Renters (Reform) Bill

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book, the sooner we can proceed. Alongside that, we of course need to ensure that the justice system, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made clear, is in a position to implement it effectively. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), is present. He and I, and the Minister for Housing and Planning, are working to do just that.

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

On the enhanced grounds for antisocial behaviour, I have one constituent who has been evicted because their baby was crying too much, and another who has been evicted because her husband was beating her too loudly. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the grounds need to be discretionary ones on which the courts can deliberate, not mandatory ones? Otherwise, it will be a handle for abusers to use.

[Michael Gove]

I very much take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not believe that either of those two cases would count as antisocial behaviour under our proposals, but we need to ensure that we are clear about what constitutes antisocial behaviour liable to lead to eviction and what is, as in those cases, either a preposterous claim or an example of domestic abuse that the police should be investigating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree. I also think that, as the Secretary of State mentioned, most private landlords want to do the right thing and are a good part of our housing mix. They should therefore welcome the fact that we are doing our best to ensure that their good name is upheld and that they are not stained by the tiny minority who do not do the right thing, who are the reason why these protections are so overdue.

We are also concerned that the changes to antisocial behaviour grounds are, as they stand, ambiguous and open to abuse. Mental health needs and domestic abuse are sometimes reported as antisocial behaviour, so that definition must be made more pragmatic and focused on genuine antisocial behaviour. The Secretary of State made reference to this issue, and I heard what he said; I look forward to working with him in Committee to address it, because it is important.

The Bill is also silent on the issue of economic evictions. While it strengthens the law to ensure landlords can only increase rents once a year, which is welcome, the mechanism for tenants to contest excessive rent hikes is not strong enough, giving people little real protection against so-called economic evictions.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is there not a particular problem with the evidence that the rent tribunals will look at? The proposal is that they will look at the average market rents, but the local housing allowance is set at only 30% of the local average, meaning that rents could increase above the LHA and no one would be able to complain about it.

[Angela Rayner]

It is absolutely right that we get into these challenges, because I do not think people feel that the current situation provides redress for the challenges they face. I hope that in Committee, the Secretary of State will listen to points made by Members across the House to ensure that people get the redress and support that they need, and that we strengthen tenants’ rights in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me first refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for renters and rental reform and am supported by Generation Rent.

It is almost hard to believe that the words “ban on no-fault evictions” will not be in the next Tory party manifesto. Those words have been in Queen’s Speeches. The Tories have promised, but they have not delivered. Now we know, of course, that that is because there was an almighty fight on the Conservative Benches—a fight that is still going on by the sounds of it. To all the dodgy landlords and vested interests watching this debate, I say that if they delay the Bill and its implementation further—as has been rumoured today—the result will be rental reform at the very core of the next general election campaign, and when Labour is in government, legislation might well go even further beyond what some of those vested interests want.

Enough about the politics; let us get down to the Bill itself. Central to this legislation is the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions, which have been the blight of renters for many years. The aim is to provide safe homes that allow renters to establish roots in the community and start families—that is lacking at the moment. I am concerned, however, that the vastly expanded grounds for eviction might undermine the very concept of the Bill. Under schedule 1, grounds 1 and 1A remain no-fault clauses. They are for the landlord moving themselves in or selling. To prevent potential abuse of those grounds, it is crucial that landlords provide unequivocal evidence of their intentions, including through solicitors, agents’ letters or sworn statements to the court. After using those grounds, landlords should submit another statement within 16 weeks of possession, for example. Landlords who genuinely need to possess under those grounds have nothing to lose in making such legal declarations, and the clauses are useless without them.

There may be legitimate circumstances in which a ground is no longer relevant—someone might have been evicted but the landlord no longer wants to sell the property or have a family member move in, for example. Should that happen, reasonable compensation should be offered to the person who has been evicted. It is not fair to use the grounds and then say, “Whoopsie-daisy, I didn’t realise that I couldn’t sell.” There must be redress for the tenant who has been harmed.

Ground 6 allows for an eviction when the landlord is found to be at fault. Although I do not think that people who are unfit to be landlords should remain landlords, this ground penalises the tenants by discouraging them from co-operating with enforcement action. As such, we need either compensation for any no-fault eviction, or an administrative mechanism that keeps the tenant in the property but removes the landlord’s day-to-day control for as long as that tenant wishes to remain.

Grounds 8 and 8A deal with tenants who are in arrears. While there are some protections for universal credit payments, there are no protections where the arrears are irregular under ground 8A. Arrears might be repeated but very short, and the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance has highlighted the risk that this poses to victims of domestic abuse. The courts need to have discretion; these clauses cannot be mandatory.

Lastly, ground 14 is one I have raised with the Minister. We need to ensure that antisocial behaviour is not an excuse for a section 21 eviction by the back door. Equally, the idea of a student eviction clause is very worrying; the National Union of Students does not support it, and I do not see how it could be practically enforced. I would want to see that idea fleshed out in Committee, or a pledge that it will be ditched.

I welcome the Government’s inclusion of two methods of enforcement. The first is local government; the second, which is more encouraging, is the ombudsperson. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has agreed to look at merging the ombudspersons—we have too many at the moment—but we need to make sure that that ombudsperson has the authority to rectify matters in a timely manner, one that still allows people to go to the courts if they wish to pursue that method of redress.

It troubles me that the landlord’s notice period has not been changed from two months. In my view, that notice period should be four months, and importantly, tenants should have the flexibility to move out during a notice period: if a tenant is given notice and moves out the next week, they should not be liable for two months’ worth of rent. That seems wrong to me.

Turning to protection periods, tenants will have protection from eviction for the first six months of their tenancy. Currently, they have six months after they sign each new assured shorthold tenancy, meaning that long-term tenants might have fewer protections than they do at the moment. Renters need to be protected: one proposal is to give them two years’ protection, which is a very good idea that we should explore in Committee.

On rent increases, we must ensure that we do not face a wave of economic evictions. Otherwise, what will happen is that the landlord will whack up the rent, and someone will have to move. The rental tribunal’s decisions being tied to markets means that an increase will be considered valid if the final rent aligns with market rates in local areas. That is clearly unaffordable for the LHA rate, which is under 30%—I remind colleagues that in 2010, that rate was 50%. It has been decreased year after year, and we need to address that. The Bill is also in danger of failing to address the “no DSS” benefit discrimination and the rampant guarantor discrimination that happens all the time in the rental sector, as well as affordability checks, which are used as methods of economic discrimination. Those problems also need to be addressed in the Bill.

I am a fan of the theory behind the property portal, but I fear that it might end up being like the bad landlords list, which never really worked and was never enforced. I appreciate that there are fines for not registering a property, but those fines should be paid to the tenant, as is the case with the deposit protection schemes. That would encourage tenants to make sure that their landlord is registered—they would receive recompense if the landlord was not. We cannot have local authorities doing all the checking: they just do not have the resources at the moment. We need everyone to be able to support these reforms.

[Mrs Elphicke]

My co-chair of the APPG on this subject is making some very important points. Could he further develop the important principle of the tenant being compensated for some of the no-fault or other fines that he has mentioned?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I would love to, but we do not have much time. However, there needs to be some discussion about what compensation someone will be given if they are no-fault evicted: for example, should they be given two months’ compensation, which could pay for a deposit and the first month’s rent in their new property? If the landlord has not registered, and the tenant is then evicted because their landlord has failed to be a good landlord—which is, of course, one of the grounds—what compensation will that person receive, enabling them to move into new, decent accommodation? Their money is tied up in the deposit and in having paid the rent. There needs to be some serious thought about how we compensate tenants so that they can move on in the private rented sector. Some people have also said that the property portal might be a back-door way of getting rid of selective licencing, which would be a great mistake.

The real story of these reform methods is the work of tens of thousands of hard-working activists, advice workers, policy leaders and organisations up and down this country, many of them in the Renters Reform Coalition, to which I give much praise. We are close to significant reform, but we must be vigilant.

Renters (Reform) Bill (First sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Hansard has got all that, I hope.

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

As per my entry on the register of interests, I receive some support from campaigning organisations that support my office and that campaign on this issue; and I have lodgers at my house.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

Can I declare that I am also the joint owner of two properties that are let out, but are held in trust?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q We have been talking about economic evictions. Currently, if someone approaches the rent tribunal, it can determine whether a rent goes up or down. Citizens Advice and Shelter are particularly likely to support tenants who go to that rent tribunal. Is there a danger that people will not want to risk it?

Polly Neate: I don’t think so, no. I think the provisions in the Bill will make renting so much more secure that it will make sure that people are much less likely to have recourse to all forms of the courts—the rent tribunal and so on. The objective of the Bill will be effective in reducing the burden on all of that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So you are saying that the Bill will create an atmosphere in which people will not need to take cases to the tribunal, because these things will be resolved before between tenant and landlord?

Polly Neate: Yes, exactly.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q There is a six-month protection from eviction with a new tenancy, but beyond that no other protections are afforded to people in terms of evictions. Should that be linked to rent rises, so that every time a rent rises, the six-month protection for no-fault eviction is restarted?

Dame Clare Moriarty: We would say that six months is simply not long enough. If you are moving into a property, you want to make it your home—we hear from tenants the idea that you can only feel secure there for six months does not allow people to do that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q How long should it be?

Dame Clare Moriarty: The original proposition was two years, which we think is a reasonable amount of time. Whether you would restart the clock at a rent rise—that is an interesting proposition. It is not something we have worked on ourselves. I don’t know whether you have at JRF?

Darren Baxter: Our position is similar—the initial period should be longer. Two years or beyond is an interesting idea and one I would not reject out of hand, but it is not something we have worked out.

To jump back to your previous point about the rent tribunal, the risk you identify is valid. Polly’s point about better security giving people a chance to exercise their rights is true, but if you have a rent tribunal where you can challenge your rent, but that rent might go up, there is a risk that people see that as rolling the dice on potentially having to pay even more than they faced originally. Capping that, so that effectively the rent can go down but it cannot go any higher than the landlord was asking for, would be a reasonable reform that would encourage people to use the tribunal.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Should people be able to see the previous rents in that property through the property portal? Should tenants who are now in the property be able to say, “How much did the last tenants pay?”

Dame Clare Moriarty: The property portal could be really helpful for tenants in understanding what has happened with the property in the past. Previous rents would certainly be interesting. Also, there is the issue of whether or not the landlord has previously used the available grounds for what are effectively still no-fault evictions. While the design of the property portal is about landlords, if it had the right information and was properly regulated, it could be a real benefit for tenants and give them more confidence, at the point when they enter into a tenancy, so that they know a bit more about who they are dealing with. Tenants are often dealing with letting agents, and it is only when they have signed the contract that they actually have any contact with the landlord. The quality of the landlord is incredibly important to their quality of life.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Should this information be public, or is it that before you sign the contract you should have access to the check so that you can quality-assure your landlord? I am trying to work out the levels. Are we saying that all this information should be out in the ether, or is there some sort of system that you are thinking about?

Dame Clare Moriarty: Again, this is not something on which I would like to get into too much detail, because I do not have the knowledge. Certainly, the point about a tenant, at the point where they commit to a tenancy, not doing that blind to information about the landlord is really important. Whether the only way of doing that is by making it public, or whether at a certain point in the process there are ways in which they could be given access to information, is probably in the detail of the property portal.

Polly Neate: What is important is that people have access to the information at the right point. This will also be of benefit to local authorities when they are trying to regulate private renting. There are lots of issues around that at the moment. Some of them are about resources, but the property portal would make it much more straightforward and less resource-intensive to be able to properly regulate standards in private renting. That is another important benefit.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Given that somebody is being evicted every 23 minutes through a section 21 no-fault eviction, should there be a timescale to abolish no-fault evictions? Would a clear timescale be helpful, particularly to the people concerned?

My second point is about prevention. What more needs to happen regarding the duties of local authorities and councils to people who are not evicted, given some of the current holes in the Bill?

Polly Neate: Yes, it would be very beneficial to have a clear timetable. I cannot stress clearly enough my previous point: this was always going to be subject to lobbying for delays and it is really important that the Government hold their nerve. We need clarity about when this will happen, because we also have a commitment to reducing homelessness and this is a really important way of doing that. When people get the eviction notice, for whatever reason, it is really important that they still have the right to access homelessness assistance from their local authority. It is really important that that right is not watered down as a result of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q Thank you to members of the panel. You heard comments from the previous panel on antisocial behaviour. What do you think of the changes that the Government are introducing to the antisocial behaviour grounds? Do they strike the right balance, and ensure that landlords can evict tenants that cause significant disruption? Timothy, you mentioned students. Do you agree that the new possession ground for student landlords will be effective in supporting the operation of the student market?

Timothy Douglas: I think we need more detail on that ground. I have not seen it, I do not know what it looks like and I do not know how it will work in reality around when it is served at the time of the year. There are myriad student semesters, term times, different types of students and mixed properties. Defining a student let is really difficult. You can do it under an HMO because the licence conditions will be in place, but a lot of students these days rent in a high-rise modern flat. How do we define them as students?

From the point of view of our members, if we retain that fixed term, you have the clarity. A UK student—this is important as well for rent in advance for UK students—can have a letter from the uni. For overseas students, it is the right-to-rent check, the visa and the share code. On the students, we remain sceptical about how that ground works. The simplest and easiest way would be to retain fixed-term tenancies as an option for any household that is either a student or mixed student household, to give that flexibility as a fixed term for 12 months as an option.

On the antisocial behaviour ground 14, I am not sure what the difference between “capable” and “likely” is. That is why I reiterate the point that local partnerships between police and councils will be really important. The guidance, defining antisocial behaviour and prioritising it in the courts will be important for that ground to work.

Ben Beadle: We like the suggestion around antisocial behaviour. The Secretary of State has been very clear that managing antisocial behaviour is important. This is one of the challenges in section 21 being abolished. Like it or loathe it, section 21 allows landlords to deal with antisocial behaviour effectively. What we are trying to do is to not end up with just the perpetrator of antisocial behaviour in the property.

I would take issue with the comments that were made in the previous session. This will be tested by a judge. It is a discretionary ground. Although the wording is wider, I think that is absolutely right. It goes before a judge to assess the merits of it, and it succeeds or fails based on judicial discretion. That sounds like something that we can all support, because it means that antisocial behaviour can be dealt with. No politician wants to write back to constituents in their area to say, “That noise that is waking your kids at night cannot be dealt with because of this, that or the other.” This strikes a balance, to coin a phrase, between protecting those who are at the hands of antisocial behaviour and not making it too easy so that it is a back door to section 21, which I absolutely get.

The second thing came up around domestic violence in the previous session. I see this as quite different. We have ground 14A, which allows social landlords to evict the perpetrators of domestic violence. I suggest that something like that is more clearly made available to the private rented sector. What happens in practice is that the landlord is working closely with the victim and wants to keep—I would say “her”, but it does not have to be—the victim in the home and to deal with the perpetrator. Anything the Government can do to make that clearer would be very helpful.

The third point is on the student market, which is an area we have been campaigning on vigorously. We support the ground, obviously, and think that it can work, but a lot of good things come as a pair—Ant and Dec, strawberries and cream—and what is missing from the ground is that it does not fully protect against the cyclical nature of the market, which Tim spoke about.

We propose an amendment that would deal with a whole range of matters. In the first six months, landlords cannot give a no-fault reason for repossession; we propose that that moratorium be extended across the sector, to deal with issues in three or four areas. First, it would provide for a fixed period, and that would deal adequately —but not fully, granted—with the need to keep the cyclical nature of the student market, because it is not broken, and we want to protect it, in the interests of both renters and landlords.

Secondly, more widely, outside the student sector, it is a possibility that a tenant will give two months’ notice on day one, and set-up costs hurt landlords. In my briefing, which I sent round to you, I gave an example of that.

Thirdly, the amendment protects against the creation of an “Airbnb lite” in the sector. We do not want the private rented sector to become Airbnb by the back door, and there is a real risk of these periodic tenancies creating that.

Fourthly, the Bill is about fairness, and striking the balance between protecting tenants from bad landlords, and landlords from bad tenants, so there is no justification for us not being treated in the same way, through that moratorium.

There is a fifth thing: this is quite easy to do through an amendment. For those five reasons, I think that we can make this work.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Ben, you propose six months on both sides, but you seem to be suggesting that a student or someone would maliciously come in for a month, and then say, “I’m off.” Is it not the case that people look at the house and say, “This isn’t working for me. The house isn’t quite what I thought it was, or what I thought was advertised.” Perhaps it is very cold at night and expensive to heat. I am not saying that these are enforcement matters for the local authority; they are just things that would lead normal people to say, “I want out of this.” Also, people’s circumstances may change. Why should they, or their guarantor, be stuck with having to pay the bill for six months, when the accommodation might not be appropriate? Surely the best way of getting the market to improve its standards is to have the ability for someone to walk in, realise it is not a very good property, and walk out again.

Ben Beadle: To turn that on its head, why have the clause one way in the first place? Why not let the market talk for itself? If a landlord wants to sell, why not let them?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Because the landlord has the power, and is renting the product out. The consumer is assessing whether they find that product useful. They have a very different relationship to the product, don’t they?

Ben Beadle: I think the Bill is about fairness, striking a balance between the reforms that we all want, and all the things that have been said about not causing a crisis of confidence in the sector. I do not think that it has to be quite as easy as ordering something from Amazon and sending it back. The reality is that it costs a lot of money to set up a tenancy and get the property in the right condition. Of course, energy performance certificates and other regulatory mechanisms are available, which allow tenants to make a very informed decision about the property that they are moving into. That will be supplemented by the property portal and the register. All that information is available, as it will be in future.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

We know that the Government have abandoned the EPC.

[The Chair]

Order. Mr Russell-Moyle, we are asking questions, not having an argument.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Usually it is a dialogue, but anyway—

[The Chair]

No, we do not want a dialogue. I am the Chair. We ask questions; witnesses answer questions. We take evidence. The arguments come later in Committee.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am just trying to tease this out.

[The Chair]

No, let us not tease anything out. Mr Douglas.

Timothy Douglas: To build on the points that Ben made, in any legislation, we have to be careful about unintended consequences. In the student market, there would be the option for landlords to rent on a licence or give individual tenancies. That would potentially mean more student properties being rented on a room-by-room basis. If a student leaves within the term, any non-student could come in to fill the property. I am not convinced that all students would be happy with that. If we are talking about reasonable costs for re-let, that is covered by the Tenant Fees Act 2019. We have been through those arguments, and that is already in legislation. There is enough protection for tenants in place, and it is clear there for landlords as well.

Theresa Wallace: I have just two quick points. First, if the property is not at the correct condition and that is why the student wants to leave, that should be dealt with under the property portal. If the property portal is built correctly, with the right objective or end in sight, and it can ensure that a property is safe to rent, that should take care of that side of it.

We also have to remember that students are often sharers who have come together for the first time. They move into a rented property and some of them very quickly—within the first couple of weeks—think, “Oh my goodness. I don’t like the people I’m sharing with. I’ve made a mistake. I want to get out.” They serve notice, and that serves notice for everybody in that tenancy, so all the students would then have to leave. But I have also found that they can settle down, and after another week they get to know the people they are sharing with, and they end up staying there for that tenancy. I think we have to take that into account as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

Q Just to clarify, would you not allow the landlord to serve any of those types of no-fault evictions after six months?

Theresa Wallace: No, they would be committed for the entire term.

Timothy Douglas: I totally agree with that, and I think it is not an either/or, as has been stated. Let us have the option. The beauty of the private rented sector is that it is built on that flexibility. Without the flexibility of that option, we are closing that down. Of course, you can have a fixed term for up to three years—otherwise, it then becomes a deed, as we understand it. You can have it for longer. So in theory, it is already there and that 12-month fixed term, or longer, with break clauses could offer lots more flexibility and the security that certain tenants want, and we know that agents are hearing that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q I am interested in this. Are you saying that in the fixed period, the landlord would not be able to execute any eviction grounds, or just not grounds 1, 1A and 1B?

Theresa Wallace: If it were rent arrears, that would be different. Landlords cannot afford to keep properties when they are not receiving the rent. For rent arrears, I am saying that the landlord would not be able to serve the notice to either sell the property or move back into it.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So 1 and 1A are basically the only protections. Is there a danger that this will become the default tenancy and landlords will not offer periodic tenancies, or would you require them to have an option and they would have to advertise both?

Theresa Wallace: It is an option, yes. I still believe that there should be a minimum term of six months with any tenancy to make it financially viable for landlords. That is why we have so many landlords waiting to hear what the Bill will bring, and more of them will exit the sector if they are going to have only periodic tenancies from day one. I have landlords telling me that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q I asked this question of the last panel. Putting aside whether the six months is on both landlords and renters or one or the other, should there be a protection every time a rent increases that that six-month protection restarts, or it is the case that you can never get the protection back once the six months is done?

Ben Beadle: With this Bill, we have to strike a balance between giving confidence to both sides. The more you tinker and the more you meddle with things like this, the less confidence there is. I cannot see why on earth you would want to do that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q In most assured shorthold tenancies at the moment, when you redo rent, you sign a new contract that then gives someone a six to 12-month protection. What we are now saying is, because it is rolling, that rent increase will just be within the rolling contract, so you are not then given the extended protection.

Ben Beadle: Bluntly, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it there. You want all the benefits of a fixed term and all the benefits of a periodic tenancy.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Yes. If we can get that, yes. [Laughter.]

Ben Beadle: Well, from our side, it is no—absolutely not.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Ah, okay.

Theresa Wallace: Just to add to that, at the moment you do not always have a fixed term. You can have a periodic tenancy, and you can put the rent up annually. That does happen, and it continues as a rolling tenancy, so we do have that at the moment.

[The Chair]

Unless there are any further questions from colleagues, I thank our three witnesses for their evidence, which will be very useful to the Committee in the deliberations that lie ahead.

I will ask the last set of witnesses to take the stand as soon as possible, without too much further delay, but just before our next panel, I ask Dean Russell to make a wee declaration of interests.

[Dean Russell]

Thank you, Chair. I just want to declare that my wife works part time at an estate agent that also does lettings.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Mr Gray, I should also have said that I sit on the legal working group for a radical housing co-operative association.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

What is the radical bit about?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is its title; I did not choose it.

Examination of Witnesses

Paul Dennett and Richard Blakeway gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q Thank you to the panellists. Richard, what do you feel is currently working well in social housing redress that we need to ensure we bring over to the PRS?

Richard Blakeway: That is a really good question. An ombudsman is not a surrogate for an effective landlord-tenant relationship and effective dispute resolution at source, done locally by a landlord. One thing that we have sought to introduce through our work on social housing is our complaint handling code, which has set out how to create a positive complaint handling culture and resolve disputes as early as possible without having to escalate them to the ombudsman. We have done a significant amount of work with landlords to implement that code and to avoid a postcode lottery whereby, depending on your landlord, different approaches might be taken, and some of those approaches were not promoting natural justice at a local level.

For me, although an ombudsman might be conceived as the potential stick—there is an element of that, which is important—another part of an ombudsman’s role is to promote effective complaint handling locally and support landlords. There are a lot of landlords who want to get things right—they are not rogue landlords—but sometimes they may not be aware of all their responsibilities, or they may struggle to engage the resident effectively or to discharge their responsibilities. That role is important for the ombudsman. It is something we have done in social housing and, were we to be appointed as the ombudsman, it is something we would certainly seek to do with landlords in the private rented sector.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q There is currently a system of selective licensing that some local authorities can do, but they have quite a high threshold of burden to demonstrate it and it requires the sign-off of the Secretary of State. Do you see the potential for allowing local authorities to remove those burdens and introduce selective licensing without Secretary of State sign-off, because of course the information will already be there in the portal?

Paul Dennett: Selective licensing is very interesting for Salford, because I think we were the first local authority in the country to pilot the new legislation at the time. Selective licensing schemes will inevitably continue to be an important tool for councils to manage and improve the private rented sector properties in their area. In our opinion, local areas should have the flexibility to employ selective licensing schemes to meet local need, as we determine that. We are calling on the Government to amend the Housing Act 2004 to remove the requirement for councils to seek approval for larger selective licensing schemes. You will be aware of the 20% threshold—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

You could do ward by ward.

Paul Dennett: Absolutely. People ultimately have benefited from that. We have evaluated that and renewed selective licensing, certainly in Greater Manchester. Having that flexibility at a local level would aid the legislation and ultimately our approach to regulating the private rented sector.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Thank you very much.

[Eddie Hughes]

Q That all sounds quite exciting, Paul, in terms of your being able to apply your finite resource as effectively as possible. At the moment, if you have a complaint about a property, you do not know whether that landlord owns 10 other properties in your area, and we anticipate that the portal will allow you to do that. Do you not see this as an exciting opportunity, contrary to the negative spin that you put on it at the start, to be able to more effectively manage the properties you have?

If I remember correctly, you and I met at a social housing decarbonisation fund demonstrator. With your decarbonising hat on, surely now you could have the opportunity to be able to communicate directly with landlords. You do not know who they are or where they are at the moment. You would be able to communicate with them directly and say, “The Government have this scheme. We can help you improve and replace your boiler,” and so on. There is no end of benefits, yet you seem to focus only on the negatives. Why is that?

Paul Dennett: I am definitely not only focusing on the negatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I am sorry, Mr Gray—no hectoring.

Paul Dennett: Renters should welcome the property portal, as it will inevitably create a more transparent system for tenants and provide a single place to check what is important information for tenants and also for local authorities about the properties. For the portal to be effective the Government must also require landlords to display eviction notices on the portal. That would support local authorities in enforcing the prohibited letting period associated with the new eviction grounds. For example, were a landlord to evict a tenant on a legitimate basis covered by the Bill, but then sought to re-let the property, logging that eviction on the portal would make it clear whether the property was within the prohibited letting period or not. Obviously that requires the portal to operate in real time, which is something we would certainly support in the Local Government Association.

What is absolutely critical to the success of the portal, and to secure its longevity, will be for the Government to commit the resources, both financially and non-financially, to the portal, and ultimately how that then interfaces with local government from an enforcement point of view.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Richard, you are ready and willing to take on the ombudsperson duties in the Bill. At the moment there are myriad redress schemes for deposits in the private rented sector. You never know the outcomes of them because they are all kept secret. There is no case law built up, so you could have one redress scheme coming to a very different conclusion to the next redress scheme. The only way tenants can deal with that is by going to the courts directly. Do you think that the ombudsperson’s purview should be extended to include a right of appeal for the deposit redress schemes?

