure complexity, and who are calling for action to be taken.

Finally, there has been talk in this debate, and certainly in the inquiry report and elsewhere, about the higher level of risk-assessment work that needs to be done, whether in terms of fitting sprinklers or other safety arrangements, and about the levels of inspections that need to be undertaken. I remain to be convinced that the Government have a proper plan for capacity for those people who will carry out that level of inspection. My worry is that even when the legislative change comes—it is too late, but it is coming—there will still be a bottleneck because the Government have not planned out the resource necessary to do the risk assessment and the inspection work. What assessment have Ministers made of the training and human resources necessary to ensure that we do not find that, even in the aftermath of legislation, we are still a year, two years or three years late in carrying out the work because there simply are not the skilled and trained people required to carry out the work?

There is a powerful responsibility on everyone in the House, but especially the Government, to honour the memory of those who died in the Grenfell fire by acting not just thoroughly and rigorously but swiftly, even at this relatively late hour, to make sure that measures are in place so that nothing like the Grenfell horror can ever happen again. It is clear from today’s debate that there is a long way to go. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will be able to give some answers to those who have spoken and assure them that that lesson has been learned.