Richard Blakeway: A couple of thoughts. In direct response to your question, I think the ombudsman has been developed partly in the context of pressures and backlogs in courts. In designing the role of the ombudsman you need to give consideration to how that ombudsman’s jurisdictions could go further in relieving those pressures on the courts, not least so that the courts can focus on section 21, which in itself will be essential to give residents confidence to use the complaints process. There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that until section 21 is removed, residents will be cautious about using the complaints procedure.

You give a compelling example of where an ombudsman’s jurisdiction might go beyond what is envisaged, albeit in a way that is trying to bring coherence to the system. Rents might be another area to look at. As an ombudsman, we currently look at aspects of rents and charges, and there will be other aspects for the tribunals, given some of the potential reforms to rents. You could consider the ombudsman’s role in considering what are often quite technical aspects, rather than things going to the courts.

If I may briefly answer on the context of the question and our being ready and willing, given the complexities of the system, which benefit neither the landlord, the provider, nor the resident—nor indeed the other bodies involved in this jigsaw—what the housing ombudsman can provide is one front door, one back office and one coherent approach to dispute resolution in the rental market. Given the policy convergence and the clear evidence that the more fragmented the process is, the more people will fall between the gaps and the more duplication and confusion there will be, building on our scheme would be the most effective way to deliver the ambitions of this Bill.

However, we should also do so at pace, because there is no one who can move faster than us to implement this. Therefore, you could implement the redress scheme before the removal of section 21, before some of the courts reforms that have been talked about. To enable that, we need a clear and unambiguous statement from Ministers during the passage of the Bill, and ideally in Committee, that they will appoint the housing ombudsman on Royal Assent to deliver the redress scheme.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Perfect; thank you. We will await that.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q The Government have confirmed that section 21 will not be abolished until the courts are reformed. What is your assessment of that? I will start with Mayor Paul and then move on to you, Richard, because you touched upon that.

Paul Dennett: Obviously we need to fully understand, from an evidence and empirical point of view, whether the courts issue is a legitimate concern, because at the moment we do not have the evidence to corroborate that. We are being told that this needs to be halted, but no definitive time has been given for the abolition of section 21 until the courts issue is resolved. For us, it seems as though this could be indefinite—there has been no definitive date. We know that there are lots of issues with our courts—we see that day in, day out—but we really need clarity on when the Government will introduce this legislation. We also need the evidence for whether the court delays issue is justified and warranted, because at the moment we do not know. We are hearing a lot about this, but we are not seeing the evidence to corroborate it, which is a concern for us. We are asking the Government to commit, in law and in timescales, to abolishing section 21, and to do that publicly.

Richard Blakeway: I agree with the thrust of that response. From a redress perspective, as I alluded to, clearly some residents will not exercise their right to redress because of a fear of eviction. The analysis by Citizens Advice, for example, says that it probably reduces tenants’ willingness to use the complaints process by about 50%, so about one in every two tenants will not exercise their right to redress. Obviously we will hear more about the timetable for removing section 21. What would be unnecessary, in addition to that, would be a delay in redress, whereby redress through an ombudsman and section 21 have to be removed or reformed at the same time. I think the redress can come first. I would not want to see a delay on redress. Even if fewer people might use the complaints procedure, some clearly will, and it is therefore important that they have that right.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q I want to ask a niche question about local authority investigatory and enforcement powers; I hope I explain myself clearly enough for you to understand. There is the issue we have discussed about the new duties and responsibilities in the Bill, which, assuming they are sufficiently resourced and supported, should work well, and which we support.

The White Paper also committed the Government to exploring and bolstering local authority enforcement to tackle a wider range of standards breaches. That is not in the Bill. We have a commitment in the King’s Speech, as one of three areas for the Government to bring forward amendments to make it easier for councils to target enforcement action and arm them with further enforcement powers. Could you speculate on what we might expect the Government to bring forward in that area? What would you like to see? Should we seek to weave into the Bill the more expansive measures outlined in the White Paper?

Paul Dennett: The Bill deals with enforcement for local authorities quite adequately. It is about how we resource that and develop the workforce within local government, and how we ensure that this legislation is genuinely resourced and empowered to deliver on what we are setting out here. At the end of the day, any legislation and regulation is only as good as our ability to enact it.

To enact it requires a trained, skilled and developed workforce. I say that against our losing many people from regulatory services, certainly since 2010-11. It also requires the resources to employ people to do the work, gather the data and intelligence, prepare for court and, ultimately, work with landlords, ideally to resolve matters outside of the courts, if we can do that. That is the LGA’s position on all this.

We would like to be in a position of having a working relationship whereby we resolve matters outside of complaints systems, outside of courts, working through local authorities. Nevertheless, if that is required, it is important to have a skilled, resourced workforce. I stress the importance of resource, because local authorities spend an awful lot of money these days on children’s services and adult social care. Those are responsive budget lines that ultimately consume a lot of our budgets and that therefore diminish our ability to get on and do some of that regulatory activity in local government. The legislation is there for enforcement; we just need the resources to get on and do it, and we need the workforce strategy to train the people of the future to enact this and, ultimately, to prepare to support landlords and tenants in this space.

Richard Blakeway: That is a really interesting question, Matthew; I have a couple of thoughts in relation to it. It is perhaps worth testing—if, for example, the ombudsman is seeing repeated service failure in a particular area—what powers there might be to address those kinds of recurring systemic issues, and whose role and responsibility it should be. That goes to the heart of your question about clause 29 and the relationship between the various parties.

The second thing, which goes back slightly to your first question, is how redress is scoped in the Bill. The one area that I would highlight—I can understand why it has been introduced, but it might not stand the test of time—is the cap on the financial compensation that an ombudsman can award. At the moment, we do not have a cap. The Bill proposes a cap of £25,000. I can understand the motivation there and, as an ombudsman, we are always proportionate, transparent and clear about the framework in which we work when awarding compensation. None the less, in time to come, £25,000 might not seem an appropriate sum. It also slightly incentivises people to think of the courts, which do not have a cap, to solve their dispute, rather than using an ombudsman.

It is critical that the ombudsman has sufficient power to enforce its remedies, as well as the council being able to enforce its role and responsibilities, but the cap might be something to re-examine.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Does the ombudsperson have the right to initiate? You talked about seeing a pattern of behaviour, rather than waiting for the complaint to come to you. Do you have the right to initiate at the moment? I know that other ombudspeople do.

Richard Blakeway: There is a term that may be in the statute or scheme of an ombudsman called “own initiative”, which allows them to initiate an investigation without a complaint whenever they have a strong sense that there might be service failure. That is not currently explicitly in our scheme. However, three years ago, we had scheme amendments that allowed us to investigate beyond an individual member of our scheme, or beyond an individual complaint, if we had concern that there may be repeated systemic failure. That is something that is exercised.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Would it be useful?

Richard Blakeway: Yes.

[The Chair]

Unless there are any more questions from colleagues on either side, I will thank the two witnesses on our final panel: Paul Dennett, the Mayor of Salford and member of the Local Government Association’s local infrastructure net zero board, and Richard Blakeway, the housing ombudsman for the Housing Ombudsman Service. Thank you both very much for your evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration now be adjourned—(Mr Gagan Mohindra.)

Renters (Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Thank you to the witnesses. You have mentioned aspects of the Bill that need to be strengthened; what aspects do you welcome or think of as helpful? How do you think the private rented sector supply might be impacted by the reforms?

Ben Twomey: We absolutely welcome the end of section 21 no-fault evictions—it could not come soon enough. We were promised it some time ago. For renters, that is one of the biggest insecurities we face. That is why I talk about the experience needing to change for renters. In Generation Rent, we love it when renters are aware of their rights and when they know what the system is like, yet those renters who discover they have received a section 21 suddenly become aware that the rights they have do not mean much at all, because they will be out in no time and there is not much they can do to challenge it.

One of the saddest things I have heard from renters we support is that insecurity follows them into the next home. Even when they are trying to feel settled and comfortable and to build their lives again, they are in constant fear that another no-fault eviction notice could come. It needs to be really clear that the new no-fault grounds do not keep that insecurity in the system.

We welcome the end of section 21 and we welcome the property portal. It will be really good to finally have a register of landlords. We hope to be able to put things into that portal that are not yet in the Bill: we hope that we will be able to track evictions, so that they are enforceable around the no-let grounds, and that we will be able to look at actual rents and properly monitor what goes on. One of the big advantages of ending section 21 will be that finally a reason is given for every eviction, so we can understand when things start to go wrong that lead to homelessness. At the moment, quite a lot of guesswork is happening to prevent that problem.

We also welcome an ombudsman coming into the sector, to have an equivalence with the social housing sector. As much as possible, in any way we can, we think renters should have the same rights across social housing and private renting. When the experience can be very similar, and the risks, insecurity and unaffordability are still factors across the piece, there is no reason to have a two-tier system. In fact, I would go further and say that we will have reached our goal only when homeowners start to kick themselves and say they wished they were renting because there are so many rights available, so much security of tenure and so much flexibility, and because they have organisations such as mine and Sue’s to inform people. We look forward to working with the Government to see how that ambition can happen.

Sue James: I agree. The property portal has such potential if we get the information in there right so that there is transparency around renting. That would be amazing. We absolutely love the fact that this has been brought in. There are some changes that we think need to be made. The fact that you are looking at delaying action on section 21 is something I would love to talk about, if you would like to hear that.

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

Q I will ask two different questions, then. I will ask Sue about the delay that the Government propose with the courts. Earlier, we heard from the housing ombudsperson that he is willing to cover all of this, if the Government agreed, and that he could step in with transitional measures immediately on Royal Assent, so he was unclear about why there would need to be a delay on the abolition of section 21. Perhaps you could tell us why that is the case.

With Ben, I would like to probe no-fault evictions, which are very expensive for the person who is not at fault. They have to pay for removal costs, a new deposit and, very often, a month’s rent up front, which is very difficult for people. Are there any ways that could be ameliorated when it is no fault and the tenancy is being curtailed early, within two months?

Sue James: Shall I go first? You also heard this morning that the Government need to hold their nerve, and I absolutely reiterate that. The Bill has been a long time coming, and we have a crisis out there. Colleagues of mine who are at law centres have queues of people coming to see them because of this, and we absolutely need to get it right.

The county court is not the experience I have been hearing about in some of these conversations. You heard this morning that the county court is pretty much getting it right: it is not one of the courts with a huge backlog of hearings and stuff like that. When you start a possession claim, there are fixed rules around that. The case has to be listed within eight weeks, and it is usually listed in six to eight weeks. You then have a hearing before a judge, so it is not actually taking that long. You have the hearing and the court has to apply strict criteria on whether it is just and proportionate, and whether there is a reasonable defence that can be pursued.

In the court, we have a fantastic duty solicitor regime that has just been improved to include benefits advice beforehand. So you already have judges who are experienced in housing, you have duty advisors who are very experienced in housing, and then you have income officers who are at the same courts all the time. You build these relationships, and as duty solicitor, you are working out a plan where you can get the arrears paid off and get the stuff sorted out. We now have crisis navigators in law centres, and they resolve the benefit issues that are sitting behind it. Of the rent-arrears cases I have ever seen, I would say that probably about 60% to 70% have been a benefit-related problem. I think those issues are different from the issues around the court.

The only thing that you could invest more in—well, obviously if we invested more in the court that is brilliant, but I do not think we need to wait for that—is the bailiffs and the end period. Sometimes, with a bailiff’s work, it can take up to eight weeks to fix a date. That is just about money. If you address that, you do not have these problems. That is why I am saying that discretionary is the way to go, because it provides fairness.

You already have a housing court sitting there. It could do with some tweaking, but you are already there with that. I think we are good to go. Given that section 21 is the biggest cause of homelessness, you would rebalance in the way that you want to, so I would say, “Hold your nerve and go with it.”

Ben Twomey: I have two very quick points on the court reform before I go into your other question, Lloyd. First, in quarter 3, the latest data from the Ministry of Justice shows that the median time it took for a repossession case was about 22 weeks in both section 21 and in section 8. The idea that section 21 is much quicker is not true. With section 21, more people move out beforehand because there are fewer ways in which you can legitimately challenge it. There is a problem if you are setting up the court system to say that we want to basically stop tenants having their rights and a way in which they can challenge an eviction. That is a really important point: it does not actually lengthen the time that will be taken. That is not true.

Secondly, I will talk quickly about Jasmine, a renter who very recently challenged an eviction because she could not move in time. She was given two months to move under a section 21, but she could not move in time, so she challenged it and it took up the court’s time instead. If you extend the notice period to four months, that challenge would potentially never happen, the court never has to see Jasmine, she finds a new place and is comfortable and able to move out in good time. She is happy, and potentially the landlord is happy too.

On the cost of no-fault evictions for renters, we estimate that the average cost to a renter of an unwanted move is £1,700. For a renter to be able to save, it is really important that they are able to find some way in which, when the move is through no fault of their own, they can make those savings quicker in order to be out of the home. We think the best way to do that—rather than, for example, thinking about repayments from the landlord—is just to say that the final two months of renting will have no rent cost attached. The tenant then has time in that space to save in order to find a deposit and the first month’s rent, for example, and they are able to move out with the savings they have made because of the two months’ lack of rent.

It potentially means two months out of pocket for the landlord who has chosen to do a no-fault eviction, but if it is a no-fault eviction for a sale, they are potentially getting a big windfall through that anyway. The two months out of pocket can be balanced against the fact that otherwise it would be two months in which the tenant is likely to find themselves as one of the record number of homeless people we have at the moment. It is an important balance to strike, and that is one of the ways in which you could do it.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Q Does the amendment to ground 14, the ground for possession for antisocial behaviour, strike the right balance? Or is this potentially another backroom approach to no-fault evictions?

Ben Twomey: Thank you, shadow Minister. On the point about being “capable of causing” a nuisance, the previous language in the Housing Act 1988 was “likely to cause” a nuisance. It would be difficult for me to prove that you are “likely to cause” a nuisance, but it would be a lot easier to say you are “capable of causing” a nuisance—as it would be for me, you or anybody else here. I think that change in language is potentially dangerous, particularly when you think about antisocial behaviour being relatively difficult to define.

I know that others in these sessions have expressed serious concerns about domestic abuse victims, how domestic abuse could be mischaracterised as antisocial behaviour, and how that may be a reason for eviction. Obviously I do not need to emphasise how difficult that would be—having the punishment of homelessness potentially layered on to a domestic abuse situation, where that is happening. It is important that we differentiate between criminal justice matters and housing matters.

However, the need to deal with antisocial behaviour, when it causes a real a nightmare for neighbours and other tenants, is important, but the local authority has a duty to prevent homelessness as well. They enact that duty with two months’ lead-in time. You cannot do that if the ground says that a tenant could be out of their home in two weeks. Within those two weeks, the possession proceedings can begin immediately as well. The approach does seem reckless. Are we just talking about moving a problem, which is currently in a home, on to the streets rather than addressing the fundamental issues? Is it going to catch within it some serious victims of domestic violence?

Sue James: I would agree with all of that, but I add that I have dealt with many antisocial behaviour cases in my time as a solicitor and they are complicated. They are not quite so straightforward, and there is often a mental health issue or a vulnerability at the heart of them. I think we absolutely need to keep the original language rather than change it. And I agree with Ben on the importance of the domestic abuse issues; there are going to be women facing eviction and having to experience that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q Would you say that the reforms we are making give renters more confidence when looking to take out a new tenancy?

Francesca Albanese: I think they certainly help. If we are looking at longer-term tenancies, I suppose it is about having more emphasis on longer-term tenancies being used more regularly. Going back quite a lot of years of working in this space, I know that there are ways you can do that now, but it is not the norm. Most tenancies that are given are six or 12 months with a rolling period or a fixed term.

I would also go back to the points made at the beginning: this is helpful, but there are other areas that we are concerned about, such as ensuring that people getting served notice on the kind of grounds that were under section 21 and which will now go over to section 8 are protected sufficiently. Even though longer-term tenancies can give tenants more protection, from the perspective of Crisis, which works with people at the lower end of the private rented sector market, where there is often a higher turnover of tenancies, we would want to make sure that those protections are still in place so that we do not end up pushing more people into homelessness as an unintended consequence.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q The Government said in the King’s Speech that they wanted to bring forward amendments to prevent what is often called “No DSS” discrimination—“no benefits” discrimination. First, what are your thoughts on how that could be done effectively? Secondly, many people scrabble around to find a rent that is within local housing allowance, only to find that it goes above local housing allowance within a year. Should that be taken into account in the rent tribunal process to ensure that rents that were within local housing allowance remain within local housing allowance, so that people are not economically evicted?

Francesca Albanese: I might make a broader point first and then come back to that. At the moment, as you will all be aware, the local housing allowance does not meet rents. It has not done so for a long time, and it has been frozen since 2019. That decoupling of rents from local housing allowance levels is causing huge problems. We did some research six months ago—I would say the situation has probably got worse since then—that shows that only 4% of the market in England is affordable to people on local housing allowance. In some areas of the country, that drops to 1%, so it is a massive issue. That needs to happen now, and it is something that the Government can do now. They can give broader access to the private rental market. There is obviously a longer-term issue: we need more social housing. Where private rental sits within the broader housing market is really important.

On the point about discrimination, we do not want tenants to be discriminated against because they are in receipt of welfare benefits. Anything that prevents that is welcomed. The problem at the moment is that quite a lot of tenants are not getting anywhere near properties within the private rented sector. We are seeing record levels of people trapped in temporary accommodation and local authorities are very stretched. The point about the private rented sector is that quite a lot of people are not even getting access to it, let alone being discriminated against because of being on welfare benefits.

On the more specific point about tribunals, that is not my area of expertise, so I do not want to comment on something where I would be giving an opinion rather than factual evidence.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I would like to thank our witness for her evidence. We will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witness

Ian Fletcher gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

Very.

Ian Fletcher: You could end up in a situation where somebody has taken a two-month tenancy and is just using that as an opportunity to earn some money for themselves by renting it out at weekends for hen parties or things of that nature; it is almost sort of hotel accommodation in some respects. That is the concern of the sector—that you end up with a lot of churn in that respect.

I think there is also another concern. We have heard, quite rightly, from Ben and other evidence givers about the costs of moving from the tenant’s perspective. There are also significant costs from a landlord’s perspective where you are setting up a tenancy and then that is churned very quickly.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q In some of the evidence to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, Grainger, a buy-to-let house builder, suggested that the triple-lock approach should be applied, whereby landlords are restricted so that they cannot raise rents by more than the lower of consumer price inflation or CPI, wage inflation or 5%. That was Grainger’s official position at the time.

I wonder whether you would support an idea that there should be some sort of matrix that prevents landlords from increasing rents above a certain level—that was nationally known, as it were, and that could be published by the Secretary of State, so that everyone had some security about what that ceiling is.

Ian Fletcher: Those remarks are specific to a particular context.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q What is the context?

Ian Fletcher: The context is that at the moment the way rents are often set in the build-to-rent sector is to give the tenants some certainty. They will typically be index-linked. The Bill abolishes the use of rent review clauses, so you are not allowed to do that in terms of setting a rent beyond a year. We think that is a pity. Often, tenants appreciate the certainty of knowing whether their income will meet the rental payments going forward. I would not want somebody to be tied into those sorts of rent review clauses forever and ever, because economic circumstances change significantly, but for a short period of time that should be acceptable.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Would you be against the idea of a nationally set ceiling?

Ian Fletcher: I would be. I think that that is starting to look like rent controls, and that then comes with some of the adverse consequences of rent controls in terms of the quality of the stock. You tend to find with rent controls that the sector shrinks down and does not attract—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So are you opposed to the Government’s proposed ceiling on market rents?

Ian Fletcher: That is the market. I am supportive of the market.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q The British Property Federation has said:

“The abolition of no-fault evictions needs to happen in tandem with…court reform.”

What indicator explicitly do you think should be hit for court reform to be sufficiently achieved?

Ian Fletcher: I obviously saw the debate on Second Reading. I thought that the tests that the Secretary of State set out were relatively good ones. The thing that we have been particularly keen to see is the digitisation of the courts. That project has not advanced as quickly as I would have liked, but it will make a huge difference to the experiences of both tenants and landlords going to court.

A lot of the complaints that we hear about the courts are to do with communication and knowing where your case is in the system and how it is progressing, and digitisation will improve that significantly. I would like to see times coming down—obviously, it is at a 22-week median at the moment. I would like to see that come down to about 16 weeks.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Twenty-two weeks is for what, sorry?

Ian Fletcher: Twenty-two weeks is the median time that a case takes to go from claim to possession at the moment.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q We have heard that within that period the court’s part is actually relatively strict; the bailiff’s part is the particular problem. Are you saying that it is the bailiff’s part that needs reform?

Ian Fletcher: I think one of the Secretary of State’s other tests was that bailiff recruitment would improve. The other thing I would say is that the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee recommended that there should be some sort of key performance indicators and regular measurement of them, which would give us the confidence that the courts are delivering what they should be delivering: speedy and efficient access to justice.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I would like to thank the witness for his evidence. We will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witness

Kate Henderson gave evidence.

--- 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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q That would be much appreciated, so that we can get the right balance.

On ground 6, you said that you would quite like the ability for redevelopment. We know that there have been some very controversial repossessions over a state redevelopment that local authorities and housing associations have been part of. Tenants have often liked the security of knowing that they cannot just be given a few months’ notice, that they have to go through a process, and that they have the ability in the end to say, “No, this is my home.” Would giving that ability strike a balance that is not in favour of the tenant?

Kate Henderson: The context in which we are asking for access to ground 6 is when regeneration is already taking place. It is a scenario where you have a development where people have been moved out while works are taking place. That might be for building safety reasons, for energy efficiency reasons or for decency reasons. At the moment, if that accommodation is being rebuilt and the tenant has been moved into temporary decant accommodation, we would always try to do that by consent with the residents.

In that decant accommodation, we typically use assured shorthold tenancies. Obviously that will go with the abolition of section 21, which we support. This is the place for the grounds to be extended to where residents are in the decant accommodation. Those residents would be moving back into the newly built accommodation that would have been allocated to them, but we need to make sure we can have that constant flow between use of the decant accommodation and getting people back into their permanent settled accommodation.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

So that is where an assured tenancy is being offered.

Kate Henderson: Sometimes it is done on licence. If the building that is being redeveloped is not being fully demolished, and people are going back in, you would move into the decant accommodation on licence. But in a situation with major regeneration—we hope to see more of that; it is great that the affordable homes programme has now opened up to that—typically with the decant accommodation the tenant would have an assured shorthold tenancy. That will not now be an option, so we want a situation where there are grounds for the decant accommodation for those people. It would be a very rare set of circumstances where somebody wanted to stay in the decant accommodation and not move back, but it has happened. We want to make sure that we are able to continue with the pace of regeneration. This could be a prior notice ground to give a safeguard to the tenants. Again, it is just about having access so we can make sure that regeneration can happen in a timely way.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Is there anything else that should be in the Bill, or anything that concerns you about the Bill?

Kate Henderson: This is very technical, but one of the areas—in addition to rent increases; thank you for the opportunity to discuss those—relates to grounds 2ZA and 2ZB, which are two mandatory grounds for possession where a superior lease ends. This will generally be for situations in which a section 21 would previously have been used.

Let me give an example of why this is an issue. It tends to be an issue in supported housing, where you have a superior landlord who has let on a short-term lease to a housing association for, say, five years. That housing association is the intermediate landlord, and it would typically provide supported housing and sometimes very high-level support to vulnerable residents, who would be the occupational tenant.

In some situations, either the superior or the intermediate landlord will allow the lease to lapse, and then you would go into a scenario of tenancy at will; and in that situation, we do not want a situation where the superior landlord is responsible for the occupational tenant, given the high levels of support needs. It is unclear whether these grounds would then be available for use if there is a tenancy at will. Again, in most situations you would have given notice—the intermediate landlord would have given vacant possession to the superior landlord—but in the case where that has lapsed, we need to ensure that these grounds can work. The second issue is around maintaining possession of the property until proceedings have concluded.

It is a fairly technical area, but it matters to those who are providing supported housing and using leases. I would be happy to provide a further note to the Committee when I submit our written evidence. I appreciate that this is a rather technical matter, but it is important in terms of high-level support.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Can I ask about the proposed property portal? Of course, some of the enforcement must be through local authorities, as you have just been talking about, but earlier we heard about the idea that, by using the property portal, tenants themselves could seek enforcement. The proposal was that, if a landlord has not met certain standards required for registration on the property portal, there would be rent repayment orders, so that the person who has been harmed is the person who benefits. What is your view, first, on the use of a property portal as a repository of all the information and, secondly, on the ability for tenants to take action rather than having to wait for the local authority?

Dr Dawson: I think we could probably do with the portal as an information repository. That is very welcome. Research shows that a lot of landlords tend to deal with the need for information on a reactive basis, when a situation presents itself. As most of them are not members of recognised landlord bodies, they are using things such as internet portals, chatrooms and blogs to get information on what is required of them. Through local authority licensing, local authorities are getting much better penetration and being brought closer to landlords, and that allows them to provide advice, but landlords in general will tend to use online resources to get information. We would like them to use a single portal that we have quality control over.

The same goes for tenants. At the moment, one of the main reasons for tenants’ not complaining is ignorance of their rights; I am sure that Generation Rent will have raised that in its submissions. If we can point to a single, consistent source of information, that will help the sector to regulate itself. Given that so many landlords are small scale—85% of properties in the sector are owned by landlords with portfolios of one to four properties —providing the opportunity for more self-regulation in the sector would be a big help. Local authorities have limited budgets, and because the regulations are so complex and there is such a range of operators—there is a sort of sliding scale from the good to the poor—a more interventionist approach is required. Using rent repayment orders incentivises tenants to keep an eye on landlords.

Things like the three-month period in which you are unable to re-let a property after you have used grounds 1 and 1A will be exceptionally difficult for a local authority to follow up on. We just do not have the resources to react in that sort of time and proactively go out and visit these properties. Six months to a year would be much more sensible.

On incentivising tenants to take action separately from the local authority, the only thing we would say is that we should be able to give them advice. Under the original rent repayment order clauses, we were prevented from giving advice to tenants on cases. If we are taking action, they will often come to the local authority and ask for information. We have not looked at that as an option. We would certainly be open-minded to it, and we would support anything that helps the sector to regulate itself.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q You suggested two things there. The first was that the period that applies to grounds 1 and 1A should be more than three months—perhaps six months to a year—to enable your enforcement.

Dr Dawson: Yes.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The second was that there needs to be some sort of amendment to allow you to give advice to and support tenants through the rent repayment order process.

Dr Dawson: At the moment, there is nothing that specifically prohibits that in the Bill, and the original legislation has been updated to permit us to provide advice. We are just keen that, in the regulations that will be used to implement many of the changes introduced by the Bill, we do not see anything that interferes with our ability to do that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That needs an agreement between you, the portal and the housing ombudsperson.

Dr Dawson: Yes.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Julie Rugg and Professor Ken Gibb gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Should those two grounds be discretionary or mandatory, bearing in mind that often, through dialogue and discussion, a different outcome could be sought?

Dr Rugg: The issue of what rent arrears mean is really quite complicated. Tenants can get quite confused about exactly what their rent arrears mean—whether it is because their housing benefit has not been paid or their shortfall has not been paid. Sitting within that, I think we need to be a little clearer about what rent arrears mean in a housing benefit context, so that that is clear for the landlord and the tenant.

Professor Gibb: This reminds us that the legislation that is being talked about today has to be understood alongside another critical part of the private rented sector, which is the local housing allowance. In a sense, there is something odd about making these changes and treating the LHA levels that it operates at as a constant or a given. In a sense, we are almost trying to fit in bits of legislation and policy on the basis of something that is clearly quite problematic for a lot of people, because the levels are so low.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Would the proposed single private sector ombudsman provide sufficient and efficient redress for renters?

Dr Rugg: It is good that renters will have the option of going somewhere to get neutral advice. The best advice that you can give to the sector is advice that supports tenancies—that does not support the landlord or the tenant, but seeks to support sustainable tenancies. At the moment, that advice is just not available, coming into the market; you can either, as a landlord, ask for landlord-based advice, or you can go to one of the lobby groups and ask for that kind of advice. Getting some advice that sits in the middle, where everybody can trust that the advice is neutral and accurate, is very important.

Professor Gibb: I completely agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Just the one route?

Professor Hodges: I would have one for the entire property and housing sector, and this is not the first time that I have said that. My ombudsman and judge colleagues know that, and quite a lot of them would not disagree. Fiona mentioned that we have a number at the moment. It must not proliferate. I am fairly confident that, if the Government just send the right signals, they might not have to legislate and that we can get adhesion on the ADR and the ombudsman side—people joining up spontaneously, if they are encouraged and pushed—so that you actually get there.

What we are doing here is filling a gap in private rented. We have already got the property ombudsman, which largely cover agents, and the private rented redress scheme. Then you have got have got social housing—let us converge. If you converge courts and tribunals as well, that is a major step forward for all the players, and certainly tenants and landlords. You will deliver things more quickly, basically, and everyone will know where to go.

As I said, look at every other sector. In financial services, you have the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service; in energy, you have Ofgem and the energy ombudsman; and so on. It is not 100%, but it is well over 95%. In social housing, you have got a regulator. We have not got one in private property. We could have one, which would be a regulatory space involving these elements in a new and very effective way, within which you would not have, if you like, an old-fashioned regulator. Rather, you would have a system regulator, but all the people would work together in the system on supporting good practice, because codes already exist for that. The decent homes standards is just a code. It should apply, obviously, and then everyone would work towards that, whether it is local authorities, or the system regulator, the various ombudsmen, or the various self-regulatory bodies that exist—everyone knows where they are.

I am involved in several discussions like this, in totally different regulated sectors. If you say to people in your sector, “We’re all going to work together, and this is how we’re going to do it,” and if you have responsibilities to everyone—if you are no longer just a self-regulatory body on your own, but you are an ecosystem, and it has to work—then that works incredibly well, if everyone realises that is the game that has to be played.

Fiona Rutherford: I agree with a lot of what Professor Hodges said, but I am not sure that everybody does know where to go.

Professor Hodges: No, they don’t.

Fiona Rutherford: To answer your question about where there may be good examples, the health justice partnerships, which we have seen work together, are good examples to look at. They do not rely on a tenant or a landlord to know what they cannot know or do not know, and that is what is missing. The health justice partnerships are where we have seen lawyers, or support workers or sometimes NGOs, sit in doctors’ surgeries, so that when a GP sees a patient who is suffering from mental health issues, or various other physical illnesses, and they have it diagnosed that it is probably related to something outside of a medical solution, then there is somebody in the building who that person can go to—if not immediately, then an appointment can be booked. That stops us relying on what are sometimes very vulnerable people, or people who are at vulnerable points in their lives, to seek out support services and help themselves.

Professor Hodges: Just to add one sentence, which was implicit in what I said at the start: in the regulated sectors where you have an ombudsman, such as financial services or energy, no one goes to lawyers or courts—they disappear. People have voted with their feet, because the procedure is faster and more user-friendly, it is free, and it delivers a broader range of behavioural outcomes on the part of the energy companies, or whoever it is, and does not just ask, “Are they breaking the law?” If you feed that in to the ombudsman, you might get a decision, but you will also get the point referred up to Ofgem, or whichever regulator it is, so that it can do something systemically about it, if necessary. It is an ecosystem, but everyone knows where to go. I am afraid that lawyers and courts are toast.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q The amount that the ombudsperson can award is currently capped. Should the cap should exist, and if so, should it be fixed at £25,000, or should it be linked to another, more sensible amount, bearing in mind that that is a year’s rent on some properties?

Fiona Rutherford: I would like to make a separate comment about the fine in the enforcement process within the Bill, but that is not your question, so perhaps Professor Hodges might start.

Professor Hodges: The amount of money that either a judge or an ombudsman should award must be relevant to the dispute, because you cannot have people not being compensated. Therefore, there should be a mechanism for the amount to be amendable over time. Personally, I would not waste your time with that—coming back again and again to put it up. I would put a mechanism in the Bill, so that someone can set it, whether that is a Minister or whoever. You cannot have people not bringing forward claims because they will not get fully compensated, or bringing forward claims that are not fully compensated when they should be.

That takes you over, however, into penalties or sanctions for behaviour. That is a complicated issue, but the point is that usually we have a national regulator, and here we have a lot of local authorities, and they need the right powers as well, but quite often the right powers are not fines. I am afraid that there is rather a lot of psychological and other evidence that deterrence does not work—which is a shock, the first time that you hear it. Therefore, other, quite significant penalties—such as talking to people, explaining, informing and giving supporting about how things ought to be different, or, in the extreme, removing the licence to operate and saying, “You cannot let this property”—are the ones that work. A broader toolbox of responses and interventions—I am not using the word “enforcement” here—is what actually delivers good outcomes.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So are you saying that for local authority enforcement, it should be easier for them to effectively de-list or bar someone on the property portal from re-renting that property?

Professor Hodges: That would concentrate minds.

Fiona Rutherford: And even before enforcement, there is something about transparency. There is something about everybody going into a tenancy—going back to that focus on tenancy—knowing a fair amount of history on both sides.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So the property portal should be accessible for you to see that detail of it—potentially in public generally, or for the potential tenant?

Fiona Rutherford: Importantly for the tenant. It is there that transparency matters the most. I think that there are possibly bigger issues with making it fully public.

Professor Hodges: One of the points about the portal is that it is a very effective self-regulatory—or indeed managerial—system, because it says, “Have you got an insurance certificate? Have you got a fire certificate? Well, upload it.” It is done, and then you get a reminder saying, “You’ve got to do the next one.” Everyone should be able to see that. There is nothing secret about that information, but it delivers a baseline of regulatory compliance—“Are you compliant with the decent homes standard? Where’s your certificate?” or whatever. It is self-policing, and provides a very simple mechanism for doing that.

Just to give one dramatic example of sanctions, the Civil Aviation Authority never fines airlines in relation to safety issues—although it fines them now and again. It has an incredibly good culture among all the players—air traffic control, the airlines, engineers, and so on—and has constructed that deliberately, and it is the only reason why planes stay in the sky and we have confidence in them. It never fines anyone, but it uses the ultimate sanction—rarely—that I was talking about of saying, “I’m going to stop you operating your aircraft or your airport.” That concentrates the mind and gets the result of them saying, “Okay, we’ve fixed it,” very quickly.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Q Elaborating on that point, would you do that based on a landlord or based on the property itself? Would there not be a danger of evasion through the property group being put in someone else’s name, or using a different landlord, to escape that enforcement?

Professor Hodges: Personally, I am in favour of the broadest possible enforcement powers, but not necessarily their regular use. Therefore, whoever is involved in management and responsibility should be within scope of the discussion, and then of the potential response or intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q Thank you, James; it is great credit to you for sticking through a lot of this. I thank the other witnesses who stayed and listened to some of the other responses. Obviously, a lot of these changes aim to professionalise the sector. I am keen to understand from your perspective what you see as the opportunities presented by the portal and how they can support landlords to better understand their responsibilities.

James Prestwich: Again, as other witnesses have said, there is an awful lot to like about the landlord portal. We have talked quite a lot about the benefits that the portal will have for tenants, but it is right that there are significant advantages for landlords as well. This point might not have been made yet, but the overwhelming majority of landlords, regardless of the number of homes they own, are thoroughly decent people doing a decent job. We know there are examples of poor quality and poor practice, as there are in all professions, but any tool that enables landlords to get a better understanding of the responsibilities expected of them is to be welcomed. The point about how we get the portal to work both ways is really important. There is something about the sort of information that local authorities will be able to access from the portal, although they do not at the moment. That should enable local authorities, providing they have got the capacity and resources, to be able to take a harder line when people fall below the standards that we all want to expect from landlords.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q You said that the two-month period seemed quite short, and four months might be preferable. We heard earlier about the cost of moving, as well as the difficulty. Where there are no-fault grounds, is there an argument that there should be some payment to the tenant? Alternatively, as Generation Rent suggested, once the no-fault eviction has been ordered, should no rent effectively be paid for those two months so that a tenant can leave at any time or can use that time to save up?

James Prestwich: There is a lot that Ben Twomey said that you could agree with. I think the challenge here is about how we try to find that balance. We know that a lot of people in the private rented sector are accidental landlords. Previously, I was an accidental landlord and an accidental tenant, and neither of those things was particularly pleasant, so I have a little experience of that. There is a real challenge around all of that that we have not quite bottomed out yet.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That sounds a little inconclusive.

James Prestwich: Yes, it is.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

You are saying you think work needs to be done but you are not quite sure of the solution yet.

James Prestwich: Yes, that is probably the case.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank all the witnesses for the time and expertise that they have given with their evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Gagan Mohindra.)

Renters (Reform) Bill (Third sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. I am afraid that we cannot allow tea and coffee during sittings.

We are meeting today to continue hearing oral evidence relating to the Renters (Reform) Bill. Before we hear from today’s witnesses, does any Member wish to make any declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?

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

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

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q On Tuesday, we discussed the antisocial behaviour grounds. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Helen Gordon: Absolutely. We have real live examples that I am happy to share with the Committee. We do differ. A minimum build to rent is usually at least 50 homes. The majority of Grainger’s properties are around 250 in a cluster. If you get antisocial behaviour, that can have a very detrimental effect on the whole of the community—we build communities.

Evidencing antisocial behaviour often requires you to get neighbours to make complaints and witness statements, at times when they have been personally intimidated. I have a very live example where we literally had to empty the six properties adjacent to the property causing a problem, and it took something like 15 months to get the ground for possession through the courts.

So we would really welcome lowering the bar on antisocial behaviour. I would particularly like it to reference sub-letting and party flats. There is quite an industry, which, fortunately, Grainger does protect itself from, where people take a property and then sub-let it as a party flat at weekends, causing disruption to the whole block.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q I have two quick questions. First, the Government are proposing a registration scheme for party flats and Airbnbs, and they are consulting on it at the moment. I understand your concerns, but how does the registration scheme fail to address them? Secondly, I am aware that Grainger has talked in the past about how it uses the consumer prices index and wage inflation to increase its rents, particularly for the build-to-rent market. Could you expand on whether it is still Grainger’s view that it is possible to use some sort of maximum capping clause on rent?

Helen Gordon: Can I take your first question first? There is a difference in terms of what we would generally say is a party flat. Grainger forbids these things in its lease, and the prospect of anybody who is already in contravention of the lease—probably not paying rent and making a profit rent out of the party flat—going through a registration scheme is pretty unlikely. I am talking about illegal sub-letting as far as the lease is concerned, and illegal party flats.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

And breaches of the lease are grounds for—

Helen Gordon: Exactly. With the one we put in the representation on the Bill, it took us almost £200,000 and well over a year where we inadvertently let to someone who had a party flat.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

So you want it to be more explicit—

Helen Gordon: Explicit on the grounds of possession.

Thank you for also referring to the CPI. For family homes, Grainger offers at least a minimum term of five years, if people want a five-year term. To give people certainty, we have offered CPI uplifts. Obviously, CPI has been quite high until recently, and in our submission originally we said there could be an equivalent of a triple lock, so it could be CPI or another index—wage inflation is a good one because it is linked to people’s ability to pay. That is actually how Grainger currently views how our rents progress in terms of affordability—it is very much linked to wage inflation. Those are just some ideas that we had at the time. To be clear, that is in-lease; it is not forever and a day.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I think we are all talking about in-lease.

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

Q I just want to go back to your point about these party flats. What the Government are consulting on now, which Lloyd referred to, should address that, and also the other consultation on the current 90 days in London. Can you explain what you meant about what Westminster City Council is doing? It has always done the 90 days since the Deregulation Act 2015. That is not just Westminster City Council; it is the whole of London.

Helen Gordon: Yes, you are right; it is across London—some people do not. Westminster is particularly good at it, because of tourism. People come to London for the summer and purport to take a six-month property, and the reality is that they could give notice on day one that they are leaving in two months—it is a cheap form of Airbnb. So this is really to try to put down roots for longer-term communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q Thank you very much for giving up your time. I understand what you have already said, but what are your views on applying the decent homes standard to the private sector? We could pass this Bill tomorrow, and a tenant would not necessarily know how their rights had changed. Do you agree that the simple act of abolishing section 21 is likely to give tenants more confidence when applying for tenancies?

Jacky Peacock: I think it will in a number of cases, yes, but neither section 21 nor the Bill as a whole will make a dramatic difference to the landlord-tenant balance or relationship. I know the most robust, feisty tenants, but the idea of going to court and defending themselves is terrifying. In the vast majority of cases, if a landlord tells a tenant to go, they will go; they are not going to question whether they have a right to remain or what process has been followed—they will go. We still refer to the land “lord”—a direct descendant from a feudal stage—and we have not changed that relationship very much. We need to protect tenants by making sure that, without the tenant’s having to exercise the rights, even if they have them, the property is safe and competently managed.

[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.

[The Chair]

Thank you for your evidence and time, Ms Peacock.

Examination of Witness

Jen Berezai gave evidence.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Thank you to our panel of witnesses. We have spoken a few times about ground 8A. What would you say to someone who said that it is unfair for landlords to suffer multiple breaches of rent arrears? And on a completely separate thing from ground 8A, we are introducing a new ombudsman to the private rented sector. How do you think that ombudsman can work? Would you say that it can help to reduce the pressure on the court system?

Liz Davies: I will start with the point about multiple breaches of rent arrears. I think that the answer to that is to trust the wisdom of the courts. The courts have the mandatory ground at the moment under ground 8—again, the concern is gaming and you have heard Simon’s answer on that—and they have discretionary grounds for possession under grounds 10 and 11. A well-advised landlord who wants to ensure that they can get a possession order from the type of tenant you have just described will ensure that they plead all the rent arrears grounds available to them, including ground 8A, if you put that through.

When you get to the court hearing, courts are perfectly capable of identifying somebody who has got into arrears in the past but has made them up or is in a position to pay current rent and to pay off the arrears within a reasonable period. Courts deal with people in financial hardship day in, day out; they are very good at scrutinising budgets and knowing whether or not an offer to pay is realistic. They are equally good at looking at a rent arrears history, no doubt prodded by the landlord, and saying, “Hang on a minute. You’ve just told us when your payslips were and you were not paying rent at that time. You really have been abusing the system.” And they will make an outright possession order.

Case law on suspended possession orders on the basis of rent arrears requires that a suspended possession order, as an alternative to an outright order, can be made only where the court is satisfied, first, that the current rent will be met in the future, and secondly, that if there are arrears at the date of hearing, those arrears will be paid off over a reasonable period. There is some case law, depending on a landlord’s circumstances, about what a reasonable period is. Courts are very sympathetic to the point that private landlords in particular need that money paid back to them, so they are not going to approve an unrealistic repayment offer. I think that all the appropriate safeguards are there in the courts now. Of course, they are not currently used by private landlords because of section 21, which means that they do not need to. I think that those safeguards are there against the scenario that you have just suggested.

On the ombudsman, I will leave Simon and Giles to develop that point. All I would say is that an ombudsman is a very good thing. Access to justice through the courts is also a good thing. It would be wrong if some of the matters that courts deal with on behalf of tenants are then solely dealt with by the ombudsman. You have to have two opportunities.

Giles Peaker: Briefly on the ombudsman, in principle it is a very good thing, but it generally tends to depend on the ombudsman. It really is a question of somebody actually being able and willing to take a serious and proactive approach. I think that there has been quite a market change in the social housing ombudsman over the last five or six years, and performances have really turned around. An ombudsman is not necessarily an answer in and of itself, but it can be a very good thing and, in the right hands, it can be extremely useful.

Simon Mullings: We heard Mr Blakeway’s land grab earlier in the week—he fancies a crack at it. As Giles said, Mr Blakeway has done extremely well in the social housing sector, and, as Liz said, the ombudsman will do well in the jobs that it can do. It is not fair for landlords to face that situation, but it is also not fair for landlords to face a ground for possession that, whether they use it or not, will incentivise tenants to stop paying rent. I really believe that that is what 8A will do in certain circumstances.

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

Q Currently, the tribunal on rents is to make a determination of whether the rent could be reasonably expected to be made in the open market, and it therefore looks at new rents and not necessarily existing rents and other factors. There are some things that are disregarded and some things that the courts must have regard for. Is that enough, or should the courts have a stronger regard for other factors, in terms of a reasonable rent?

Liz Davies: Entering into a new tenancy at market rent is one thing, but there is a real worry about rent increases to market rent. Although it initially plausible sounds—why should rent not go up to the same level as elsewhere, if it was a new tenancy?—the problem is that you may then end up with an unaffordable rent for the tenant, who had entered into the tenancy on the slightly slower rent, and they then leave voluntarily, but as a result of economic pressure; and when I say voluntarily, I do not mean entirely voluntarily, but it is not due to a notice served or a court order. The Renters’ Reform Coalition is certainly suggesting that the tribunal’s power should be limited to inflation or local median wages to increase rents, along, of course, with the prohibition on increasing them more than the landlord has proposed. I think that must be right. I understand that landlords are conducting a business, but they have let the tenancy initially at rent x; it is not that unfair for both landlord and tenant to have certainty that rent x will increase only by inflation or median wages, rather than out there in the open market.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Simon or Giles, do you have anything to add?

Giles Peaker: I do not have much to add, but I am not sure whether we have detailed information about what in-tenancy rent increases look like, as opposed to new tenancies, and what the comparator would be. Are in-tenancy raises usually reaching new tenancy market rents, or do they consistently remain at a lower level across the lifetime of a tenancy? I do not think we have that information.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q I suspect that the property portal will suddenly tell us that information, if it is collected. I also wanted to ask about deposits. At the moment, deposits are held in a deposit protection scheme. The deliberation as to whether or not it has been fairly withheld is done privately, and the only recourse is to appeal in the courts, which is quite a high burden. Is there a better way that some of those deposits could be handled? Could they be covered by the ombudsperson, or should there be a process whereby deposit disputes at least have to published? We do not even know the outcomes of deposit disputes at the moment.

Liz Davies: Three lawyers silent! I throw the question of how back to you, but I think there is something quite important about publishing the principles under which various disputes are determined, and therefore the exact cases. You may or may not provide the names and addresses, although, with the property portal, we would say you should do; it would be the sort of thing one would want to know about a landlord.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So deposit complaints should be included in the property portal?

Liz Davies: I am thinking about it; I had not thought about it before, and it is a good point. However, on the process of determining a dispute between a landlord and tenant about whether or not the tenant has been in breach, whether the deposit can be returned and whether in whole or in part—there is something to be said for that to be published, whether that is by the current providers or within the property portal. The property portal would allow future tenants to know whether they might have difficulties getting their deposit back.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q That is what the Bill is trying to do. It is trying to prevent bad landlords, but bad tenants as well. One thing we are planning to introduce is a decent homes standard in the private rented sector. Is that something that you would welcome?

Ben Leonard: Absolutely. It needs to be robust, free of loopholes and properly enforced. There are two key ways to do that. The first is properly funding local authorities. It would be no use granting the powers to local authorities to enforce a decent homes standard—we all know the state of local authorities and their finances at the moment—if they do not have the resources or a duty to enforce. It just will not happen, with the best will in the world.

The other thing, which has been discussed already, is incentivising tenants to do it: creating an army of enforcers who are properly incentivised to report landlords who are not up to scratch. The property portal can play a big role here. More transparent information inherently gives renters more power to put pressure on and see when their landlord is lying to the authorities. If a landlord says, “We have met these standards” on the property portal, a tenant can look at it and go, “Well, that’s not true, and I can point to all the problems that exist,” and then there is an incentive for them to pursue it. I speak as someone who has pursued a rent repayment order in the past. I won 80% of my rent back, but it was a long, gruelling and difficult process, with no access to legal aid. The financial incentive was quite strong, but there were times when I felt like giving up. There are many ways to solve that problem, but making the process straightforward for tenants and properly incentivising and supporting them in it, alongside local authority enforcement, are important.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q I have a few points, if I may. You mentioned that the property portal needs to be available to tenants, but their access to it is not explicit in the Bill. Is it your view that it should be available to tenants or to the wider public?

Ben Leonard: Ideally, it should be publicly available information. You should not have to move into a property to discover that there are issues with it or that there are issues with the landlord; you should be able to check up a property on the portal before you move in. You should be able to see what it has been rented at in the past and compare that to the rent today. Has the landlord just done a massive rent increase, with no real improvement to the property? Do they have a history of improvement notices from the council? I would like to see that on there as well. In fact, any disciplinary action against the landlord should be available there. Nobody, whether they are a family, an elderly person or a student, should have to move into somewhere to find that they have a rogue landlord and a house that is falling to pieces.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q The power of public pressure and the market might be more than the courts’ in that case. You have raised some of the fears about loopholes in grounds 1 and 1A. What protections could be put into 1 and 1A to make them work? Should there be a payment or other form of redress to the tenant if they are being evicted for no cause whatsoever?

Ben Leonard: To prevent abuse in the first place, there should be a high bar of evidence so that landlords have to really prove they intend to move into or sell the property in order to evict their tenants, and significant penalties for abusing that as well. We are talking about significant disruption to people’s lives that can have serious, knock-on consequences as well.

I do not want to go on too much of a tangent, but the consequences for children’s entire lives of having to move school frequently are profound; there is a lot of research that shows reduced economic, education and health outcomes for frequent school movers. Landlords need really seriously to prove that they intend to do it, and there should be significant penalties if they abuse the possession grounds, including fines and, for repeat offenders, complete bans. There should also be a no re-let period of 12 months: if a landlord decides that they need to move a family member in, then they do not need to any more, they cannot let the property for 12 months. There needs to be a serious deterrent to abusing those grounds. What was the second part of the question?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q The second part was about whether there should be some sort of recompense for tenants who are moving out, even if it is legitimate that they are moving out, through no fault of their own.

Ben Leonard: Definitely. That could take a lot of forms. It could be a simple payment, like a rent repayment, to help with that transition, or it could be that, from the moment the notice is issued, it is illegitimate to collect rent on that property and no further rent needs to be paid. That would go some way to, first, put off rogue landlords from abusing the power and, secondly, make the circumstances of the tenant’s life more liveable. Moving house is a massive hassle, especially if you have dependants, so if that is being foisted on you by an outside force, there is no reason why that outside force should not support you in some way.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Q Thank you, Ms Field, for coming to give evidence to us. I have two related questions, which are quite broad, to get us into the issue. Do you think the Bill as it stands takes sufficient account of the particular needs of every aspect of the student market, which is not uniform? There are different people starting courses at different dates and people renting different types of houses. Do you think it takes account of that? Then, specifically on the Government amendment that was tabled on Tuesday for a new mandatory ground for possession for student houses in multiple occupation, do you have any concerns about that? How workable do you think that is?

Chloe Field: I do not think it takes sufficient account of the student rental market. People forget how unique and diverse students are and the student rental market is. As you just mentioned, students do not always do their courses in the typical September to June time. We have postgraduate researchers who study and work throughout the year. We also have mature students and students who have families and who will live in properties with non-students. There are things there that need to be taken into account regarding students in the Bill.

We also have the fact that the student rental market is very precarious. Renting in that market is rushed; you are expected to sign a contract about nine months before you move. That means that students end up having to pay really high prices because there is such a rush and people just accept the first house they find. It also means you cannot do sufficient research into the house you are about to sign the contract for. For example, is there mould? Is the quality of the house any good? Those are the unique factors of the student rental market.

In terms of the student exemption, our position has always been that it is incredibly dangerous. It sets a precedent that students will not be afforded the same rights as other renters and sets a further precedent for any future reforms and future exemptions for students. Like I said before, students are not a homogeneous group. They are not just 18 to 21-year-olds doing an undergraduate degree. They come in all types and different forms. It is one thing to make an exemption for purpose-built student accommodations, which is a type of accommodation, but it is another thing to create an exemption for a demographic of people who are studying. We are worried about that.

Also, the reasoning is that landlords are threatening to leave the market. As the previous witness said, landlords should not be renting in a market where they cannot accept that there are slight reforms and accountability for landlords. We consistently see exploitative landlords in the student market. I do not think we should be left threatened by those rogue landlords who cannot accept any form of regulation. Those are the main things on the student exception, but we accept that if there is that exception, it has to be carefully curated to fit the student rental market.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q The Government have tabled an amendment that would create a ground 4A, which is what you were just talking about there. Have you had time to look at that and do you think it is tightly or too broadly drafted? Are there particular things, such as requiring accommodations to be rented by the university or something, that might give that level of protection, rather than it just being that there happen to be students in that house?

Chloe Field: If I remember it correctly, it is good that the amendment specifically acknowledges term times and stuff like that, but it specifies a certain time in the year and, as I said before, not all students fit into term time. It does not sufficiently recognise that different types of students rent in different ways; they are not a homogeneous group of people. Some students live with non-students and families, and it does not fully recognise that.

An idea we have floated is if there is an exemption, it should potentially be done like a council tax exemption: HMOs with a certain percentage of students are exempt from council tax. We think that kind of specification will be really important. Without more specification about the exemption, for a lot of students, especially those living in family homes, there will be the threat of back-door evictions if they have started their studies.

Your idea about universities renting out accommodation is really good. It would provide a bit more accountability if the institution that provides the education and has a form of duty of care is responsible for the accommodation. I think that is really important, but if that is the case, we would have to take it further. Right now, prices for university-owned accommodation are going up. Universities are trying to bring in more and more students to make more money because their incomes are so precarious right now, and that is not sustainable. We would have to look at the higher education model as a whole if we were thinking of doing anything like that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q A lot of the reforms in this Bill will advantage people who are in the property for a long period of time. They will be able to enforce their in-tenancy rent controls better, and will hopefully be able to take the landlord to task if it is not a decent home. When someone is there for only a year or two years, or whatever the time period is, that is much harder. Do you think there are things that should be put in the Bill to ensure speedy enforcement in some of these areas and the ability for students to seek redress?

Chloe Field: Yes, I do. I do not know exactly how that kind of speedy enforcement will be put in place, but I definitely think it is necessary. One of the issues we often see is that students feel like they do not know how to hold their landlords to account or complain about them. Especially if they are a first-time renter, they will not have the knowledge or experience to hold their landlord to account or make sure they are complying with the current laws. There is a lack of knowledge there, and the information and the routes are not very accessible. Alongside their studies, students work part-time jobs more and more so they do not have the time to take their landlords to court. There are a lot of those issues.

The short-term nature of a lot of student rentals means that landlords bank on the fact that students often do not complain and tend to suck it up because they know they will leave in May. I had the same issue: I had a lot of mould, and the landlord was not doing anything. I thought, “Well, I’ll go home to my parents’ for a bit to prevent myself from getting ill, and I’m leaving in May, so it’s fine,” but that meant that the landlord could just paint over the mould and sell it to the next person. Accessibility and speed is vital in those cases so that students have an easy route that they can go down quickly to complain about their landlords.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I have another question, but I do not want to hog all the questioning.

[The Chair]

No, you have another two minutes.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q At the moment, the student market seems to be moving towards a place where people have to choose their accommodation up to nine months before they move into it. Some people have welcomed that, but it does not seem to work very well for students. Does moving to a situation where the properties will not become available on the open market, apart from two months before the start, actually help or hinder students in selecting their accommodation without having to have done it months in advance?

Chloe Field: There are multiple things going on. I think it could be helpful if it were nearer the end of the academic year, so that people actually know if they are going to do another year of study, and they have more established friendships and stuff like that. I think that would be useful.

Also, because the current market has been neglected and unregulated for so long, I think that this panic instilled by landlords would still happen even if it were two months before. Landlords purposely drop their housing on the same day so that people feel that they have to rush and get it. With student intake numbers getting so high right now in cities and areas that cannot actually provide accommodation, there is this rush for similar properties that drives up prices. I think that could be helpful, but there also needs to be a lot more done to control the market so that landlords are not allowed to run truant, dump their properties and increase their prices. Universities also have a responsibility to look at what housing is available for students before they increase their student intake.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So you think there should be some restrictions on universities?

Chloe Field: Yes.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q I would like to go back to ground 4A being proposed by the Government. It makes it a very binary choice between there being students in the accommodation or no students in the accommodation. You have mentioned that many students live in mixed accommodation. Is there sometimes an advantage for students in being able to extend contracts when they become no longer a student to actually provide stability in local communities that are often saturated anyway?

Chloe Field: Yes, 100%, and that is something else that we believe: just being able to have that freedom to not feel like you are chucked out of a house, then you are meant to find a job, and then a house—or you move back to your family house, which can be quite isolating for a lot of students. It is even just that freedom to stay a couple of months. It also means that students who like the community and the area that they are living in are allowed to invest more into that community because they know that are they are not just going to leave once they graduate. They can remain there, find a job and work there, and also invest in that community. We consistently see the town/gown issue, where residents do not like students being in the area and students do not like residents and fall out with them—not always, but there is a lot of contention there. I think this would really help to meld the community together.

On a separate point about building community, if students are exempt from aspects of the Bill, then a lot of rogue landlords will go into the student market because they will take advantage of the lesser regulation, which means that more houses in multiple occupation are going to be built in residential areas, again furthering those divides between residents and students and moving residents out of their local areas. It can create that distinct divide instead of creating a harmonious community where both students and residents live together.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Finally—we have a few more minutes—on Tuesday we heard that the two-month notice, meaning that someone can give notice and then move out within two months basically on the first day, could be bad for students because sometimes they do not get on with their flatmates. But when you force them together for two months, they then suck it up and get on with it. Is that a fair description of what happens, or would you describe it in a different way—that ability to move out if something has gone wrong very quickly?

Chloe Field: First, it allows people who do not get along with each other to leave; again, with the rushed market, a lot of people are forced to live with people they might have only known for a couple of months. Also, if they have signed their contracts, moved in and then three months later there is black mould everywhere, it allows people to leave, which puts the balance of power back into the tenants’ hands. That means that tenants can leave and also puts pressure on landlords to actually have their home up to scratch, because they know that the tenant could leave at any point. I think that would be a really important thing for students. Also, if you want to drop out of uni because your mental health is bad and you are not enjoying it, you have the freedom to leave. You are not stuck in a contract and paying tuition fees and rent in a place where you do not really want to be.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much for your evidence. That was Chloe Field, the vice-president for higher education for the National Union of Students. Very useful indeed, thank you.

Examination of Witnesses

Samantha Stewart, Linda Cobb and Roz Spencer gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Q I am interested in your view on the principle of blanket bans and the measures we are taking in the Bill to stop them.

James Munro: Blanket bans are a good thing on paper, but in practice they can be very difficult to enforce. Obviously, the enforcement is where I am coming from with this. That is what we do with estate and letting agents at the moment, and with landlords in respect of the Tenant Fees Act 2019. We are the leading enforcement authority under the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the Tenant Fees Act. It is very tricky when you start putting blanket bans on things—for example, on saying, “No pets”, “No children”, or “No DSS”—because ultimately it is up to the landlord to decide who he or she wants in the property. It is very difficult to prove that that decision has been taken to directly discriminate against somebody with a pet, with children or in receipt of benefits.

While I am on that subject, I think the legislation would benefit from always including the words “prospective tenant” when dealing with issues around discrimination. Clearly, at the point at which someone is being discriminated against, they are not normally a tenant—they might well be a tenant at some stage, but at that point they would be a prospective tenant. It is important to have consistency throughout the legislation in that respect.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q It seems difficult to enforce blanket bans. Is there any way forward in which these bits of information are not disclosed and cannot be asked about in any form, directly or indirectly, until after a tenancy has been verbally agreed?

James Munro: That could be a way forward. It just goes back to the fact that it is very tricky to work out, because discrimination can be written, verbal or non-verbal. It can be incredibly difficult to prove, unless it is recorded in some way, and then it is down to the investigatory powers, the sanctions available and, ultimately, the impact of that discrimination on someone, because it will be considered in line with all the other local authority priorities.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q On standing enforcement, a lot of local authorities use the selective licensing resource to help to pay for their enforcement. Is there an argument—perhaps the opposite argument from the one made by my colleague—that the property portal could allow the roll-out of selective licensing more freely in all places where there is then, in effect, a small charge for enforcement?

James Munro: It could work. In theory, what we are trying to achieve is to get greater resources to local authorities. I do not really have a view of how that is done; it is more about getting those resources to local authorities and about ensuring that local authorities prioritise the work correctly. At the moment, there are huge differences in enforcement across the country—the so-called enforcement postcode lottery—and, depending on where you are, it could be a different priority for that particular local authority.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q We touched on rent repayment orders previously, where tenants are motivated to take their own enforcement because they could receive their own rent. Could those offer an option to relieve local authorities from having to enforce some of the more minor cases and allow them to focus on the most egregious breaches?

James Munro: I agree that that would be a way forward. It comes back to the points that have been made before: it is about the education and knowledge of the tenants, so that they understand, first, that they can take that action and, secondly, that they take the action and get the relevant support to do it. Tenants are woefully unprepared. They do not have the knowledge, the expertise or the help to take action forward where necessary. You will see examples of that being done generally, where either people have done it because they had that specialist knowledge, or they get the specialist support, which might be available in certain areas but not in others.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Do you think the property portal might provide an opportunity not just for information holding, but for information dissemination?

James Munro: Yes, but the property portal will only disseminate that information to those who are registered on it, and the challenge—as with a lot of things with this Bill—will be to ensure that, in the early days, in year one or year two, everyone gets up to speed with this, and not just the landlords but the tenants and prospective tenants. It comes back down to education. The question was asked earlier, “How do we get the message out to people?” You need to teach it at school. We leave school not knowing how to buy a house, buy a car, rent a house or anything like that.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Some of us push very hard for citizenship lessons and wider lessons like that in schools, but that is another debate. You might not know about this, but when the deposit protection scheme was rolled out, there was a big information campaign with local authorities and with charities and non-governmental organisations to inform tenants about their ability to get rent repayment orders if deposits were not secured. That seems to me to work very well. Do you have any views on and learnings from that process?

James Munro: Yes, that process has worked well, but I think that is because it is a process that benefits all parties. It is very strictly controlled. The sanctions and penalties are clearly set out. I think it is something that works very effectively. Redress scheme membership, for example, works very effectively. The Government obviously issue the “How to rent”, “How to buy” and “How to lease” guides—all the different how-to guides—and I think they could play a very useful part, but obviously you have to get them into the hands of the tenants. Again, it comes down to the point that was discussed earlier, especially with students. Students just want to get their hands on the property—they will sign anything just to get their hands on it. They do not necessarily understand, realise or appreciate any rights or obligations that they may have under that agreement.

[Helen Morgan]

Q I just want to go back to that point. Earlier, I used the word “unprofessional”. What I meant was amateur rather than negligent or wilfully reckless. There are a lot of accidental landlords out there—I am talking about people who do not use a letting agent. They will need to be aware of their responsibilities under this legislation. Who do you think is the right person to manage the information campaign to ensure that they are aware? Is that the local authority? Is it the charitable sector? Who should be ensuring that landlords are aware of their responsibilities under this new legislation?

James Munro: I think it is a combination. You have the National Residential Landlords Association; you have various trade bodies and various professional bodies that represent landlords. They are the first port of call. I also think local authorities and charities—all those third sector organisations—could get that information out there. The challenge is that the landlords who have perhaps one property are, for all intents and purposes, treated almost like private individuals. For tax purposes, they are virtually treated as private individuals, so there is no real avenue to find out where they are. That is going to be the challenge—to reach out to them but also to get them to comply with the requirements.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, that just makes my point that the sector should have been overhauled a long time ago. The fact that it has changed beyond recognition over recent decades and now houses not just the young and the mobile, but many older people and families with children, for whom having greater security and certainty is essential to a flourishing life, renders urgent the need to transform how it is regulated and to level decisively the playing field between landlords and tenants.

This Bill is a good starting point to that end. We are glad that after a very long wait, it is finally progressing. However, we are determined to see it strengthened in a number of areas so that it truly delivers for tenants. In this Committee and the remaining stages, we will seek to work constructively with the Government to see this legislation enacted, but we also expect Ministers to give serious and thoughtful consideration to the arguments we intend to make about how its defects and deficiencies might be addressed.

Part 1 of the Bill seeks to amend the assured tenancy regime introduced by the Housing Act 1988. In the nearly 35 years since that Act came into force in January 1989, with some limited exceptions, all new private sector tenancies in England and Wales have been either assured or assured shorthold tenancies, with the latter becoming the default PRS tenancy following the implementation of the Housing Act 1996. As the Committee will know, assured tenancies can be either periodic or fixed, but the vast majority of ASTs are fixed.

Clause 1 will insert a new section 4A before section 5 of the 1988 Act, thereby providing, as the Minister made clear, that all future assured tenancies will be periodic and open-ended, and that they can no longer have fixed terms. That change will empower tenants by giving them more flexibility to end tenancies where and when they want or need to, including when landlords are not meeting their responsibilities and obligations or in instances in which the property that they have moved into is not as advertised. We support it.

We take no issue with Government new clause 2. Although we are not convinced that it is strictly necessary, given how the Apportionment Act 1870 applies to rent paid in advance, we believe that it is a worthwhile amendment none the less, to the extent that it makes express provision for that.

We believe that Government new clause 6 is a necessary change to how council tax works, given that the Bill abolishes fixed-term tenancies. However, in the sense that its effect will be to render a tenancy that

“is or was previously an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988”

a “material interest” for the purposes of this Bill, we would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarification. Could he tell us the effect of the proposed change in circumstances in which a tenant used to have an assured tenancy but, after this part of the Bill comes into force, now does not because of circumstances that are out of their control? Let us say, to take an extreme example, that a tenant died prior to the end of their assured tenancy, and the relevant provisions came into force. Would their estate be forced to pay the council tax liability as a consequence of the new clause?

We understand the Government’s intention with regard to the new clause, which is to manage the transition between the two tenancy regimes when it comes to council tax. However, we are a little concerned that, as drafted, the new clause may be unnecessarily broad and may create some problematic outcomes. The explanatory statement accompanying the new clause suggests that it may have another purpose altogether—namely, to make people liable if they leave a tenancy without giving notice—but that raises the obvious question of how the Valuation Office Agency and the relevant local authority are meant to know that, and how the local authority might ever hope to find the tenant who is liable. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government have discussed the matter at all with either the Valuation Office Agency or the Local Government Association?

Lastly in connection with this new clause, is there not a risk that unscrupulous landlords may game this provision by claiming that there is still a tenant in situ who should settle the council tax liability, rather than the landlord doing so? Our concern is that the provision could be abused along those lines and that local authority revenue would suffer as a result. I would appreciate some reassurance and clarification on those points in the Minister’s response.

With or without the incorporation of Government new clause 2 and new clause 6—after clause 6 and before clause 20 respectively—huge uncertainty now surrounds the implementation of clause 1, and the rest of chapter 1 of part 1, as a result of the Government’s recent decision to tie implementation of the new system directly to court improvements. Whatever the motivation behind that—renters will no doubt have reached their own conclusions—the decision has significant implications for when clause 1 and the other clauses in this chapter become operational. We need answers today, so that those whose lives stand to be affected are clear as to what they are.

Clause 67, “Commencement and application”, gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to appoint a day when chapter 1 of part 1, including clause 1, comes into force. In other words, the Bill has always given Ministers discretion as to precisely when the new system becomes operational—a matter that we will debate more extensively in a future sitting when we come to clause 67 itself and our amendment 169 to it.

The Government were previously clear that there would be a two-stage transition to the new tenancy system, with precise starting dates for new and existing tenancies to be determined by the Secretary of State, and that a package of wide-ranging court reforms was to accompany the legislation, but at no point prior to the response issued on 20 October this year to the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities did the Government indicate that the new system’s implementation was directly dependent on such reforms. As things stand, because of the Government’s last-minute change of approach, not only do tenants have no idea when the new tenancy system will come into force, but they do not even know what constitutes the requisite progress in respect of court reform that Ministers now deem is necessary before it does.

There are three distinct questions to which the Government have so far failed to provide adequate answers. First, is the county court system for resolving most disputes between landlords and tenants performing so badly that reform is a necessary precondition of bringing this clause and others in this chapter into force?

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

We heard from many representations on the county court part of the process that the county court system was performing adequately. Does that not make one suspicious that there are other motivations for kicking this into the long grass?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to our view of precisely how the county court system is operating, but I think it would be fair to say that we do not necessarily buy the Government’s argument that it is performing so badly that we need to tie implementation of this clause and others in this chapter to it. It could certainly do with improvement, but if it needs improvement, we need to know what that improvement is. That is an argument that I will come on to make in due course.

The second of my three questions to the Government relates to the point that my hon. Friend has just raised: if the court system requires improvement to ensure that landlords can quickly regain possession of their property if a tenant refuses to move out, what is the precise nature of the improvements that are required? Thirdly, how can we measure progress on delivering those improvements so that tenants have certainty about when the new system might come into force?

I will start with my first question. With apologies, Mr Gray, I intend to spend some considerable time on this point, because it is central to when the clause and the rest of the chapter come into force.

If one examines the evidence, it is clear that the possession claims system is one of the faster and better-administered parts of the civil justice system. As housing expert Giles Peaker put it when giving evidence to the Committee on Thursday, it is “well honed”. As Simon Mullings, co-chair of the Housing Law Practitioners Association, stated in the same session:

“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.” ––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 111, Q141.]

The data seems to bear that out. It makes it clear that the various stages of possession and litigation are back to where they were pre-pandemic, and that non-accelerated possessions are not taking significantly longer than the relevant guidelines stipulate. As Giles Peaker argued,

“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.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 111, Q141.]

One of the more robust defences of the adequacies of the present system that I have heard came from the sixth of the seven housing and planning Ministers that I have shadowed in my two years in this role. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) argued:

“It is important to note at this point that the vast majority of possession claims do not end up in the courts—only something like 1% of claims go through the courts... The courts have already made huge improvements. It is worth saying that over 95% of hearings are listed within four to eight weeks of receipt, and of course the ombudsman will encourage the early dispute resolution process, taking a lot of claims out of the courts and freeing up court time for more complex processes.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 695.]

We also heard expert testimony last week that called into question the suggested impact of the Bill on the courts. For example, it was disputed whether the reforms in the Bill would increase the number of contested cases. Giles Peaker persuasively argued that there was likely to be an increase in the number of initial hearings, but that we are unlikely to see an increase in the number of contested hearings.

To the extent that concern was raised about capacity within the system, several witnesses argued that it still did not justify postponing the enactment of chapter 1 of part 1. Indeed, the head of justice at the Law Society, Richard Miller, argued in relation to plans for digitisation that it would be sensible to see the new tenancy system put in place first so that we can properly understand what a new digital system needs to achieve in respect of the Bill.

Every part of the civil justice system would benefit from improvement, but we would argue that, to date, the Government have failed to demonstrate that the county court system for resolving landlord and tenant disputes is failing to the degree that it is imperative to further delay the long-overdue reforms to tenancies in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister set out very clearly why the Government believe the possession of claims system is so woefully inadequate that the enactment of clause 1 and the other clauses in chapter 1 must be postponed.

I turn to the second of my questions. If we accept that the county court system as it relates to housing cases could be improved—probably no one here would dispute that, even if we might debate the extent of the improvement required—how are the Government defining improvement? To put it another way, what is the precise nature of the improvements that Ministers believe are required before we finally abolish section 21 of the 1988 Act and reform the tenancy system, as clause 1 and other clauses in chapter 1 will do?

Let us examine and interrogate what the Government have said about this. Their 20 October response to the Select Committee stated:

“We will align the abolition of section 21 and new possession grounds with court improvements, including end-to-end digitisation of the process.”

Will the Minister tell us precisely what is meant by end-to-end digitisation of the process? Precisely what process did that statement refer to? Was it a reference to just the court possession action process, or to civil and family court and tribunal processes more generally? Further detail was seemingly provided in the briefing notes that accompanied the King’s Speech on 7 November:

“We will align the abolition of section 21 with reform of the courts. We are starting work on this now, with an initial commitment of £1.2 million to begin designing a new digital system for possessions. As work progresses, we will engage landlords and tenants to ensure the new system supports an efficient and straightforward possession system for all parties.”

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Did we not hear in evidence that the key for this to work was the property portal? Delaying the implementation of these measures until after court reform would therefore seem to be the wrong way around. Surely the property portal and ombudsman need to be up and running, and then we can see what pressure is on the courts, and we can also integrate the property portal into the digitalisation of the process.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a point well made, and I think the same point was made by Richard Miller of the Law Society. If this Bill works as intended, there are a number of provisions in it that should relieve the burden on the courts. We all want to see that happen. However, to the extent that the courts do need to act in possession cases, we need to know precisely what the Government mean by the “improvements” that they have been referring to over recent months.

That King’s Speech briefing note would suggest that the required improvements relate only to the court possession action process. However, it is not clear whether the proposed new digital system for possessions is the only improvement that Ministers believe needs to be delivered before the new tenancy system can be introduced, and if so—this is crucial—by what date that new system will be operational.

Can the Minister tell us more about the new digital system for possessions that the King’s Speech briefing note referred to? Specifically, can he tell us whether its introduction is the sole determinant of when the new tenancy system can come into force? Can he also outline when the Government expect work on that new digital system to be completed by the Government and rolled out for use by landlords, given that it appears—on the basis of the King’s Speech briefing note—to have only just commenced?

The White Paper “A fairer private rented sector”, which the Government published in June 2022, set out the Government’s intention, working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service, to

“introduce a package of wide-ranging court reforms”.

Those went beyond purely the court possession action process that I have just been speaking to. It was suggested in the White Paper that the package would include steps to address county court bailiff capacity, a lack of adequate advice about court and tribunal processes, a lack of prioritisation of cases and the strengthening and embedding of mediation services for landlords and renters—issues that many of our witnesses in last week’s evidence sessions referred to.

Many of those issues were also identified in the Government’s response to the Select Committee as “target areas for improvement”. What is not clear is whether the implementation of the new tenancy system, and this clause, is dependent on Ministers judging that sufficient progress has been made in relation to each of those target areas for improvement, or whether it is dependent, as I have suggested, solely on improvements in the court possession process.

Can the Minister tell us clearly which one it is? Will the new tenancy system be introduced only when improvements have been made in all the target areas specified, or is the implementation date linked solely to improvements in the court possession process? If it is the former, what are the criteria by which the Government will determine when sufficient improvements have been made in each of the listed target areas for improvement? Those of us on the Opposition side of the Committee, and many of the millions of tenants following our proceedings, need answers to those questions. As we debate the Bill today, we do not know precisely what reform of the courts is required for the new tenancy system to be enacted.

I turn to my third question. Because we have no real sense of precisely what the Government mean by court improvements, and therefore no metrics by which they might be measured, we have no idea whether and when they might be achieved. The concern in that regard should be obvious. Having been assured repeatedly by Ministers that the passage of this Bill will see a new tenancy system introduced and the threat of section 21 evictions finally removed, tenants have no assurances, let alone a guarantee, that the Government have not, in effect, given themselves the means to defer—perhaps indefinitely—the implementation of these long-promised changes.

As I referenced in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, we accept that the court system needs to be improved so that, when landlords or tenants escalate a dispute, they can have confidence that it will be determined in an efficient and timely manner. However, since they committed themselves to abolishing section 21 evictions, the Government have had more than four and a half years to make significant improvements to the system to support tenants and good-faith landlords, and they have not succeeded in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that well-made point. A related and incredibly important issue is the supply of genuinely affordable housing, and the Government have failed woefully to build enough social rented homes in this country to meet housing need. She is absolutely right that local authorities are picking up the burden for this failure and the failure in the courts. My local authority—like hers, I am sure—is now sending people in need of temporary accommodation as far as Dartford or north Kent, and even further in some cases. Those people are struggling to retain a foothold in the community they live in and value, and in the schools that their children go to. Frankly, that is unacceptable. We need an end to section 21 as soon as possible.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend talked about the insecurity for tenants if the measure is not implemented in time, but does he also think that if it is not clear when it will be implemented, there could be adverse effects on the wider rented sector market? We know that people game the system; if it is not clear when the measure will be implemented, the danger is that people can run rings around both tenants and the public sector.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right: a protracted delay in implementing this clause and the others in chapter 1 could lead landlords to look at how they can best abuse the system before the new one is introduced. Equally importantly, it could provide a real problem for good-faith landlords who are trying to do the right thing. If a landlord who is affected by high interest rates and section 24 tax changes is wondering whether they can stay in the market and continue to provide private lets, how does it help to have hanging over their head an undetermined date, based on an unspecified set of metrics, for when a new system will come into force?

As I was saying, the Government have had more than four and a half years to improve the court system. They have not succeeded. If they had, then, as the former Housing Minister—the hon. Member for Redditch—claimed, they would have had no justification for delaying the enactment of this clause and the others on the grounds that the system is failing to such an extent that landlords have no confidence in it. The truth is that the Government’s record on court reforms is as woeful as their record on social rented housing. In a damning report published this summer, the Public Accounts Committee made it clear that, seven years into the courts and tribunals reform programme, HMCTS

“is once again behind on delivering critical reforms to its services. Overall, despite an increase in budget, the programme is set to deliver less than originally planned, at a time when the reforms are even more vital to help reduce extensive court backlogs.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise to support clause 1, while raising concerns similar to those expressed by my good colleagues about the delay to its implementation. I will first explain why it is important that we abolish fixed-term tenancies and do not provide loopholes whereby such tenancies can be brought back in, despite the well-meaning efforts of colleagues on this Committee.

When the original Act that introduced assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies was being discussed, assured tenancies were initially expected to be the dominant form of tenancy. Members can see from the debate at the time that assured shorthold tenancies were meant to be there because some tenants might want the security of a specified period. What happened over the slightly less than 10 years until the 1996 Act was that they dominated and took over the market as the only recourse for people. The reality is that tenants do not have a choice: they must choose what is available—what the landlord offers. If there is an option for any form of fixed period, the landlord might well offer it for that property. That then limits the tenants who can apply for that property to people who are willing to have fixed-term periods only, and eventually those are the only tenancies offered in the market. Effectively, we get to the same situation that we have at the moment.

I applaud the Government for not relenting and giving into having fixed-term periods, even for longer periods. Although the argument might sound appealing, it is a slippery slope. It is also true that none of our future conditions can be predicted. I might sign a tenancy and the landlord’s situation or mine might change; the inability to get out of that situation, or the requirement to go to the courts to get out of it, would bung up the courts and slow the process down. It is, then, the right call to make.

I worry that the link relates to the courts. I heard that the problem was getting bailiffs in at the final stage of the final part for, let us be clear, a very small number. Most people leave when a section 21 notice is issued—in cases under the Bill, that will be when the new grounds are issued—and they leave quickly. They often leave before their time limit is up, because they have found a place, or when it is up. The very few who do not leave and are required to go to court will usually leave as soon as the court has given notice. There is of course a tiny minority who need to be dealt with efficiently—they need forceful eviction via bailiffs and are required to leave.

I think we all agree that reform of the bailiff system needs to happen. It needs to happen on many fronts to make sure that it is sensitive, targets the right people and is efficient for all sides. That does not seem the same as needing to wait for the advanced digitisation of the court system. We all agree that the court system needs digitisation, but they are two different things. The digitising of the bailiff system does not seem to be the problem we have heard about bailiffs: the problem we have heard about bailiffs is the supply chain. It is about the pay and conditions of bailiffs, the equipment they need and procuring the right number of bailiffs in certain areas, with London being particularly problematic. If the Minister is talking about bailiff reform in respect of the delay, it would be useful if he could be clear about what exactly the Government will do to increase the number of bailiffs in the sector. If this is not about bailiff reform, the Minister needs to give clear indicators of what the court reform he talks about actually is.

We heard in evidence that while we can always have improvements in the courts, we must not do it the wrong way around. We need a property portal through which eviction notices can be served to free up some of the court processes. We need an ombudsperson who can help to resolve disputes before they get to the courts, so that we can get to a situation in which things do not lead to eviction because the issue has already been resolved. We also need clearer competencies for councils to be able to fulfil their homelessness duty—there are amendments on that later in the Bill. That is what will free up the courts, so the full implementation of the Bill, not delays to sections of it, is needed to allow the courts to function more effectively.

The danger of delaying the implementation of clauses 1 and 3—on periodic tenancies and section 21—is that there will be a rush for evictions in that period or, as we have heard from Opposition Members, that landlords will be unsure about their situation, the market will slow down and people will withdraw to see what happens. I would like the private rented sector to be smaller overall in the long term, but I do not think anyone thinks that, before we get Britain building again, withdrawing or slowing down the letting market would do anyone any favours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

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

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

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

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown on his powerful contribution to the debate, which has inspired me to make a contribution.

I want to pick up on a point that the hon. Member made about the aims of the clause and the flexibility for tenants to leave their tenancies when they need to. That is welcome, and I welcome the clause. I also welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing and congratulate him, because I have not yet had a chance to do so officially, on his elevation to his position and the work that he has done so far in this space. However, the aims of the clause need to go alongside a regulatory foundation. The Bill rightly builds that flexibility.

This has been an interesting debate; it has almost had two sides. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown spoke about the need for security, and not uprooting families from their community. I agree with that, and I think we all share the aim of building sustainable communities that enable people to put down roots. They need a home with security of tenure, but equally, a regulatory framework is needed if we are to meet the aim of enabling tenants to escape tenancies that are not working because, say, there is mould, or uninhabitable conditions.

I think quite often of the additional licensing schemes that were available to councils, particularly for houses in multiple occupation. The fights that I have had with my local authority to implement those schemes have driven me to the point of madness at times. Authorities—particularly mine, in Sandwell—have the expertise, in many ways. My authority has admitted to me that it could do that. We need a localised, driven regulatory system.

I think we would all agree that landlords are, broadly, good actors. They want to offer decent, habitable homes, and to have people in them for the long term. That benefits the landlord, because they then get emotional and moral investment in the property, and from a long-term, sustainability perspective it of course makes sense to have that. We do not want to broadbrush the sector in general. However, clearly there are bad actors. We all know about them from our postbags; I certainly see them in the area that I represent. We need a framework that deals with the issues. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have had many positive discussions on this subject, and I know that he is committed to it. The framework should be locally driven, in many respects—I know his commitment to localism—and should enable us to catch these people and drive down the problem.

I fully support what clause 1 does. When a tenant needs to get out because the tenancy is frankly not working and puts them in a dangerous situation, getting out is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Member mentions selective licensing, which is important. Do we need to review the way that authorities apply for selective licensing? Should there be an assumption that they should have selective licensing for all properties, rather than their having to provide evidence for a license? Many shy away from doing that.

[Shaun Bailey]

To be honest, I probably want a comprehensive selective system. There are already structures and expertise that would enable us to have that. The hon. Gentleman and I have probably had similar experiences with constituency casework. Something like that could be preventive. I am not saying that the issues we have talked about would not still present themselves—let us face it: they probably always will—but if we can mitigate them, that is what we need to do.

I welcome the clause for a variety of reasons that Members from across the Committee have touched on. It is welcome that it enables tenants to leave more expeditiously, but I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to continue the conversation. The Bill is part of a broader conversation about how we ensure that we do not even get to the point at which the measures are needed, because we have habitable homes, people have somewhere to live safely, and they do not have to fall back on the provisions all the time just to keep themselves safe. The clause is absolutely the right way forward. My hon. Friend the Minister can see that there is support for it from across the Committee. I thank him for hearing me out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Ultimately, we want to bring in these measures as quickly as we can. The system will be in place soon. What I will do to give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he desires is to write to him further. We can agree on that principle and if changes are needed to the Bill, I am happy to consider them.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I want us to give the Minister an opportunity to elaborate on court reform, because it is also relevant to this clause, in terms of when it will be implemented and the indicators as to when it will be implemented. Will he be able to write to us, or publish after the Bill receives Royal Assent, what those clear indicator thresholds are regarding when court reform will be completed, so that it will be clear for everyone? It does not need to be set out in the Bill, but a commitment that the Government will do that, so that everyone will know when that threshold has been met, would be useful.

[Jacob Young]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this point. As I mentioned earlier, I think we will discuss this issue when we debate clause 67, so we can have that debate then.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Changes to grounds for possession

--- Later in debate ---

The process behind these amendments is modelled on case 9 of the Rent Act 1977, but with a key difference. This is important: in that instance, the burden of proof was on the landlord to show that he or she would suffer greater hardship, and the default was against the possession order; in this instance, the burden of proof would be on the tenant, with a possession order being the default. We believe that these reasonable and proportionate amendments would enable mandatory grounds 1, 1A and 6A, about which we have particular concerns, to function as the Government intend, while providing tenants with a modicum of additional security in circumstances where their eviction on those grounds would cause genuine and real hardship. I hope the Minister will consider accepting our amendments, and look forward to his response.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise to support these three amendments. Amendment 150 is, of course, inextricably linked to amendment 149, which we will come on to shortly. I want to talk about the protections, particularly against ground 6A, which is a ground for possession to allow compliance with an enforcement action, fundamentally so that conditions for the tenants can be improved. Enforcement action is almost impossible unless tenants co-operate with it. There is a real danger that ground 6A will be used as a quasi-punishment for tenants who have co-operated—tenants who have said, “This house has a massive hole in the ceiling”—

[The Chair]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is speaking to the next group.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am speaking to amendment 150, which relates to ground 6A, about greater hardship. The next group is about the court having mitigating measures other than eviction. They could have been clustered differently—

[The Chair]

Quite right. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman; he knows much more about it than I do.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Thank you, Mr Gray.

We have a problem here. It is important that the court is able to weigh up where the greater hardship is. Is it a greater hardship to evict a tenant who has complained to the council so that the property can be fixed? Or is the ground being used to get rid of a tenant who is constantly complaining about enforcement action? Without an element of discretion—other amendments would afford wider discretion—and without this particular measure on greater hardship, there is a danger that ground 6A could be misused. That is why it would be good to hear reassurance from the Minister, particularly on amendment 150, that advice and guidance will be provided to the courts to ensure that the ground is not manipulated or abused, and that the Government are considering other changes to prevent that.

[Jacob Young]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his amendments 145, 146 and 150. As has been discussed, the amendments look to make grounds 1, 1A and 6A discretionary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(aa) After subsection (5) insert—

‘(5ZA) The court shall not make an order for possession under Ground 6A if the court considers that it is not just and equitable to do so, having regard to alternative courses of action available to the landlord or the local housing authority, which may include—

(a) a management order under Part 4 of the Housing Act 2004;

(b) in relation to paragraphs (b) and (f) of Ground 6A, other measures which are more appropriate for reducing the extent of overcrowding or the number of households in the dwelling-house, as the case may be;

(c) in relation to paragraph (c) of Ground 6A, the provision of suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant, whether under section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 or otherwise; and

(d) in relation to paragraphs (d) and (e), other means of enforcement available to the local housing authority in respect of the landlord’s default;

and having regard to all the circumstances, including whether the situation has occurred as a result of an act or default of the landlord.’”

This amendment would permit a court to refuse to make a possession order under Ground 6A where a more appropriate course of action exists.

One of the changes made to schedule 2 to the 1988 Act by the clause, as we briefly discussed, is the introduction of a new ground for possession to allow compliance with an enforcement action. The new mandatory ground 6A will require the court to award possession if a landlord seeking possession needs to end a tenancy because enforcement action has been taken against the landlord, and it would be unlawful for them to maintain the tenancy.

The relevant enforcement actions (a) to (f) are set out on page 73 of the Bill. They include situations where a landlord has been issued with

“a banning order under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016…an improvement notice under section 11 or 12 of the Housing Act 2004”

and

“a prohibition order under section 20 or 21 of the Housing Act 2004”.

We take no issue with the fact that the Bill introduces the new mandatory power. Clearly there are circumstances in which landlords will require possession of a property in order to comply with enforcement action.

We wrestled with what should be the minimum notice period that applies to the new ground, given that it feels somewhat perverse to provide for a mechanism by which possession can be gained quickly when the reason for the possession being granted is that the landlord has fallen foul of an obligation under housing health and safety legislation, particularly if it resulted in a banning or prohibition order. As we will come to discuss, we ultimately determined to argue in amendment 136 for a four-month minimum notice period in relation to ground 6A, because in all the situations set out on page 73 of the Bill, the tenant will be evicted because of neglect or default on the part of the landlord. In other words, it is a de facto no-fault ground for eviction that will punish tenants and put them at risk of homelessness because of bad practice on the part of a landlord, particularly as there is no requirement for the landlord to provide suitable alternative accommodation.

Amendment 149 seeks to provide tenants with a measure of protection in such circumstances—this touches directly on the point the Minister made on the previous group of amendments—by giving the court the power to consider whether the relevant enforcement can be met by means other than the eviction of the sitting tenant or tenants, including through a management order under the Housing Act 2004 or the provision of alternative accommodation. If the court judges that the enforcement objectives can be met by other means, the amendment would give the court the power to refuse to make a possession order on the grounds that it is not just and equitable to do so in the circumstances, given that there are other means of ensuring that the enforcement action is complied with.

We believe that the amendment would provide tenants with stronger protection in circumstances where they are victims of poor practice on the part of a landlord. Importantly, it would also ensure that tenants have an incentive to seek enforcement action through their local authority if their home is in a very poor condition or is non-compliant with HMO licensing schemes. That would address the fact that, as things stand, the introduction of the new mandatory no-fault ground with only two months’ notice is likely to actively discourage tenants from doing so. I hope the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Following on from the debate on the last group of amendments, I want to add my concern about ground 6A. Where there are issues with fire or flood, landlords are often expected to find alternative accommodation before a house is vacated, but there is no such provision when enforcement action has to be taken. There is a real worry that a landlord who has multiple properties that are perfectly fit for habitation might seek to punish tenants who have pushed for enforcement, rather than moving them into those properties. That seems wrong, so it is important to require the courts to go through a checklist of other options that the landlord has to consider before they get to ground 6A.

The amendment also provides a checklist for landlords. They can go down it and say, “Okay, I need to comply with enforcement action. Have I considered these things?” It also allows the local authority to consider other courses that they could pursue, such as management orders. We do not want tenants punished. Although revenge evictions are illegal, we know that they happen time and again, because there are loopholes in the law. Closing those loopholes is important, and a statement from the Minister on the matter might suffice.

[Jacob Young]

I thank hon. Members for their comments. Amendment 149 would require judges to consider whether there are suitable alternative courses of action available before granting possession under ground 6A, which permits a landlord to evict if evicting a tenant is the only way that they can comply with enforcement action taken by a local authority. That includes cases in which, disgracefully, a landlord has received a banning order, meaning they are unable to continue operating as a landlord. It also includes situations in which a prohibition order is incompatible with the tenant’s continuing to occupy the property. The ground is mandatory, so there is certainty that possession will be granted to the landlord and they can comply with enforcement action taken against them. That means that tenants will not be left living in unsafe situations and gives local authorities confidence that their enforcement action demands can be adhered to.

The amendment would add uncertainty into the system. If possession was not granted, the landlord would continue to be in breach of their obligations and could face fines and other penalties. Clearly, it is in the best interests of both landlords and local authorities to explore alternative actions in such cases, and we encourage them to do so, but it is also in everyone’s interests to ensure that rogue landlords leave the market, and the ground will help ensure that that happens when necessary.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister clarify that when courts grant possession under ground 6A, they will have to take into consideration whether that is the only option, and whether other options might be on the table? Confirmation of that would help courts’ deliberations in future.

[Jacob Young]

I should be clear that the landlords who are subject to enforcement action are the rogues; they are the people we are trying to root out of the system through the Bill. They are unlikely to be able to provide the suitable alternative accommodation that the hon. Member mentioned. If things get to this stage, they are that bad. We therefore do not feel that we can accept amendment 149, and I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Minister to think very seriously about ensuring stronger safeguards. We already have some experience of this in the Scottish system to draw upon. My hon. Friend’s amendments will close those loopholes and help to ensure that the positive developments from abolishing no-fault eviction are not inadvertently undermined by the weak protections in these clauses.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I support amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144, which would require evidence to be given when using grounds 1 and 1A. While that is important, I again think—I always live in hope—that some clarity from the Minister about the courts being required to obtain at least the first part of that evidence could achieve this without that necessarily being written in the Bill. I believe that the second part would need some legislative clarity, which is why the amendment is useful.

However, let us be clear: it is a crime to knowingly make a false statement to the court. We need to make it clear to landlords that that crime will be followed up. It can only be followed up if we then determine that the property was not then taken into possession and that there was no malicious element to it—there can be other reasons, of course. Without that element of enforcement, and therefore knowing what has happened in a number of months’ time, that will never happen. This could quite easily be implemented through the property portal sending automatic messages to the court, which would not overburden our court process. I again ask for some clarity from the Minister that this is how the property portal and court reform is intended to work. That would probably alleviate some of these issues.

I have tabled a number of other amendments in this group, which I would also like to speak to. The first one would provide for the six-month protection to be renewed on the basis of rent renewals. At the moment, a lot of assured shorthold tenancies—not all of them, Mr Gray, I grant you, but probably the majority of them—have rent renewal clauses, such that that when the rent is increased, there is a new tenancy. The landlord will say, “I’m increasing your rent. Please sign the new tenancy for the year ahead.” Every year, the landlord says, “Well, you’re moving on to the periodic. I would quite like you to sign the new tenancy with the new rent.” That is what happens for most of my constituents who are in the most precarious part of the market, which we are trying to address. That gives them six months’ protection every year, on an ongoing basis, every time their rent is increased.

I know that the National Residential Landlords Association has described this idea as bonkers, but I think that is because it does not quite understand what I am trying to get at here, which is to retain what we already have currently. Although it seems that the Bill is increasing the protection of tenants—and the security of landlords, by knowing that the tenant will be there for a period—the danger is that it will reduce it because, de facto, most tenants currently have six months protection in every 12. The proposed change would provide six months’ protection over an indefinite period, which is clearly far less. Six divided by infinity is an impossible mathematical equation, but it is clearly less than six months divided by 12.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is zero.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Quite right: zero protection—well, it is mathematically zero, but I think we all know that six months’ protection is a bit more than that—so there needs to be something.

When a landlord comes along on that annual date, the landlord might say, “I don’t want to make any changes. I don’t want to increase the rent.” Then, to some extent, the question is: why should any further protection be afforded? But if the landlord comes along and says, “I want to increase your rent,” and the tenant agrees that they are going to increase the rent—it does not go to a tribunal; it is all agreed—it seems quite reasonable to ensure protection on both sides, for example to provide for a new six-month protection period, just as happens at the moment.

That is why I have tabled these amendments, because I do not think it is in anyone’s interest for tenants suddenly to be leaving. Although the six-month protection does not prevent tenants from leaving, it does produce a mindset that the tenancy is now at least fixed for six months, based on what the landlord is offering and the higher amount that the tenant is now offering to pay. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I would love to see the Government accept the principle of it. If not—of course, I am not foolish, but there is always wishful thinking—it would be useful to hear an indication from the Government of which measures they think might be put in place to ensure that rolling protection.

The other amendment that I wish to speak to concerns the ability for a tenant to be offered the property before it is for sale. If it is a genuine sale, on the open market—the amendments would require a solicitor’s letter or an estate agent’s letter; I think that is reasonable and fair enough—no landlord would have any problem with making this offer for a short period. In my experience of selling houses, it takes more than four weeks between interest and getting it on the market anyway. I am talking about the landlord offering it to the tenant at the rate at which they are going to initially list it on the market. The landlord might reduce what it is on the market for later, because of market factors. I am not saying that that needs to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the initial listing should be offered to the tenant—a right of first refusal—in those four weeks. Again, I do not think this is unreasonable. Of course, in the majority of cases, the tenant will not be in a position to buy; but if, in a small number of cases, we can prevent turmoil and give the landlord a quick sale, it is in everyone’s interest to do so.

Again, I am not delusional and do not think that the Minister will accept this proposal, but I hope that the Minister might indicate how he will be encouraging, through court papers, potentially, and court reform, all those questions to be asked, just as we saw during covid, when court papers required the landlord to ask whether the tenant had been affected by covid. That was not a Bill change—a law change—but it was in the court papers. I am talking about how the question could be asked in court papers. There does not necessarily need to be a change in the discretionary grounds, but the very fact of asking the question could change the mindsets of landlords and, I think, is important.

Finally, under amendments 204 and 203, which I have also tabled, no rent would be required for two months—

Renters (Reform) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

We feel that it is best to give the courts the power to make the decision themselves, rather than prescribing that in legislation. Of course, following Royal Assent, we will publish secondary legislation and guidance. I hope that that gives the hon. Member the assurance that he is looking for.

We will issue guidance to help landlords understand what type of evidence they may choose to provide. It would not be appropriate to be too prescriptive about that in legislation; that might inadvertently suggest that other evidence may not be sufficient. The decision is best determined by a judge on a case-by-case basis. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich withdraw his amendment.

With regards to amendments 143, 144, 192 and 193, we thought long and hard while developing these reforms about getting the right balance between tenant security and landlords’ ability to move into or sell their homes. We believe that having a six-month period at the start of the tenancy during which landlords cannot use the grounds provides the right balance. A longer period risks landlords not making their properties available for rent and reduces the supply of much-needed homes. Landlords also need the flexibility that periodic tenancies allow, and our proposals strike the right balance.

On amendment 194, although we encourage landlords to consider selling to or with sitting tenants, landlords must have the ultimate decision over who they wish to sell their property to. Giving a tenant first refusal could prevent the landlord selling if, for example, they already had a buyer in mind. It could also cause delays in the public sale process and therefore financial hardship to the landlord.

On amendments 203 and 204, the Government do not believe in penalising landlords by mandating that tenants be entitled to a rent-free period at the end of their tenancy. Landlords looking to move into or sell their property may themselves be in financial difficulty, and amendments 203 and 204 could exacerbate that. By disincentivising landlords’ investment in the sector, the amendments would introduce uncertainty and ultimately be detrimental to tenants. On that basis, I ask that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, not move the amendments.

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

I want to ask about a two-month no-rent period. The Government must recognise that there is a huge cost to tenants who have to move out through no fault of their own. Does the Minister not think that there should be some alleviation of that cost? For example, if a tenant finds another property during the two-month notice period, they should not be bound to pay two months’ rent. They have been forced to leave through no fault of their own, and should not have to pay double rent; that would be totally unfair. Does the Minister have views on that?

[Jacob Young]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument and understand the sincerity with which he makes it. We are trying to strike a balance throughout this Bill between tenants’ rights and landlords’ rights. A landlord may choose to evict someone on the grounds that they wish to sell their property, for example, and then be unable to sell their property; if we were to follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic, that landlord would be without rent for two months during the notice period, and three months during the refusal-to-let-again period before being able to put their property back on the market, given that they had been unable to sell their property. I do not think it is fair that if landlords were to pursue that course of action, they could be five months’ rent out of pocket.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

May I press the Minister on that point? If a tenant leaves within the two-month notice period, does the Minister really think that they should be bound to pay those two months’ rent, even though they have been kicked out and have found another property, and relinquished the property to the landlord sooner than the landlord asked them to? Surely they should not be liable for that amount of money.

[Jacob Young]

Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We are trying to strike the right balance in these reforms. That is all I can say on that.

Government amendments 2 to 5 deliver technical changes that will ensure that grounds for possession work as intended, allowing the selling ground to apply to both freeholders and leaseholders who wish to sell their interest in their property. The changes to possession ground 1A are slight, and ensure that the selling ground for private landlords applies to all circumstances where it would be reasonable to consider the landlord to be selling their property, and ensuring that their valid desire to manage their property as they see fit is not unintentionally thwarted. These small changes will ensure that the selling ground works as intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is welcome, but I think the concern is still there, because what does the guidance say? We do not know. What proof does it ask for? We have a clear set of evidential requirements in amendment 138.

We feel strongly about the point of protected periods. In amending ground 1, the Government have removed the requirement for prior notice of the use of the ground. If a landlord wants to take back a property for their own use, they must tell the tenant when the tenancy agreement is made that they may wish to engage the provision for prior notice. There is no prior notice under the amended ground 1. Any tenant could find themselves evicted with six months’ notice, and they would have no clue when they agreed the tenancy with the landlord that they could face that scenario. We very much support the legitimate use of these grounds, but it is essential to strengthen the Bill and the guidance that may come forward to prevent and deter abuse.

For that reason, we will press amendments 138, 139 and 143 to a vote. We also support amendment 194, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. It is completely reasonable for landlords to have to offer the sitting tenant first refusal on purchase of a property. To be frank, I do not really understand what the Minister says about the alternative scenario of a landlord having a buyer in mind who is not the tenant. That does not sound like a particularly fair ground. The tenant is in the property; they should have first refusal at the market price that the landlord asks for. If they cannot meet that price, the landlord can sell to any other buyers.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend will note that such provisions exist in other areas, where the first right of refusal is given. Surely if this legislation is passed, the landlord will always first have the tenant in mind when looking for a buyer. The scenarios suggested by the Minister would not occur, because the landlord would go to the tenant before other buyers.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a reasonable point. Landlords will adapt to the system. They will have it in mind that they must automatically make an offer to the sitting tenant. If they determine that the market price is more than the tenant can afford, they can go to the second buyer that they have in mind. We are not quibbling about them selling at market rate, obviously, but it is important to help renters on to the home ownership ladder if possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—

[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 ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am sceptical about the need for a special student carve-out. The National Union of Students is sceptical as well, but it did acknowledge that if worded correctly it could provide some relief to support a special dedicated market.

I think the Government’s amendment is too broad: it attacks the market that students might be bidding in rather than specifying student markets. There are three markets for the students to bid in. One is purpose-built student accommodation, which already has an exemption and a ground in the Bill—no problem. The second is the student-only houses in multiple occupation market, which is usually advertised via universities or organisations such as Unipol, and focuses only on students. Then there are the HMOs available for young professionals and young people.

Most of the HMOs on the seafront in my constituency are not occupied by students; they are occupied by young professionals looking to eventually get a house to themselves, but they are sharing. There might be people who share accommodation for cost-saving purposes. The measure gives an exemption to that market if the landlord lets to students only. It sucks away a market that is already overstretched—the HMO market—and pushes it into the student market. Already there is pressure because the student market pays more than the general HMO market. The measure will exacerbate that and make things far worse. I am deeply worried about that unintended consequence.

We could stop that unintended consequence. If a property is only for the student market, of course we recognise that, but it should be advertised only via student letting agencies—at the university or via a registered provider. That is largely done, anyway. Universities often pair up with local letting agents and assign letting agents that are trusted providers. My amendment allows that, but it treats the exemption much more like the purpose-built student accommodation exemption. In the long run, universities should have a duty to provide housing—purpose-built or HMO—via the university for all students who want it. That would relieve a lot of the tensions that we get in communities where people are fighting over HMOs—young professionals versus students.

There are measures via article 4 directives under the planning regulations, but they are blunt tools. What we really need is a duty given to universities to ensure that any student who so wishes can be provided with accommodation. That would be a long-term solution. It would solve the madness in Manchester this year—students having to live in Liverpool because not enough accommodation is provided for them in Manchester. But that will not be solved by the Government’s amendment. In my view, it could be made worse.

Providing that all student accommodation needed to be advertised via the university would also allow the university to have a better appraisal of what accommodation was available for their students. It would allow the university to liaise with landlords. When there are problems in communities with student houses—I do not want to be unfair to students, but they are sometimes known to enjoy a party here or there—the universities would be involved in that process, rather than students just being out in the wild, as it were. Good universities already do that. Most universities already have that process.

My other fear is that the measure will make it harder for students who actively choose to live in mixed households, because landlords will not want mixed households. Students who at the moment want to enter the general HMO market and live in a mixed household will now be discouraged. The landlord will say, “No, even though I am advertising this on the general market, I would quite like to rent to an exclusive student household.” The measure also underestimates the flexibility of the student experience: students will drop out, want to stay or want to go into work.

Finally, the danger of the Government amendment, without my amendment, is that it will embed the very problem with the student market. Anyone whose children have gone to university or who has recently been to university themselves will know that, by January, students already have to decide what accommodation they will have next year. Preserving that function of the market is not a positive thing. Students have not developed deep friendships—they only arrived in October—and often have not actually worked out what course they want to do. If they are on a course that has vocational or work placement elements, they do not know where those placements will be. It is impossible for those students to properly plan. Young people who come through clearing are often scrabbling around; by that point, purpose-built accommodation is already taken, and private rented properties are already snatched up.

We could push back the point at which a landlord would know whether that property was vacant. If the students want to stay, there is no problem: the landlord is still going to get the rent, and for the landlord there is no argument there. But if the landlord knew only a few months beforehand—perhaps a two-month or four-month notice period—then students would be deciding in July or August about what accommodation they would be living in. That would give students who had gone through clearing or were going into work placements much better options in the private rented sector.

I worry that, without my amendment, we are locking in many of the problems of the student market. I would struggle to withdraw my amendment, because I think it improves the Minister’s amendment: it does what he is trying to do, but without the unintended consequences.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for his explanation, but it lacked detail; I am still not particularly clear on the Government’s rationale for drafting and tabling the amendment as it stands. I will come to the reasons why, but I want first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown for raising an important issue in relation to student lettings. I fully agree that we need to do much more to improve the student lettings market and drive up professionalism in it.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I should have declared at the beginning that I am a trustee at the University of Bradford Union of Students, which has a board member place on Unipol, the student lettings agency.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Committee will have noted that. I have no doubt that lettings services run by universities and student unions have an important and effective part to play in driving up professionalism and improving the functioning of the market.

As we have heard, Government amendments 1 and 9 make provision for new possession ground 4A, which would allow a student HMO to be recovered by a landlord for further occupation by students. On the Opposition Front Bench, we take a slightly different view from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown: we welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the student market is distinct in particular ways from the rest of the private rented sector and that its protection requires a bespoke approach of some kind. We appreciate the arguments advanced by some landlords operating in the sector about the fact that much of the student market—not all of it; I will come to that—is cyclical and that landlords need a means of guaranteeing possession each year for a new set of tenants. However, we are equally cognisant of the concerns put forward by bodies and organisations representing students and their interests about the potential implications of treating student renters differently from other private tenants—the precedent that might set and the problems that might arise as a result of specific exemptions for certain types of purpose-built dwelling.

In determining whether the Government have struck the right balance as it relates to this measure, we need to grapple with the fact—my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown referred to this—that defining what constitutes a student dwelling is deeply challenging, given the diversity of individuals engaged in higher education and how varied their educational circumstances can be. There is also the fact that some private dwellings will be shared between students and people in employment, whether because the people working have chosen to remain in the area following completion of study or because it made sense for the student in question to move in with an individual of working age who was already at work when they signed their tenancy agreement.

Paragraph (a) of the proposed new ground 4A makes clear that it may be used for houses in multiple occupation and where each tenant is a student at the beginning of the tenancy. Is the implication of the paragraph that, to make use of the ground, a landlord would have to verify at the point the tenancy was signed that every individual who would occupy the property was in fact a student? If a landlord let a house, for example, to two students and one person working full-time, would they not be able to make use of new ground 4A? If it is the case that landlords cannot use new ground 4A to gain possession of a household of, say, part-time students sharing with full-time workers, can the Minister explain whether the Government have undertaken any assessment of the impact of the new possession ground on the availability of rental housing, particularly in towns and cities with large student populations where, as my hon. Friend said, the supply of student housing is already under enormous pressure? I know that, too, from my own constituency.

A further complication is added into the mix by sub-paragraph (a)(ii), which provides for use of the ground where

“the landlord reasonably believed that the tenant would become a full-time student during the tenancy”.

That strikes us as an incredibly low evidential threshold to have to meet. Can the Minister explain how on earth landlords will be expected to prove that such a belief is legitimate? Who will they need to satisfy, if anyone, that there are reasonable grounds to assume that a non-student tenant will become a student during the lifetime of the tenancy?

We are genuinely concerned that Government amendment 9 as drafted could be abused by unscrupulous landlords following the enactment of chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill. Relying on paragraph (a)(ii), one could easily imagine landlords evicting groups of, say, young working tenants sharing a property using the justification that they believed they intended to become full-time students before the tenancy agreement expired. We would venture that the courts themselves will struggle to ascertain whether a landlord has proved the new ground by relying on sub-paragraph (ii) and that most evictions under 4A, like other mandatory possession grounds, will probably not even arrive before a judge—the tenants will simply leave, the threat having been made. We would welcome further clarification from the Minister about why sub-paragraph (ii) has been included in the proposed new clause and would like some robust assurances that it cannot be abused to facilitate section 21 no-fault evictions by the back door.

Another complication arising from the wording of the new clause concerns paragraph (c) on lines 11 and 12 of the amendment paper. That states that new ground 4A can be used to gain possession only between 1 June and 30 September in any year. However, as hon. Members with student populations in their constituencies will know, a large number of UK universities now also accommodate a winter intake in January. They do so not only for postgraduate students; it is now also the main secondary intake for some undergraduate courses. Given that the proposed new possession ground is available for use only during June and September, we are concerned it could have the unintended consequence of impacting detrimentally on the availability of other properties for students to let at other times of the year, given that under the proposed new ground there is an inherent incentive for landlords to let only on the primary summer-to-summer cycle.

If it is the Government’s intention to ensure that there is a cyclical availability of student accommodation, we suspect that they may need to think again about how it is achieved for students whose academic year starts and finishes at times other than those specified in the amendment. Moreover, even for those students who finish their courses in the summer, there is a wide degree of variation between undergraduates, who will usually finish earlier; postgraduates, who may be working on research projects until a much later date; or undergraduates undertaking placements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

Let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions straightaway. On whether a landlord will have to check that the tenants are students, they must do that at the beginning of the tenancy. They can be fined if they try to use these grounds without having notified the students that they are in student accommodation and that the grounds are therefore included.

The hon. Gentleman asked if everyone in a property must be a student. That is the case; if the property is mixed occupancy, the ground will not apply. On his point about reasonable belief, that is specifically in relation to first-year students who have not yet become a student. A landlord can reasonably believe that a student taking out a tenancy is to become one, but until they are a student they are not technically one just yet.

The ground is designed to cover the majority of the market. Were we to make the ground available all year round, it would give much less security and open it up to much greater abuse.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

That is why it is better to swap in my amendment on this point. Rather than working with the universities on the particular cycle they might have in their local area, we are trying to legislate for term times here in Westminster, but it does not work. Will the Minister go away, maybe when the Bill goes to the other place, and rethink how we can have a clause that requires landlords to work with a university to ensure that letting is in line with the relevant local term times and not our attempts to legislate for these things here? I get what the Minister is trying to say.

[Jacob Young]

I completely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Obviously, on the back of the conversations we have had today, we will consider these measures further. The ground has been carefully designed in consultation with stakeholders—landlords, universities and so on—to facilitate the annual cycle of short-term student tenancies. That is why we specifically created that gap in the change in the academic year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

I am not in a position to outline that today. I have made it clear that, in terms of a landlord reasonably expecting someone to become a student, that would hinge on them starting term in the very near future. I think that that is clear, but we will set that out further in guidance. For those reasons and others, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown not to press his amendment.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister has given a good rationale for his amendment. Paragraph (d) requires the landlord, in the next letting cycle, to be letting out to exclusively students or those he believes to be students. How will we assess whether the property has been let out to students exclusively? That is the only point of the clause. Will the property portal be an opportunity to record information about whether the house is a student let, so that we can be clear when the tenancy is signed and when the next tenancy is released that it is a reserved student property?

[Jacob Young]

It is likely that a new contract would have to be signed with the new tenants, who would be students, for this to be used. It would be unusual for a judge to think that, “I thought all of these people were suddenly going to become students,” would be a reasonable argument to use this ground. I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s points have merit, and I ask him not to press his amendment to a vote.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am not inclined to press my amendment, because the Minister has given assurances that he will go away and rethink the clause. I am still not happy about the clause, and we will see what we do on the substantive issue, but there are problems with paragraph (d). The provisions do not work with the universities; they set things in Westminster, rather than saying that the property should be protected because it has been let via an approved university letting agent or the university itself. That seems like a solution the Minister could grab. It would solve his term dates problem, his “Is it going to be let to students?” problem and his “Is it being let to students?” problem. In fact, every single question we have would be solved by my amendment. The Minister has said, and I will take it in good faith, that he will go away, look at this and see how things could be amended, and I will push him on Third Reading on what ideas he has come up with.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the changes to grounds for possession made under this Act within two years of the date of Royal Assent.”

This amendment would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession within two years of the Act coming into force.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 3, as we have discussed, amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Once section 21 has finally been removed from that Act through the provisions in clause 2 and the commencement dates in clause 67, the only means by which a landlord will be able to regain possession of a property by evicting a tenant will be by securing a court judgment under the revised section 8 grounds set out in schedule 2 to the 1988 Act, whether they be mandatory or discretionary. We have already debated concerns relating to several of those grounds, and we will debate more in due course when we get to schedule 1. However, we believe it is important to also take a view on the proposed replacement possession regime as a whole, given that it is the most comprehensive reform of the grounds in that regime in the 35 years since the 1988 Act came into force.

Labour recognises, and has repeatedly said since the White Paper was published, that following the abolition of section 21 no-fault evictions, landlords will need recourse to robust and effective grounds for possession in circumstances where there are valid reasons for taking a property back, such as flagrant antisocial or criminal behaviour. However, we have also made it clear that the Bill must ensure that such grounds cannot be abused to unfairly evict tenants and that they will be tight enough to minimise fraudulent use of the kind we have seen in Scotland in the wake of the major private renting reforms introduced there in 2017.

The revised set of section 8 possession grounds must reflect the fact that evictions, which are inherently disruptive and often incredibly damaging to tenants’ lives, should be only ever a measure of last resort where no alternative course of action exists. The grounds must be proportionate, secure against abuse from landlords seeking to carry out unfair or retaliatory evictions, and designed effectively so that properties are recovered only when a tenant is genuinely at fault, and they must not cause tenants undue hardship.

Amendment 137 and new clause 54 would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of the amended grounds for possession regime within two years of the Act coming into force. With that requirement, whether individual grounds for possession are further amended, as we hope, or the Government resist our efforts and the grounds remain as drafted, we will at least be able to judge the efficacy and impact of the new arrangements both for landlords seeking to recover their properties when a tenant is genuinely at fault and for tenants who are not at fault but who may suffer as a result of flaws in the regime. We think the amendment is entirely reasonable, and I am interested to hear how the Minister will, no doubt, resist it.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise to support the amendment. The Minister has already indicated that there is work still to do and that he will go away and see how this will work in practice. Clearly, some of these issues will come out when the Bill receives Royal Assent.

These are sensible measures with which nobody—landlords or tenants—could really disagree. We can no longer have a set of grounds that have been stuck in time for 30 years, and Bills that only add things on from time to time, without stepping back and looking at the changes that have occurred, whether those relate to students—the Minister is pushing for the measures on students to be included in the Bill, rather than in regulations—or any of the other clauses. Consider antisocial behaviour in particular, and the concern that many campaign groups have expressed around potential domestic violence falling foul of the new “likely” or “able to” provisions.

[Jacob Young]

indicated dissent.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister may disagree. That is fine: he will get his way, and we will pass his wording, but there should then be an assurance that, in a few years’ time, there will be a review of the legislation. If the Minister is right, we will applaud him—well, we cannot applaud in the House of Commons, but we will metaphorically cheer him in the House and say that he did such a fantastic job with his civil servants and the Department that the legislation is watertight. Alternatively, we will say that there are some small loopholes that need changing or that the world has changed. I do not think that that is unreasonable.

Personally, I think these sorts of provisions should be in almost all Bills we pass, but they are particularly important in this Bill, because of the dynamic nature of the market and the wholescale reforms we are making. Nobody knows what effects this will have on the courts. Nobody knows quite what effects it will have on tenants. Opposition Members are all talking about unintended consequences, which is why our proposals are so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Paragraph 20 of schedule 1 amends ground 7 in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Ground 7 requires a court to award possession if a tenancy has been passed to someone by will or intestacy after the death of the previous tenant. The landlord has 12 months in which to initiate proceedings using this ground, or 12 months from the point when the landlord learns of the tenant’s death, if the court agrees. The Government propose amending the ground to give landlords 24, rather than 12, months to initiate proceedings.

There are two issues here. The first is whether ground 7, even in its current form, is reasonable, and we are not convinced that it is any more. Why should a private tenant who is complying fully with all the terms and conditions in the tenancy agreement be put at risk of eviction purely because of the death of someone they live with? As the UK Commission on Bereavement has detailed, in the aftermath of a bereavement, renters face not only a significant and immediate loss of income in many cases, but additional costs; they have to prepare funerals and memorials for loved ones, and so on.

In those uniquely distressing circumstances, the threat of eviction should not hang over a tenant for up to a year, as it presently does. Nor should landlords, in our view, be able to use this ground for reasons that the Bill seeks to prohibit—for example, to avoid letting their property to a bereaved family who might find themselves reliant on universal credit, tax credits or housing benefit as a result of the family member’s death. The UK Commission on Bereavement found evidence of that in the sector. The situation is different when it comes to social rented housing, given that stock is much reduced and there is tight rationing; that might require a council or housing association to regain possession of an under-occupied property, but we do not think the same circumstances apply to the private rented sector. Amendment 151 would limit the use of ground 7 to social rented housing, thereby abolishing its use in the private rented sector.

The second issue relates to the change to ground 7 that the Government propose. Assuming that the Minister resists our amendment 151, as I fully expect him to, we still hope that the Government will reconsider extending the period in which a landlord can initiate proceedings on this ground from 12 to 24 months. We recognise that it can often take some time to investigate, and to find evidence confirming whether a person left behind in a property after a tenant’s death is a successor or inherits the tenancy. As a point of principle, however, we do not believe that private tenants who lived with someone who died should face the risk of eviction with just two months’ notice for up to two years after their loss. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that seeking to double the period in which a bereaved tenant has to live with such a risk hanging over their head strikes us as a particularly callous decision. If the Government are adamant that ground 7 needs to remain in force, they should at least retain the existing 12-month timescale for applying for possession on that ground. Amendment 152 would achieve that, and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise to support amendment 152, and particularly its spirit. I could not agree more that if a tenant is in good standing, paying their rent and not breaching any other clauses of the contract, why should they be kicked out because the named person on the tenancy has died? There are also implications for HMOs if a joint tenant dies, or where the tenancy has been passed on via will or intestacy. Where it is passed on, that will almost always be to children or partners. Very often, a lease will be in the name of only one of the family members—maybe the breadwinning family member, who will have gone through all the financial checks.

A landlord will almost invariably know that they are renting out to a group of people, but for legal and financial reasons, one name will be on that tenancy. It does not seem right that those other people would, over such a long period, possibly face eviction. My preference is for the period to last two or three months after the landlord finds out about the death, but 12 months seems a reasonable compromise that us sceptics could live with, because that is the law at the moment. I have not heard any reasons—I look forward to hearing some from the Minister—why the period needs to be extended, or why the Government think hanging the sword of Damocles over a grieving family is positive. This is bearing in mind that any other grounds can be used if the tenants are not in good standing or not behaving well.

In the social sector, there will be a duty to house a family, maybe in alternative accommodation, if they have a housing need. That duty does not exist in the private sector, so the danger is that all we are doing is putting the burden on local authorities. That family will go very quickly to the local authority, and they will be accommodated in emergency or temporary accommodation. Putting that additional burden on the local authority does not seem reasonable. It is also difficult for the authority, because effectively there is now a two-year period of potential eviction and homelessness for that family. That does not seem a good situation for either the local authority or the family. Can the Minister give some rationale for the proposal? I am particularly interested in why he thinks the period should exist at all.

[Jacob Young]

I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling amendments 151 and 152, which seek to restrict the use of ground 7. I also thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, for his comments. Ground 7 permits a landlord to evict when a tenancy has passed on by will or intestacy, following the death of an assured tenant. Landlords will not usually be able to evict bereaved spouses or partners from their only home on that ground. Eligible bereaved spouses or partners are, by law, entitled to succeed the tenancy, as long as the named tenant did not themselves succeed. When succession occurs, the ground cannot be used.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My understanding is that the Minister is referring to a legal partner or spouse, unless he can reassure me that he is not. Many people might not be legally married or be in a civil partnership. That puts them at risk, does it not?

[Jacob Young]

I understand the hon. Member’s concerns. I will write to him to clarify that point.

Amendment 152, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, would reduce the time in which landlords can initiate proceedings back down to 12 months. We have been told by a number of social housing providers that it can often take longer to establish whether succession has occurred. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, mentioned that as well. That can hinder providers’ ability to regain possession from someone who is not entitled to social housing, and therefore prevent the property from being occupied by someone who is.

It is right that private tenants cannot name anyone they want to succeed their tenancy, as that would leave the landlord with no control over who lives in their property. Therefore, it is vital that ground 7 remains available to both private and social landlords. The ground will not be used frequently, and provides the right balances in those instances when it is used. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has decided to contribute, because he has a huge amount of experience in this area. I hope that I was as clear as possible when making the case that ground 8A can be gamed; that there are already mechanisms to deal with it under existing ground 8; and that the numbers are likely to be incredibly small. I suggest that the reason the Government included it is that tenants will collectively feel the force of the new mandatory grounds for possession, and many of them will leave their tenancy under threat of it being served, rather than it being practically served. It is a deterrent to challenging and asserting one’s rights, and, as I will explain, we do not think it is necessary. We are extremely concerned about how the ground might operate and the fact that it could lead to a great many vulnerable tenants being evicted. It is a punitive and draconian measure that will cause great hardship. It is not necessary—this is the important point, in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question—to tackle genuine instances of persistent arrears or the occasional instance when a problem tenant seeks to deliberately avoid ground 8A action.

These are not tenants who might simply refuse to pay their rent. By implication, those tenants will still be dealt with under the serious rent arrears ground 8. To be evicted under ground 8A, a tenant will need to have fallen into arrears and then worked them off twice in a period of three years. Many will have paid the two periods of arrears off in full, and between them could have been fully up to date with their rent. The new ground will cover many tenants who, for whatever reason, are waiting to receive a lump sum in order to clear their arrears—people who are self-employed or struggling with late payments and those in similar circumstances. To be clear, these are people who are trying to do the right thing and doing precisely what we would expect them to do—namely, trying to put the situation right. As Darren Baxter from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation put it in the evidence he provided to the Committee,

“it is punishing people for doing the right thing.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 15, Q13.]

We agree with the chief executive of Citizens Advice, Dame Clare Moriarty, who argued last week that the measure targets a group of people, many of whom “are probably in crisis”. We are talking about people who are almost certainly struggling to keep afloat, people in insecure employment, or people whose lives and finances may have suffered multiple adverse shocks.

There is also a real concern that the measure will encompass particularly vulnerable groups of tenants. For example, the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance-led National Housing and Domestic Abuse Policy and Practice Group—that is a mouthful, Mr Gray—has suggested that the new ground presents a significant risk to victims of domestic abuse, who are more likely to accumulate rent arrears due to economic abuse and the economic impact of feeling domestic abuse.

The common denominator will be that the tenants are likely to be doing everything they possibly can to retain their tenancy and their home. As Dame Clare Moriarty rightly put it last week:

“These are people who are either suffering multiple adverse life events or possibly trying to avoid losing the roof over their head by borrowing in insecure ways, but they need help and advice, not to be evicted.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 15, Q13.]

The idea that we are instead talking about a bunch of people familiar enough with ground 8A of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 to sit down and work out how they can game it is frankly insulting. So troubled are we by the proposed new mandatory ground 8A that, unlike with any of the other new possession grounds that the Bill seeks to introduce, we believe it should be removed from the legislation altogether. By leaving out paragraph 22, amendment 153 would achieve that, and we intend to press it to a vote.

If, as we fully expect, the Government resist the removal of new mandatory ground 8A from the Bill, we will press the Government to consider at least making it a discretionary rather than a mandatory ground. Then at least the court would have to consider whether the tenant had inadvertently fallen into arrears three times over the specified period and whether they could reasonably be expected to make up the arrears and pay their rent on time and in full going forward—an outcome that would obviously be advantageous for the landlord, who would not lose income during the void period. If the court believed that the tenant could not do so or was likely to fail to pay their rent again in the future, they could still make an outright possession order under a discretionary ground. As Liz Davies KC argued in her evidence last week, a discretionary 8A ground would not be

“a ‘get out of jail free’ card for the tenant, by any means.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 106, Q135.]

Amendment 180 would have the effect of moving ground 8A from part 1 of schedule 2 to the 1988 Act to part 2, thus rendering it discretionary. We urge the Minister to give that serious consideration. The county courts, as we have heard, are extremely good at looking at rent arrears histories and judging whether an outright possession order is warranted.

Lastly, if the Government will not countenance removing new ground 8A entirely or making it discretionary rather than mandatory, we urge the Minister to at least tighten it in ways that will make it far less punitive. Amendments 154 to 156 seek to achieve that by reducing the period in which repeated serious rent arrears must take place from the proposed three years to one, and by extending the period during which at least two months of rent arrears were unpaid from a single day to two weeks. Those three amendments, if accepted, would at least ensure that ground 8A is utilised only in instances where a tenant is almost continuously falling into arrears for extended periods of time. As I have said, we feel very strongly about this group of amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to each.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise to support the amendments. I think this clause is particularly pernicious. I do not know whether other Members do this, but I have a tendency in the evening, when my staff have all gone home, to sit at the telephone lines, see who rings in and pick up the calls. I probably should not do that, but I like to get a feeling for who is ringing. They are usually the people who are in crisis. I do not do it every evening, so if constituents try and ring, they will not always get me, but on a Friday afternoon or evening, I will pick up the phone. Invariably, one of those people will be in crisis.

It will be the tradesperson who has again not been paid for the job that he has been working on for the past month, or perhaps the payment has been delayed—we know that there are huge problems with people paying small businesses. Or it will be the person who has been trying to scrimp and save, and has not yet gone to universal credit or any of the support agencies, despite probably being eligible, out of pride or a belief that they could get out of it. They have borrowed money from friends and family, and over a period of time repeatedly dipped down, but they always managed to get themselves back up, usually on their own terms, but this time it has just been a bit too much.

The problem is that, by the time that those people have rung my office, it is too late, because they will have dipped up and down a number of times over the past year—or three years, potentially—and the reason for their holding off getting help is because, every time before, they have managed to build back up. However, now, for the third time, we will move to a non-discretionary, mandatory ground. They will phone up their local citizen’s advice bureau or their MP’s office, or go round to the council, but we will be able to say only one thing: “I’m sorry, there’s nothing we can do because it’s a mandatory ground.”

I think that that is particularly pernicious and nasty, because these are people who we know are good for it in the long term. They will often be people who can raise the money eventually but have cash-flow problems, perhaps through no fault of their own. As I said, a lot of tradespeople will suffer some of these problems. They are having to pay out money for supplies to continue their work; the money does not come in in some months, and two months’ arrears can quite easily build up.

That feeling—that they might have to spend the rent to be able to buy the materials to build the building that they can get the money for—is a choice that they have to make all the time. While that is of course not encouraged, it surely is better that we encourage them to make good in the end and build themselves up, so that that does not happen repeatedly, rather than push them out. Of course, an eviction makes them more likely to spiral into further difficulties, which is why making this a mandatory measure is so unpleasant. The reality is that a payment plan, in many situations—or a deferred order in most situations—would suffice, and the courts can implement that at the moment.

The idea that we need this as a mandatory ground is also dangerous, as we have heard, because, what would my advice or an advice centre’s advice be, on that third occasion? “Well, you’re going to get the eviction notice anyway. Prioritise the other debts that you need to pay off, or making sure that your family have food on the table, rather than considering the rent a priority.” That is not good for the landlord either. Having to reclaim money through the courts from those groups of people in a speedy manner is nigh on impossible, and eviction is not what most landlords want. They want a payment and to be able to ensure that that support is there.

It would be much better either to not have this clause or to have a discretionary ground that requires engagement with debt advice and advisers. There is also much that can be done through court processes, as we saw during covid. As I have mentioned, for section 21s and other forms of evictions, the landlord—when permitted—had to demonstrate that they had taken covid into account and had sought to advise the tenant of the support offered under the covid regime. Aspects like that need to be incorporated here. Again, it does not always need to be on the face of the Bill, but there need to be reassurances that it is incorporated in a binding way, to be able to process these elements. The Minister needs to relent on this.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[The Chair]

Just before I call the next speaker, I want to let the Whips know that there will be a Chairperson in place this afternoon at 2 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I thank hon. Members for tabling amendments 130, 131 and 158, and new clause 55. As we have heard, antisocial behaviour causes misery and it is an issue that the Government have considered extremely carefully when developing the reforms.

We know that antisocial behaviour can be hard to prove, as the hon. Member for Westminster North said, so this measure gives landlords more confidence that they will be able to evict a tenant when necessary. Members will be aware that antisocial behaviour encompasses a wide range of conduct. Lowering the threshold for this ground will help landlords to recover their properties when tenants engage in antisocial behaviour, even if it cannot be proved that it has caused or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance in any given case.

Repetition and regularity is obviously likely to be a key part of most people’s experience of antisocial behaviour. A one-off incident involving a visiting relative, for example, is already unlikely to be classed as antisocial behaviour. There is also precedent elsewhere in the statute book for defining antisocial behaviour as conduct that is “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance to a person in occupation of residential premises or in relation to housing management functions.

It is important to remember that the ground remains discretionary. Judges will determine whether it is met and whether giving the landlord possession is reasonable. The Government are committed to publishing guidance on tackling antisocial behaviour before the new rules come into effect. My officials have already set up a working group with key stakeholders, including landlord and tenant groups, charities, antisocial behaviour specialists and legal professionals. The group will ensure that the reforms are implemented effectively and that the guidance is clear and thorough.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is very good that the Minister is talking about the guidance. Will he expect courts to consider that guidance in their deliberations?

[Jacob Young]

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we have expanded the factors a judge needs to consider when using discretion so they have particular regard to people who are sharing properties or not engaging with their landlord’s efforts to tackle ASB.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am trying to ensure that courts will be empowered, required or encouraged—whatever form of words the Minister wants—to consider the guidance that he has outlined in making their deliberations.

[Jacob Young]

As we have already heard a number of times in this debate, it is important that the courts have that flexibility to make that discretionary judgment on this issue, and I think that they would consider all manner of things when deciding on that.

The working group will help to ensure that the reforms are implemented effectively and that guidance is clear and thorough. We intend to use the guidance to highlight the important links to domestic abuse, mental health and other vulnerabilities. That is the aim of new clause 55, and I hope that addresses some Members’ concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Further to that, will a judgment of a 5A be in the public domain and therefore available or declarable to potential new landlords? I am asking because a section 21 is not, but a county court judgment on financial grounds is.

[Jacob Young]

We are not discussing 5A right now, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that point.

As I was saying on houses in multiple occupation, this measure will make it easier to evict perpetrators who are having a severe impact on those living in close proximity with them day to day. I therefore commend Government new clause 1 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

[Helen Morgan]

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I have covered all bases in our set of amendments. We will come to the preconditions and requirements that have developed around section 21 that fall away under the Bill; they are a concern. The hon. Gentleman is right: to serve a section 21 notice, a number of regulatory obligations must be met.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Another advantage of doing it through the property portal is that it helps to speed up the digitalisation process that the Government are so keen on with the courts. The portal would retain the information that the courts need.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Absolutely, and it is one of several ways that we think that, with some reasonable, common-sense amendments, we can strengthen the Bill so that every part of it works together. I hope that the Government will go away and think about the other ways in which we can ensure maximum landlord compliance with the portal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Statutory procedure for increases of rent

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I beg to move amendment 200, in clause 5, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(4F) It shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that percentage increase between the existing rent and any new rent specified in a notice given under subsection (2) shall not exceed whichever is the lesser of—

(a) the percentage increase in the rate of inflation (calculated by reference to the Consumer Prices Index) since the date on which the existing rent took effect; or

(b) the percentage increase in median wages in the local authority area in which the dwelling-house is situated, calculated over a three-year period ending on the date on which the notice was served.”

This amendment specifies that the annual increase in rent requested by a landlord may not exceed the lesser of either the Consumer Prices Index or wage growth in the relevant local authority area.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 159, in clause 5, page 6, line 23, at end insert—

“13B Recovery of rent

(1) Any increased rent which is paid otherwise than in accordance with section 13 or section 13A is recoverable from the landlord by the tenant as a debt claim in the courts.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for such claims to be recoverable by proceedings in the First-Tier Tribunal, rather than the courts.”

This amendment would ensure that in instances where a private landlord increases the rent without issuing a section 13 or section 13A notice the tenant can seek to recover costs through a debt claim in the court. It also provides the government with the power by regulation for such claims to be recoverable by tribunal.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 201, in clause 6, page 7, line 3, leave out paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and insert—

“(b) leave out from ‘shall determine the rent’ to end of sub-section and insert ‘in accordance with subsection 13(4F)’.”

This amendment would require a tribunal to determine an appropriate rent in accordance with proposed subsection 13(4F).

Amendment 197, in clause 6, page 7, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) After subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) In making a determination under this section, the appropriate tribunal must have regard to the original rent agreed with the tenant and subsequent changes in—

(a) Local Housing Allowance;

(b) the average rent within the broad rental market area as assessed by the Valuation Office Agency or as listed in the Property Portal;

(c) the consumer price index; and

(d) median income growth.’”

This amendment would allow the tribunal to take into account not only new rents in the market but current rents in existing tenancies, changes in wages, inflation, and local housing allowance when making a determination.

Amendment 198, in clause 6, page 7, line 25, at end insert—

“(5A) After subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal, then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the original rent and the increase in consumer price index or medium income growth, whichever is lower over the period since the tenancy started.’”

This amendment would limit tribunals to an upper cap of CPI or medium income growth, whichever is lower, for rent increases.

Amendment 199, in clause 6, page 7, line 25, at end insert—

“(5A) After subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal, then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be set using the statutory guidance on in-tenancy rent increases laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.’”

Amendment 199 and NC66 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases, and require tribunals to take such guidance into account when making determinations.

Amendment 160, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, at end insert—

“(7A) After subsection (8) insert—

‘(8A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) above applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the rent specified in the section 13 notice and the rent as determined by the tribunal shall only become payable once the decision of the tribunal has become final.

(8B) A decision becomes final only on the latest of—

(a) the determination of any appeal;

(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or

(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.’”

This amendment would ensure that where a rent assessment is carried out by a tribunal, the rent subsequently determined by that tribunal cannot be higher than that originally requested by a landlord in a section 13 notice.

Amendment 190, in clause 6, page 7, line 38, at end insert—

“(c) no more than the rent proposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant under section 13 of the 1988 Act.”

This amendment would mean that the rent payable after a tribunal determination can be no higher than the rent initially proposed by the landlord in the notice served on the tenant.

Amendment 161, in clause 6, page 8, line 20, at end insert

“which must be no earlier than two months following the date of determination”.

This amendment would ensure that in cases of undue hardship tenants would have a minimum of two months from the date of determination before a new rent became payable.

Amendment 162, in clause 6, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) A date specified under subsection (3)(b) must be no earlier than the date on which the determination becomes final, with a decision only becoming final on the latest of—

(a) the determination of any appeal;

(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or

(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.”

This amendment would remove the requirement for a date determined by a court for rent to become payable in cases of undue hardship to not be later than the date of the determination.

Clause 6 stand part.

New clause 58—Requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises—

“(1) A landlord must not advertise or otherwise offer a tenancy of residential premises unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.

(2) A letting agent acting on behalf of a landlord must not advertise or otherwise offer a tenancy of residential premises unless the amount of rent is stated in the advertisement or offer.”

This new clause would require landlords or persons acting on their behalf to state the proposed rent payable in the advertisement for the premises.

New clause 59—Not inviting or encouraging bids for rent—

“(1) A landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises as required by section [requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises].

(2) A letting agent acting on behalf of a landlord must not invite or encourage a prospective tenant or any other person to offer to pay an amount of rent for residential premises that exceeds the amount of rent stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises as required by section [requirement to state the amount of rent when advertising residential premises].

(3) Subsection (1) does not prohibit a prospective tenant or other person from offering to pay an amount that exceeds the stated amount of rent.”

This new clause would prevent landlords or persons acting on their behalf from inviting or encouraging bids that exceed the amount stated as part of the advertisement or offer of the premises.

New clause 62—Limit on amount of rent that a residential landlord can request in advance—

“In Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, after paragraph 1(8) insert—

‘(9) Where rent is payable in advance, the maximum that may be charged is equivalent to the amount specified in paragraph 2(3).’”

This new clause would ensure that the maximum amount of rent that could be lawfully requested by a residential landlord in advance of a tenancy commencing would be 5 weeks’ rent for tenancies of less than £50,000 per annum and to 6 weeks’ rent for tenancies over £50,000 per annum.

New clause 66—Rent increase regulations—

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, from time to time, guidance for tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases under a section 13(2) notice, such guidance shall include reference to Local Housing Allowance, average rents as assessed by the Valuation Office Agency or published on the Property Portal, consumer price index and median income growth.”

Amendment 199 and NC66 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to tribunals on the determination of in-tenancy rent increases, and require tribunals to take such guidance into account when making determinations.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I will speak to amendments 197 to 201 and new clause 66. I also support the other amendments put forward by my Front-Bench colleagues: amendments 160, 161 and so on.

The reason for these amendments is generally to probe the Government. The intention of the Bill is to stop landlords evicting people with no reason. It might well be through no fault of the tenant, or it might be that the landlord has genuine reasons, but it is still through no fault of the tenant. The danger is that without proper safeguards on economic evictions, landlords will be able to evict through the back door by whipping up the rent. The explanatory note from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities acknowledges the need to prevent back-door evictions, and that is why there are clauses to strengthen some of the rent tribunals’ work. We all welcome that.

However, there are a few particular problems with the current definitions of the rent tribunal. The Secretary of State himself says that 20% and 30% rent increases are “unacceptable”. However, the reality is that those kinds of rent increases could, in certain markets, still be acceptable in the rent tribunal, primarily because the rent tribunal looks at current market rents. Off the top of my head, I believe that the wording around current market rent refers to the rent that the landlord would be able to get if they were to put a property on the market, or in that phraseology. The problem with that is fewfold.

First, current market rent is based on the market rent of newly let properties, not of properties that have a sitting tenant. Quite understandably, if there is a sitting tenant, a landlord may not require as high a rent. They have not just had to deep-clean the property. Most good landlords—we all accept that they are the majority—make repairs to a house between tenancies and make sure it is back up to speed after general wear and tear. For a sitting tenant, those changes due to wear and tear will probably not be made, or they will have to make some of those improvements themselves. Asking the tenant to pay the general market rent is not a fair allocation of what the rent would be.

Tenants might have moved in and started paying a rent that was accessible on local housing allowance. Changes might then have happened around the area, or the area might have been gentrified, but the landlord may not have made any changes themselves—they have not invested anything more in the property. Suddenly, the rents go up and make that house unaffordable on local housing allowance. That does not seem fair to me either. The landlord has not invested. Clearly if the landlord has invested, there could be increases in rent. Under certain circumstances, we all think that rent needs to go up; it could not be fixed at one number forever.

I have therefore tabled a number of amendments. Amendments 200 and 201 state that the landlord may increase rents only according to the consumer prices index or median wages in the local area. This is effectively the clause that Grainger puts on its new properties. Grainger said in evidence that it does this routinely. It is not something that will come as a horrible surprise to lots of landlords, because many of the good ones—many of the big institutions—do it already.

[Jacob Young]

With respect to the hon. Member’s point, the Committee has heard other evidence that Grainger does not do that. Grainger did it specifically in relation to their fixed-term rents. Since we are abolishing fixed terms, I do not think his point applies.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Grainger currently does it on its fixed-term rents, and almost all new rents are fixed-term rents for a period of time. The Minister is right: we do not know what Grainger will do in future. However, Grainger did not say that it would abolish them for sure in future either. I would expect Grainger to continue some sort of mechanism where there is that discussion. That is one suggestion I put to the Committee, and I would like to have the Minister’s thoughts on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan]

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

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

Order. Let us stick to the amendments, please.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I digress, but I do believe that all of Britain will have a better deal under Labour—although, of course, I would say that.

Amendment 199 would give the Secretary of State the flexibility to work out what the local markets are, and they could even devolve that to local or regional bodies. It would give them the ability to say, “I’m laying down a statement to say that there is no restriction of the total amount whatever,” or they could say, “Certain areas have restrictions, and certain areas have none.” The Secretary of State should consider introducing the ability to do that, given that certain areas are more problematic than others, and also the ability to look at indicators that might be relevant from time to time. At the moment, the courts cannot consider Secretary of State guidance on this matter because they are bound to consider only one thing. All I am saying is that they should consider market rents and the Secretary of State’s guidance.

[Jacob Young]

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Secretary of State could devolve that decision. The Mayor of London has asked for powers to introduce rent controls in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Mayor of London?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

We are talking about in-tenancy rent controls, and I think there are cases where they should be devolved and cases where they should be decided by the Government. Different Governments will take different approaches, depending on the need of the local area. Out-of-tenancy rent controls are a different matter and are not covered by the Bill. I will not be distracted, because I am sure you would pull me up for going into a different area, Mr Paisley.

[The Chair]

I would.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I also support some of the other important amendments in the group. Amendment 160, from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, is about ensuring that rents cannot be above the initial section 13. What I mean by that—I am sure my hon. Friend will discuss it further—is that if the landlord says, “I want a rent of x,” and the tenant says, “That’s unreasonable,” and takes it to the tribunal, the tribunal cannot issue a higher rent than what the landlord was asking. We heard a lot of evidence about how that would have a chilling effect and prevent people from going to the rent tribunal.

The whole premise of the Bill—even the Government acknowledge this—is that what prevents economic evictions is the threat of going to the court or tribunal. Nobody wants to go to the rent tribunal, so landlords propose decent rents; there is self-control and self-restraint. If there is no upper cap on what the rent tribunal can decide, a landlord who is happy to accept a lower amount might end up dancing out of the court because they were suddenly offered more than they asked for. That does not seem fair to me; that does not seem fair in any form of the market. That is important.

Of course, if we give courts the ability to consider Secretary of State guidance, that could be included in the Secretary of State guidelines, but I assume the Minister will reject that proposal, so it is important that there is a backstop. Amendment 160 is important for that backstop.

Then there are some amendments about undue hardship. I support them, and other hon. Members will talk about them. It is important that the Government give some indication of how they think tribunals should interpret these measures. I also say that because it is in nobody’s interest for every single rent to be challenged in the tribunal in the first few years of the new system. That will not help the tribunals, renters or landlords. Landlords need guidelines. If landlords are just told, “Punt a rent and find out what happens in tribunal,” we are letting down landlords as well. Providing some clearer guidelines, either in the Bill or through the Secretary of State, would reassure landlords that when they want to raise their tenants’ rents reasonably, they can do so.

Finally, I have heard some concern externally that if we limit rent increases, a landlord who forgoes a rent increase over one or two years will be unable to match the rent up later. All my amendments refer to when the tenancy started, so the court and tribunal could consider what the rent increases have been throughout that tenancy. Of course, sometimes a landlord will say, “I will not increase your rent for a few years, because I do not need to, but when I do get round to doing it, I will increase it to what it would have been had I done it annually.” That is fair enough, and my amendment allows for it. No landlord would be disadvantaged by the amendment; it would provide security for landlords, security for tenants and flexibility for the tribunals.

If there is any movement from the Government on any of my very reasonable amendments, I would love to hear about it.

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

Renters (Reform) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd November 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

I thank Members for their amendments. Let me start by being clear that the Government do not support the introduction of rent controls at any point in the tenancy, no matter what they are linked to. The Bill protects tenants from very large rent increases being used as a back-door method of eviction while protecting the ability of landlords to increase rent in line with market levels.

That said, I am concerned by the practices that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned in relation to Dolphin Square and would be happy to meet her to discuss the matter further. Although I appreciate that the Bill will not be passed in time for her constituents, hopefully we can prevent some of those types of practice in the future.

Clause 5 amends section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to ensure that in future all rent increases for private landlords will take place via the specified mechanism. If a landlord tries to make a tenant pay an increased rent outside of the process, it will be unenforceable.

Clause 6 amends section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. It sets out the conditions by which a tenant can submit an application to the first-tier tribunal to challenge the rent amount in the first six months of a tenancy, or following a section 13 rent increase notice.

Let me turn to the amendments. When a tenant challenges a rent increase, it is for the first-tier tribunal to then determine the rent. Although market data can indicate the general trends in an area, it can be challenging to use when calculating the value of a specific property. The tribunal is made up of experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors—including the rent for comparable properties in the area, the quality of fixings and the proximity to amenities—that result in a market rate. The tribunal members are best placed to determine the rent using the data that they feel is most appropriate, rather than having to use whichever indicator is the flavour of the month. The tenant must pay the rent from the date that the tribunal directs, or from the beginning of the rent period specified in the notice. In cases of undue hardship, that will be the date that the tribunal directs, but must not be later than the date of determination.

On new clauses 58 and 59, landlords and agents are already prohibited from engaging in pricing practices that are false or misleading, under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. If a prospective tenant believes that a landlord has acted dishonestly during the lettings process, they will be able to raise the matter via the new private rented sector ombudsman. Complaints about letting agents can be referred to the existing agent redress schemes.

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

Will the Minister confirm that he thinks that bidding wars that are not advertised beforehand constitute dishonesty?

[Jacob Young]

Yes, I do.

New clause 62 seeks to align the maximum amount of rent in advance that landlords can charge tenants with the limits set on security deposits by the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Although I understand the reasoning behind the new clause, to link the two on an arbitrary basis would not be an efficient means to achieve its intended effect. It would mean that any changes to one would directly affect the other.

As the Committee will be aware, and as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned, the Government committed to introduce a similar power to limit rent in advance as part of our White Paper. We have concluded, however, that no such additional power is needed, as it is already possible to limit rent in advance using the power in section 3 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Before deciding to use that power, which would significantly infringe on the business interests and financial freedoms of private landlords, it is vital that we gather strong evidence of need and undertake a thorough impact assessment.

Furthermore, rent in advance can be beneficial in a variety of situations. For example, it can be employed to balance a financial risk when a prospective tenant could not otherwise pass a reference or affordability check. Above all, it is vital that landlords retain the ability to ensure a sustainable tenancy for both parties. We have made it clear that asking for a large amount of rent in advance should not be the norm.

On new clause 66, we will update the guidance to ensure that tribunal users have the confidence and information they need to engage with it effectively. This includes helping parties to understand how they can provide evidence of comparable rent. Our reforms strike a balance between the landlord’s ability to increase rent in line with the market and protecting tenants from back-door evictions through excessive rent hikes.

[Jacob Young]

I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but we have listened to concerns and think it is fair that the tribunal is not limited when determining the market rent. This will mean that the tribunal has the freedom to make full and fair decisions, and can continue to determine the market rent of property.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister has talked about the tribunal making free and fair determinations, but the tribunal is already limited by what it cannot take into account. For example, it cannot take into account alterations that the tenant has made to the property, at their own cost, to increase its value. The tribunal already indicates what it can take into account, so widening that scope or making it clear that the tribunal should not issue a higher rent is not about giving it more restrictions. Surely it is about giving it clearer guidelines on the face of the Bill, so that everyone entering the process knows where it is going.

[Jacob Young]

As I have already set out, we believe that the tribunal should be free to make whatever determination it thinks is the market rent for a property. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I think the Minister is missing a trick here, because we have tabled some reasonable amendments. I welcome the fact that he seemed to suggest that it is already possible, via regulation, to prevent rent from being paid in advance, but he needs to enact that and get on with it. He seemed to be a bit cautious about doing so. A regulatory framework that allows advance rent in some, but not all, circumstances would be a good compromise. Maybe that is where the Minister was going, but we need to have more flesh on that bone.

I also worry that when the Minister talks about flexibility for the tribunal, he is actually saying that it can look only at market rent and not at other things. What I am trying to say is that it should be able to look at all the different indicators—not just the flavour of the month, as he put it, but the local housing allowance, the consumer prices index, and the rents via the property portal. At the moment, it is not clear that the tribunal would have access to use the rents via the property portal as an indicator, rather than new rents. That is what the amendments attempt to do. Some of these improvements could be made when the Bill comes back, and I hope the Minister will do that.

Finally, the Minister needs to reconsider the upper limit. A landlord could still re-issue another section 13 if, via the tribunal process, they realised that they wanted to increase it higher, but rather than involving the tribunal, they just set it at a higher rate themselves. That creates a disincentive to go to the tribunal.

[Jacob Young]

I should be clear that there is no requirement for the landlord to accept the tribunal’s final outcome. The landlord could still offer the initial rent to the tenant.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

They could, so why not? It would be expected if a property was marketed at a certain price for that to be the accepted price. If someone puts a section 13 down, it is a form of marketing what this property is now worth. The Minister is quite right that it is wrong to engage in unfair advertising practices. A section 13 is a form of advertising to a sitting tenant, to say, “I’m advertising that this is the rent that I now want.” To then change their mind via a tribunal is, in my view, unfair. I think the Minister probably gets that point, but I wonder whether it might be possible to change it through regulation, and advice to the courts and the tribunals. These things need to be considered, and the same goes for widening the scope of what the tribunals could push. I will not push my amendments now, but I hope the Minister will genuinely think about how we can increase the scope of what the courts can consider, so that rents are not always inflated up to the very highest level, but are fair for all our communities.

[Matthew Pennycook]

There were some points of interest raised in this debate that we will certainly come back to—I will check the transcript in relation to a couple of them—but I do not think they satisfy us sufficiently not to press these amendments.

On new clauses 58 and 59, I took the Minister to imply that bidding wars could fall under the category of false, misleading or essentially unfair practices—I think he mentioned dishonesty. I do not think he has given us a cast-iron commitment that bidding wars of any kind constitute an unfair practice. If they do, and the Government know that, why are they not taking action to stamp them out? Lots of people in cities and towns across the country, and certainly in my constituency, are being impacted financially by bidding wars. In some areas, they are extremely intense, and people end up paying huge amounts more than were initially advertised.

I agree with the Minister that advance rent should not be the norm. It seems to be somewhat the norm in many parts of the country. I am interested that he says there is a potential means of addressing this via the Tenant Fees Act 2019. It sounded to me like it may take quite a long time for the Government to bring forward any proposals in that regard. We will certainly not see advance rent stamped out any time soon. The Minister did not address my point on undue hardship. I absolutely realise—it was part of my remarks—that under the Government’s proposals, when a tribunal determines the rent, it will kick in from the point of determination. We think that vulnerable residents need a little more time to adjust and move out if they simply cannot afford those rents.

Finally, on the tribunal awarding rent levels in excess of what is asked for, I think the Government have got it wrong. The Minister referenced unspecified interests that the Government had heard lobbying from—I think he said, “We’d heard concerns.” Who from? I do not know. We can all take a guess who from. There were proposals in the White Paper, this being one of them, that we thought extremely sensible. He is right that some landlords may, having been told by the tribunal that they can increase the rent level even further than asked for, be good-natured enough to charge only the initial rate, but I cannot think that many of them would. They are, after all, running businesses. We need a measure—we will no doubt return to this at a later stage—to ensure that the rent level that the landlord asked for via section 13 is the maximum. In many cases it may reduce, but it should be the maximum that a landlord can ask for. On that basis, I am afraid that we will press our amendments 160 and 161 to a vote.

[Matthew Pennycook]

That was my understanding as well, so I am not sure what the Minister was saying about false, misleading or unfair practices. If that does not apply to bidding wars, it applies to something completely separate from what we are talking about, so he has convinced me that new clauses 58 and 59 are even more necessary than I thought. I thought there was a glimmer of hope there, but there clearly is not. We will press all our amendments to a vote.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Challenging amount or increase of rent

Amendment proposed: 160, in clause 6, page 7, line 27, at end insert—

“(7A) After subsection (8) insert—

‘(8A) Where a notice under section 13(2) has been referred to the appropriate tribunal then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, the rent determined by the appropriate tribunal (subject, in a case where subsection (5) above applies, to the addition of the appropriate amount in respect of rates) shall be the same or below the rent specified in the section 13 notice and the rent as determined by the tribunal shall only become payable once the decision of the tribunal has become final.

(8B) A decision becomes final only on the latest of—

(a) the determination of any appeal;

(b) if earlier, on the expiry of the time for bringing a subsequent appeal (if any); or

(c) by its being abandoned or otherwise ceasing to have effect.’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment would ensure that where a rent assessment is carried out by a tribunal, the rent subsequently determined by that tribunal cannot be higher than that originally requested by a landlord in a section 13 notice.

--- Later in debate ---

The explanatory statement makes it clear that new clause 5 is intended to ensure that the common law rules on agency apply in order that landlords can use agents and the agent can issue all the new prescribed information on behalf of the landlord. Again—this relates to an earlier point that I made—why have the Government used “contractor” in new clause 5 if they mean “agent”? I do not expect an answer straightaway, but I would appreciate one in due course.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise to support the amendments tabled by our Front Benchers and to ask the Minister about holiday lets. The holiday or short-term let market is due to be regulated, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to explain to us how the Department foresees those regulations pairing with the property portal or the Bill.

If someone is not allowed to re-market their property, but they could market it for short-term let, the short-term let registration portal—I understand that the plan is for that to be separate—will need to interact with the other portal. The Minister might genuinely not mind that properties are being re-let as holiday rentals in the no-let period, but I suspect this is more a case of needing reassurance from him that that loophole will be closed in the regulations to prevent holiday lets. That seems simple, but we need that reassurance from the Minister so that we know that it will be squared off.

On the period that the property cannot be let for, some amendments have been tabled about the evidence that needs to be provided, but what is important here is that the landlord or family members moving in, or the intention to sell, should be genuine. At the moment, there do not seem to be protections to ensure that they are. One such protection would be ensuring that a landlord cannot benefit financially if they are not making a genuine application. Three months does not seem to cover that. Many properties are already empty for a number of months between tenancies for the landlord to make repairs and update the property. It is not unusual for that period to be one or two months.

Three months, therefore, does not seem to be particularly onerous on the landlord, so 12 months should be a possibility. If the Minister does not think that 12 months is appropriate, it may be useful for him to tell us how he thinks enforcement could be done beyond the three months—for example, if it were demonstrated that the landlord never intended to sell, but that only became apparent four months later. It may well be that a landlord has no real intention to sell but issues that particular ground, and the tenant, the local authority and others do not particularly raise eyebrows because it can take a number of months to get a property on to the open market.

People would not necessarily expect a property to be listed the day after the tenant is out, because the landlord will want to tart it up and ensure that it looks its best for the estate agent’s photos. They will want to ensure that they cover all the dodgy spots in the house. We have all done it when we have sold houses: we show the best side of the house that we can. We deep-clean the oven and do all that stuff, which takes a number of weeks, if not months, before we get the letting agent to come round, take pictures and let the property.

It is therefore not unusual for it to take three months before the property is on the market for sale, but in this case that does not come about because the landlord never really aimed to sell it. The danger is that, because the time has elapsed, they can just shove it back on the open market. If the Minister is going to say, “Actually, in those circumstances the landlord would have to demonstrate that they had had a reasonable change of mind because of material circumstances,” he needs to outline how that would be demonstrated. Otherwise, we would just wait, and there would be no evidence at all.

There are other amendments that would give those protections, but before we decide not to press the amendments that we are discussing, the Minister needs to explain that point. Otherwise, the only form of protection can be a prevention from letting for 12 months, or at least the forgoing of 12 months of rent—they are not necessarily the same thing.

[Jacob Young]

I thank hon. Members for their amendments. We are absolutely clear that any attempt to misuse these grounds will not be tolerated. That is why the Government’s amendments prohibit landlords from re-letting or re-marketing a property for three months after using the moving and selling grounds, and why we are prohibiting landlords from authorising a letting agent to re-market a property on their behalf for three months when they have used those grounds.

That three-month period represents a significant cost to landlords and will deter misuse of the grounds. It is significant enough to remove any profit that a landlord might make from misusing the grounds in order to re-let, for example, at a higher rent.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

What is the average profit that someone makes when selling a property?

[Jacob Young]

I do not understand how the hon. Member could think that I would possibly know that right now.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

rose—

[Jacob Young]

I will not give way again.

Amendments 132, 133, 140 and 141 seek to extend the three-month period to six or 12 months. That would be excessive and keep good properties sitting empty if a landlord’s circumstances changed. It is quite possible that a landlord might not be able to sell and might subsequently need to re-let. Amendment 142 would extend the no-let period to cases where the landlord has gone through the court process to obtain a repossession order. We feel that that restriction is unnecessary, as such a landlord will have proved to the court that their intentions are genuine.

Amendments 134 and 135 look to restrict a landlord from letting their property as a short-term let, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said. It may be reasonable for a landlord to offer a property as a short-term or holiday let within the three months, for example if there is a long gap before a sale completes. However, I have heard her comments and those of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and I know that that is an issue in places such as Cornwall and Devon. I commit to working with the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others to address those points.

If a landlord tries to abuse the system, there are financial repercussions for breaches and offences. We are giving local councils powers to fine landlords up to £5,000 for minor breaches and up to £30,000 for serious offences. The Government think the amendments would cause unreasonable cost to landlords whose sale or plans to move into a property may have fallen through, through no fault of their own.

Turning to Government new clauses 4 and 5, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his questions and confirm that I will write to him on those points. The new clauses replace clause 10, retaining the policy intent in the original drafting but updating it to better reflect its intention. We are clear that any attempt to misuse the grounds will not be tolerated. That is why the Government new clauses prohibit landlords from re-letting or re-marketing a property for three months after using the moving and selling grounds, and why we are prohibiting landlords from authorising a letting agent to re-market the property on their behalf. The three-month period represents a significant cost to landlords and will deter misuse. I therefore commend new clauses 4 and 5, which will replace clause 10, to the Committee and ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I did not quite catch his question, so, if it is fine with him, I will write to him on that point. I apologise, because I did not quite follow it.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It’ll be a very long letter.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The reforms in the Bill will remove fixed-term tenancies and section 21 evictions. The changes mean that we also need to amend part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 to make sure that councils’ statutory homelessness duties align. Clause 18 makes three changes to homelessness legislation.

First, the clause makes changes to how local authorities discharge their main housing duty. One of the ways in which local authorities may currently bring their main housing duty to an end is by making an offer to a tenant of a suitable private rented sector tenancy with a fixed term of at least 12 months. With the removal of fixed-term tenancies, section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 is amended to refer instead to an “assured tenancy”.

Secondly, the clause amends section 193C of the Housing Act 1996, relating to what happens when a person owed either the prevention or relief duty deliberately and unreasonably fails to co-operate with the local authority. If the local housing authority is satisfied that the applicant is, first, homeless; secondly, eligible for assistance; thirdly, has a priority need; and fourthly, is not intentionally homeless, the applicant is still owed a duty to be accommodated. However, that duty is currently a lesser one than the main housing duty. The lesser duty is to offer a fixed-term tenancy of at least six months, as opposed to the period of at least 12 months required under the main duty. With the repeal of fixed-term tenancies, the lesser offer is redundant and removed by the clause.

Thirdly, subsection (4) repeals section 195A of the Housing Act 1996, which is the duty in homelessness legislation

“to offer accommodation following re-application after private sector offer.”

It is known more commonly as the “reapplication duty”. The reapplication duty is a homelessness duty that offers accommodation following a reapplication after a private sector offer, where the applicant becomes homeless again within two years and reapplies for homelessness support. The duty applies regardless of whether the applicant has priority need. It was introduced to respond to concerns that, due to the short-term nature of assured shorthold tenancies, applicants who accept a private rented sector offer may become homeless again within two years and no longer have the priority need.

The increased security of tenure and removal of section 21 evictions through this Bill means that the reapplication duty will no longer be relevant. The amendment will streamline the management of reapproaches, and make sure that all applicants are treated according to their current circumstances at the point of approaching. There will be no differential treatment between those placed in either private rented or social housing accommodation.

Amendments 178 and 179 seek to broaden the scope of those threatened with homelessness, and thereby owed the prevention duty, to all those who have been served with a valid section 8 eviction notice that expires within 56 days, and to remove the option for local authorities to limit the assistance under the prevention duty to 56 days.

These amendments would prevent a local authority from using its judgement as to whether there is a risk and from deploying its resources to cases where there is a more imminent risk of homelessness. If the amendments were accepted, they could result in local authorities having cases open for a long time. Requiring local authorities to accept a duty in such circumstances, with no time limit, would create significant resourcing pressures. That would ultimately be to the detriment of those seeking homelessness support if local authorities were overwhelmed and unable to manage their increase caseload.

Local authorities are experienced at identifying when someone is threatened with homelessness, as opposed to arbitrary requirements that do not account for individual circumstances.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister must acknowledge that local authorities will push lots of constituents back to the very last statutorily permitted minute because their resources are so pressured. That often makes the situation worse: it is saving a penny here, but losing a pound down the road.

Homelessness duties are mixed and varied. Some of them, with early intervention, can mean re-placing in the private sector—that actually does not cost the local authority very much. Without providing a clear duty, many officers will go to councillors saying, “You need to push the policy back to the statutory minimum, because we cannot do anything else. That is all we can do at the moment.” Those conversations are happening in every council. Surely the Minister recognises that without clear statutory guidelines on when they need to intervene, councils at the moment, I am afraid, will not.

[Jacob Young]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I do not think his intervention directly addresses the amendment. The amendment would put more burden on local authorities. For example, if I was served a section 8 notice, I would not need to be covered under the homelessness prevention duty, because just me and my partner would be involved. We do not have any dependants, and would probably find it quite easy to find a new property. It is important that we do not overburden local authorities unnecessarily, as these amendments would.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The duty does not mean a requirement for a place for every person; it means that there is a duty to analyse the need of the person, assess their ability to access the market and provide access into the market in different ways. If the Minister was involved, the duty would be for the council to point him in the direction of private letting agents; to ensure that he was able to search properly; and to monitor and ensure that he was getting on with that properly.

The duty is rather light-touch. The danger is that if we do not provide a duty that everyone comes through, including light-touch people—of course, no one has to go to their local authority, so they could just divert that if it was the Minister anyway—the most vulnerable people will not come at all until it is too late. Does the Minister recognise that vulnerable people tend to come only when it is too late if they feel that there is not an earlier duty?

[Jacob Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why we have said, in various discussions throughout the debate, that forms will be provided to people when they are served with such an order. They will be pointed in the right direction. That addresses the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, rather than forcing everyone to be considered under the duty, no matter how light-touch—[Interruption.] I do not think that I need Redcar and Cleveland Council to be worried about me.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

But then you wouldn’t apply!

[Jacob Young]

I will end that point there.

Government new clause 7 delivers a technical change that will ensure that a tenancy granted in carrying out a local authority homelessness duty to provide interim accommodation cannot be an assured tenancy, other than in the circumstances allowed for. There is an existing provision in the Housing Act 1996 that already provides an exemption to that effect; however, it does not encompass all instances where the local authorities have an interim duty or discretion to provide temporary accommodation, as section 199A is not included. The new clause remedies that. It allows private landlords who provide local authorities with temporary accommodation to regain possession of their property once the local authority’s duty to provide it ceases. That will ensure that local authorities can continue to procure interim temporary accommodation to meet their duties.

I commend the new clause to the Committee, and I ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale not to press the Opposition amendment.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

However, rather than limiting the Secretary of State’s powers to approval of the scheme, this clause provides them with powers to direct the operation of the ombudsman in all manner of areas, including fee setting, the time allowed for complaints to be resolved, the circumstances in which complaints may be rejected, the types of sanction available for redress, and the general enforcement decisions made under the scheme. My question to the Minister is simply why do the Government believe that a different approach from the norm is necessary in the case of the new ombudsman with responsibility for the private rented sector?

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

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and to speak to amendment 196, which stands in my name.

Amendment 196 aims to include deposits as an area that the ombudsperson can overview, and it touches on my hon. Friend’s point. The deposit schemes are three in number, which causes great problems for many constituents. Most believe that they will never get their deposit back, because they know that their landlords can run rings around the respective deposit schemes.

The outcomes of deposit scheme disputes are not published; they are secret. There is no precedent set when a scheme determines that a particular action puts someone at fault, and there is no cross-referencing between schemes. A constituent could be treated in one way under one scheme and a completely different way under another, even though the scenarios are exactly the same. It is a complete mess, and most other countries have one deposit protection scheme. I am not proposing that—that is outside the scope of the Bill—although I would love the Minister to look seriously at this when the deposit scheme licences come up. The New South Wales model is much more efficient and involves one scheme, the profits of which are rather large and pay for all legal aid in New South Wales. Early estimates of what would happen in Britain show that the amount raised would far exceed the cuts made to housing legal aid previously. There would be some real wins if the Minister got to grips with that.

My amendment 196 would at least allow for an appeal process. If someone does not believe that the deposit schemes have come to a fair and just conclusion, they can go to the ombudsperson for determination—that is important, because the ombudsperson’s deliberations would be public, which would allow the schemes to take into account what they were each doing—just as we would have to go through a local council complaints system, but can then go to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if we feel there is a problem.

I would expect most complaints to still be resolved within the deposit schemes. However, where there is disagreement and the threshold of going to court is too high, and where maladministration, which is the main part of an ombudsperson’s remit, can also be identified, the ombudsperson can redress that and then publish their findings, and we can ensure harmonisation in the deposit system, which does not currently exist.

If we do not explicitly identify deposit schemes as falling within scope, there is a danger that the anomalies in the deposit system will never be addressed. I therefore hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance that there is an intention to address these problems with deposit schemes, where judgments are sealed and there is no idea of the outcome. It is also important, in relation to the property portal, for residents to know whether the landlord routinely—or every time—keeps the deposit. That would show a pattern of behaviour, which would be important information for tenants. Bringing it within the purview of this Bill is therefore also important.

[Jacob Young]

Amendment 174 would legally oblige the Government to make regulations requiring residential landlords to be members of a landlord redress scheme, rather than giving the Government the discretion to do so. The Government are committed to requiring private landlords to be members of an ombudsman, and a binding obligation is not required on the face of the Bill. We have taken powers in the Bill to allow the Government to ensure that the ombudsman is introduced in the most effective way, and with the appropriate sequencing.

Amendment 196 would require the ombudsman to handle complaints about tenancy deposits. It would be unwise to list in the Bill specific issues that the ombudsman can or cannot look at. The ombudsman would need the flexibility to consider any complaint duly made, but also to direct a tenant elsewhere if more appropriate. As tenancy deposit schemes already provide free alternative dispute resolution, the ombudsman may decide that the case is better handled elsewhere, but it will ultimately depend on the circumstances of each case. The ombudsman will have the final say on jurisdiction, subject to any agreement with other bodies.

We have made provision under clause 25 to enable the ombudsman to publish a Secretary of State-approved code of practice, which would clarify what the ombudsman expects of its landlord members. The ombudsman scheme will also provide more clarity about the circumstances in which a complaint will or will not be considered. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown not to press his amendment.

As discussed, clause 24 provides the Secretary of State with powers to set up a mandatory redress scheme, which all private residential landlords of a relevant tenancy in England will need to join. We intend for the scheme to be an ombudsman service, and will look to require former landlords, as well as current and prospective landlords, to remain members after their relevant tenancies have ended, for a time specified in secondary regulations.

Members have asked for clarity about who the new PRS landlord ombudsman will be. No new ombudsman can be selected until after regulations have been laid following Royal Assent, but we can show the direction of travel. We have listened to the debates and the evidence given to this Committee, and our preferred approach at this time is for the existing housing ombudsman service to administer redress for both private and social tenants. As an established public body already delivering redress for social tenants, the housing ombudsman is uniquely positioned to deliver the private sector landlord redress scheme. Having one provider for all social and private renting tenants would provide streamlined and simple-to-use redress services for complainants.

To be clear, we are not ruling out the possibility of delivering through a different provider; we are still in the early stages of designing this new service. We now intend to explore how best to deliver on our ambition for a high-quality, streamlined and cross-tenure redress service.

To address the point that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made about multiple redress schemes, the intention is to approve a single ombudsman scheme that all private landlords will be required to join. However, allowing for multiple schemes in legislation offers the Government flexibility, should the demand for redress prove too much for a single provider to handle effectively. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will speak to new clause 57. I will state up front that we welcome the Government amendments to clause 27 and in this area to toughen the sanctions on landlords who display the types of behaviour the Minister has just set out. As I indicated last week when we debated amendments 163 and 164 and the financial penalties that local authorities could levy for breaches and offences under clauses 9 and 10, we believe that rent repayment orders should be a more significant feature of the Bill as a means to aid enforcement of the new tenancy system; to ensure compliance with the requirements to be a member of the ombudsman and maintain an active landlord database entry; and to fairly compensate tenants for losses incurred due to a failure on the part of landlords to comply with the duties and obligations provided for in the Bill.

As the Committee will know, rent repayment orders were introduced by the Housing Act 2004, and were hugely expanded via section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. They allow the occupier of a property—usually a tenant—and local authorities to apply to the first-tier tribunal for an order that a landlord or his or her agent should repay rent of up to a maximum of 12 months—although the Minister has just made it clear that, in certain circumstances, the Government propose to lengthen that period to 24 months. Rent repayment orders are an accessible, informal and relatively straightforward means by which tenants can obtain redress in the form of financial compensation without having to rely on another body in instances where a landlord or his or her agent has committed, beyond reasonable doubt, an offence that relates to the occupation or letting of a property.

As Simon Mullings, the co-chair of the Housing Law Practitioners Association, argued in the evidence he gave to the Committee on 16 November:

“Rent repayment orders create, as I have said before to officials in DLUHC, an army of motivated enforcers, because you have tenants who are motivated to enforce housing standards to do with houses in multiple occupancy, conditions and all sorts of things.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 16 November 2023; c. 114, Q146.]

We know that rent repayment orders are already being utilised on a scale the dwarfs the use of other enforcement tools. In London, for example, the available data suggests that more properties were subject to a rent repayment order in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 than civil penalties and criminal convictions relating to licensing in the same period.

The Bill as originally drafted allowed for rent repayment orders to be made only where a landlord had committed an offence under clause 27(9) relating to continuing or repeat breaches after a penalty had been imposed. As the Minister has made clear, Government new clause 19 adds a series of offences under clause 48 concerning the provision of false or misleading information to the private rented sector database and continuing or repeat breaches. We welcome that.

Separately, Government new clause 21 provides that a rent repayment order can be made against a superior landlord, thereby overriding the judgment made in the recent case of Rakusen v. Jepsen and others, which was heard by the Supreme Court. We welcome its incorporation into the Bill. We take the Government’s decision to table it as a clear indication that they view rent repayment orders as a practical and accessible means of enforcement by tenants or occupiers.

However, we want the Government to go further and extend the tribunal’s ability to make rent repayment orders for the following: first, a breach of new sections 16D and 16E of the Housing Act 1988, relating to the duty on landlords and contractors to give a statement of terms and other information, and the no-let prohibition in respect of grounds 1 and 1A; secondly, a failure to register with the ombudsman, as required by clause 24 of the Bill; and thirdly, a failure to keep an entry on the database up to date and to comply with all the relevant requirements of clause 39.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Despite my reservations about having three different deposit schemes, one of the reasons that the deposit scheme compliance is so high is because it comes with an element of rent repayment orders. The likelihood of local authorities being able to chase that up is next to zero. The likelihood of tenants being able to do that is extremely high.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which pre-empts one that I am about to make. We think that rent repayment orders can and do provide an incentive for landlords in these areas.

We believe, specifically when it comes to new clause 57, that allowing the tribunal to make rent repayment orders for these additional specific breaches would provide an additional incentive for landlords to comply with the relevant duties, requirements and prohibitions, and enable wronged tenants to be compensated for any losses incurred. Extending rent repayment orders to the relevant requirements of clause 39, for example, would be a powerful stimulus for landlord portal registration, because it would become the norm for tenants to check whether their landlord or prospective landlord was compliant.

Conversely, if the entitlement to apply for a rent repayment order were to apply to the relevant requirements of clause 39, it would provide tenants with a compelling reason to visit the portal, to learn about their rights and access information and resources they might not otherwise come across until the point they had a serious complaint or were engaged in a dispute with a landlord. This example also illustrates how an extension of rent repayment orders could alleviate some of the burdens that would otherwise fall on local authorities as the only mechanism to enforce, by means of financial penalties and criminal offences, a number of the breaches in the Bill to which they currently do not apply.

In the scenario I have outlined, tenants incentivised by the potential to apply an RRO to a landlord who was not compliant would act as an intelligence-gathering mechanism for local authorities, helping them to identify unregistered properties that they might otherwise struggle to locate and register. Put simply, as Dr Henry Dawson said to the Committee in the evidence session on 14 November:

“Using rent repayment orders incentivises tenants to keep an eye on landlords.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 14 November 2023; c. 60, Q74.]

The Minister may assure me that the regulations to come may provide for rent repayment orders in relation to clauses 24 and 39(3). If that is the case, we would welcome it, but I would much prefer him to accept the new clause and expand the use of rent repayment orders in the Bill to encourage compliance and give tenants the means to secure, for themselves, redress for poorly behaving landlords. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a helpful response. I took from it that the Government are considering including a history of past possession notices granted to a landlord. That is very welcome.

We tabled this amendment because it gets to the heart of how the new portal will operate. It could be a source of very basic information about a property, and whether it is strictly compliant with health and safety standards. We would hope the Government—the noises the Minister has made indicate they might—will take a more expansive view of how the property portal might work. Namely, that it will give tenants, as consumers, real power, because of the transparency and the amount of information recorded, to be able to know whether the tenancy agreement they are prospectively entering into is good for them, and whether the landlord is a good-faith landlord—as we know the majority are—or potentially an unscrupulous landlord. I welcome the indications the Minister has given, and look forward to debating—whether between us, or with other Ministers—the regulations in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Making entries in the database

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I beg to move amendment 202, in clause 34, page 41, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations must provide for information or documents to be provided relating to disputes and their resolution under deposit protection schemes under Chapter 4 of Part 6 of the Housing Act 2004 (tenancy deposit schemes).”

This amendment would require regulations made by the Secretary of State to require the provision of information relating to dispute resolution for deposit protection schemes.

Amendments 202 and 176 both seek to ensure that certain things are included in this property portal. We have just heard from the Minister that he intends to set out in regulations the lists of what needs to be included. I think it is important that we have confirmation that these are the things that the Minister is considering.

My amendment 202 proposes that disputes and outcomes of the deposit protection scheme be included in the property portal. It is so important that tenants know whether their landlord is routinely in dispute over the deposit. I am not talking about situations in which the tenant agrees that there was damage, and there is no dispute about the deposit deduction; I mean those in which a tenant disputes the damage. The tenant should be able to see whether there are regular disputes and whether the outcome is in the landlord’s favour—the landlord might actually be pretty good—or in the tenant’s. The recording of disputes would also allow us to start to develop case law on deposit disputes and their outcomes.

I also support amendment 176—

[The Chair]

Order. That amendment is in the next group.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

In that case, I will leave it there.

[Jacob Young]

I thank the hon. Member for moving amendment 202. As I have said in response to earlier amendments, we will consider these points and others ahead of the regulations on what information is to be recorded on the portal. Our aim is to create a database that is future-proofed and responsive to the needs of the sector now and in future. Tenancy deposit schemes already provide free alternative dispute resolution with respect to deposit deductions. As I say, we will take all the hon. Member’s points and others into consideration when developing the portal and the regulations.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

As I take it, the Minister has agreed that he will consider including disputes. That is a separate point from whether they are part of the ombudsperson; it is about whether their own processes and outcomes are being recorded properly. I will not push the amendment to a vote, but I do hope that the Minister will keep us in touch with his thinking as matters progress.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 176, in clause 34, page 41, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations must provide for the following information or documents to be provided to the database operator as part of the process of creating entries on the database—

(a) an address, telephone number and email address for the residential landlord;

(b) an address, telephone number and email address for all managing agents engaged by the residential landlord;

(c) details of every dwelling that is being let by the residential landlord;

(d) evidence that the residential landlord has supplied a copy of the ‘How To Rent’ booklet to each relevant tenant;

(e) the rent that is currently being charged in respect of every dwelling that is being let by the residential landlord;

(f) details of any enforcement action that a local housing authority in England has taken against the residential landlord;

(g) details of any banning orders that have been made against the residential landlord pursuant to Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016;

(h) in respect of every dwelling that is being let by the residential landlord, copies of the documents required by:

(i) Regulation 6(5) of the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012;

(ii) Paragraph(s) 6 and/or 7 of Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998;

(iii) Regulation 3 of the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020;

(iv) Regulation 4 of the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015;

(i) details of whether the dwelling house is required to be licenced under Part 2 (Houses in Multiple Occupation) or Part 3 (Selective Licensing) of the Housing Act 2004”

This amendment would ensure that a number of the regulatory obligations that built up around section 21 notices are maintained by means of the database following the removal of section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

We discussed, in relation to amendment 175, the fact that we believe that certain requirements relating to the functioning of the portal should be placed in the Bill. In speaking to amendments 170 to 172 to clause 19 in relation to deposit protection, I briefly touched on the fact that a number of regulatory obligations that have developed around section 21 notices over the 35 years for which the present system has been in place will fall away when it is abolished at the point at which chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill comes into force.

The preconditions and requirements that have built up around section 21 notices, which presently prevent landlords from using the no-fault eviction process unless they can show compliance, include providing copies of gas safety certificates; providing copies of energy performance certificates; providing copies to each tenant of the ever-evolving how-to-rent booklet; and showing evidence of complying with the licensing requirements for houses in multiple occupation. There are no provisions in the Bill to ensure that landlords will have to continue to meet these and other regulatory obligations as a precondition of operating under the new tenancy system.

We fear that that will leave under-resourced local authorities—or tenants themselves, through the pursuit of civil claims—as the only means of enforcing these important statutory duties. We believe that compliance should instead be achieved by making it mandatory for landlords to submit the relevant information and proof of compliance to the database operator as part of the process of creating entries on the database. Amendment 176 would ensure that that is the case in respect of a wide range of existing regulatory obligations. We urge the Minister to accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is also important that everything be recorded in one place, not only for tenants but for landlords, who will not have to fill in a plethora of information in different places about the EPC, gas safety and so on. It will make it easier for everyone if the Government get it right. It is so important that they be clear early on, so that we are not in a rush at the last moment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend’s point is well made. There is the potential—hopefully the Government recognise it—to reduce the burden on landlords by ensuring that there is a clear set of requirements associated with registration on the portal that do not exist around the serving of a notice, as they do currently. We hope that the Government will take our points on board and bring all these preconditions within the scope of the portal in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Requirement to keep active entries up-to-date

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

In answer to the hon. Member’s question about landlords having to pay to join the service, we intend to fund the service through fees charged to private landlords when they register on the portal. We will take steps to ensure that these costs remain reasonable, proportionate and sustainable. The new service will bring substantial benefits to landlords as well as tenants, providing a single source of information about their legal responsibilities and helping them to showcase their compliance. It will also support local councils to enforce against unscrupulous landlords, who undercut the responsible majority.

On resourcing for local authorities, the information recorded on the portal will save local authorities time when enforcing health and safety standards in the PRS. Our research has shown that locating landlords and properties takes up a significant proportion of local authorities’ resources. Additionally, we are undertaking a new burdens assessment and will ensure that additional burdens created by the new system are fully funded.

Question agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 36 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Access to the database

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I beg to move amendment 195, in clause 43, page 48, line 32, at end insert—

“(f) tenants and prospective tenants of a relevant property and all other properties linked to the unique identifier of the landlord with whom they are proposing to or have signed a tenancy agreement.”

This amendment would ensure that tenants and prospective tenants have access to information held in the database relating to the landlord of the relevant property.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 44 and 45 stand part.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Bill contains a list of organisations and agencies that will have access to the portal. Tenants are not included in that list. I hope that that is because they have access through some other means, or that the Minister will stand up and say, “Don’t worry, you’ve missed it—it’s in x, y and z.” But my reading is that there is no presumption that tenants and presumptive tenants will have full access to all the information about the house they are moving into and its landlord.

We have heard in evidence that it is important that tenants have the information before they sign a contract. Any effective free market has to be based on the knowledge of the person who is making a choice to purchase something. The tenant is clearly one such person, so the tenant needs to know the background of the person and the quality of the house before they sign.

It might be that the Government plan for such information to be public—that would mitigate the need for the amendment—but I worry that some information will be public and some redacted, particularly information on house prices, former house prices and rental prices. That kind of information should be made available to the tenant. Tenants and prospective tenants should have full, unredacted information about the house and the landlord of the property that they are in or want to be in. I seek reassurances from the Minister on the matter.

[Jacob Young]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment, which relates to the publicly available information on the property portal. One of our core objectives is to enhance the information available to tenants so that they can make more informed choices and have a better renting experience. As I have said, we are carefully considering what information will be available to tenants via the portal, but it is likely to include information about property standards. We also intend to publish information about certain relevant offences committed by landlords. As I have set out, we believe that outlining what information is available to tenants through regulations will allow us to respond to changes in the market and to remain sensitive to landlords’ privacy rights. We have the power to amend what information is accessible by tenants in the future if doing so would benefit the operation of the sector.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister is talking about what he expects will be available to tenants. Could he outline what he expects might not be available to tenants, so that I can understand his thinking on the other side?

[Jacob Young]

Specifically on the question of a landlord’s privacy, there will be some information that is relevant for a local authority to know about a landlord but not necessarily relevant for a tenant to know about a landlord. As I say, such things are best set out in regulations.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Can the Minister give examples of what that information would be? That would help to flesh out what we are talking about.

[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.

[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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It might be understandable if, for example, the landlord’s day of birth was redacted on Companies House but the month and year were shown. If we had no national insurance numbers, but we had a contactable address where that person could be found—not necessarily their home address, but a non-PO box address—that might, again, be acceptable.

The Government need to be clear in their intention that this is about privacy grounds only where necessary for the safety and functioning of a landlord, and not about withholding information that would be useful for the tenant in reaching out to the landlord. I will withdraw the amendment, but I expect the Minister to provide some more details in writing about what will be excluded.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 44 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Financial penalties

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 167, in clause 47, page 50, line 36, leave out “£5,000” and insert “£30,000”.

This amendment would increase the maximum financial penalty that local authorities could impose on a person for breach of a requirement imposed by clause 39.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I fully accept that there is a difference between a large registered social landlord, and a mum-and-dad landlord, who might own only one or two buy-to-let properties. However, we should not therefore say that it is acceptable for the kinds of cases that Awaab’s law would cover, if extended to the private sector, to go on unchallenged. I am not satisfied that there are existing powers to challenge those cases. If there were such powers in the social rented sector, the Government would not have needed to bring forward Awaab’s law. Actually, if the Government were properly resourcing local authorities to enforce, Awaab’s law might not be necessary, but the Government deemed it necessary in the social rented sector.

As the Bill demonstrates, the difference between the private rented sector and the social sector will break down to some extent, whether as a result of the ombudsman, who will cover both sectors, or other measures. We think the law should cover both sectors, and I find the Minister’s response unconvincing. I will press new clause 60 to a Division.

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

It is worth pointing out that the Minister himself said that the condition of the housing stock in the private rented sector was now considered to be worse than the condition of the housing stock in the social rented sector. Surely the Minister should therefore argue that we need tougher regulation, because regulation is failing more badly in the private sector than in the social sector, but he seems not to have followed through on his argument.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. We know that standards in the social rented sector are inadequate; that is why the Government brought forward their recent legislation, which we supported. Things are worse in the private rented sector. I quoted the Citizens Advice statistic: 1.6 million children are in damp, mouldy or cold homes. If anything, there is a stronger case for Awaab’s law applying to the private rented sector than to the social, but the Minister is trying to have it both ways, for the obvious reason that the Government do not want to accept our new clause. I encourage them to go away and think. We will press the new clause to a vote. If the measures are good enough for the social rented sector, surely they are good enough for tenants in the private rented sector; I have seen no evidence that those tenants are not interested in the tougher powers that Awaab’s law would provide.

Finally, I would welcome any further detail from the Minister on whether there is a need to go further on licensed temporary accommodation properties.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 63 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 54

Crown application

Amendments made: 97, in clause 54, page 55, line 15, leave out “(4), this Part” and insert “(4D), this Act”.

This amendment provides for a default rule which will have the effect that, subject to any specific provision about them, the new clauses which make freestanding provision in the Bill will bind the Crown. This is intended to mean that the Crown will be bound by the new clauses containing prohibitions on discriminatory practices in relation to tenancies and (subject to exceptions in Amendment 98 for powers of entry) the new investigatory powers.

Amendment 98, in clause 54, page 55, line 30, at end insert—

“(4A) Sections (Business premises: entry without warrant), (Requirements where occupiers are on business premises entered without warrant), (Business premises: warrant authorising entry), (Business premises: entry under warrant), (Power to require production of documents following entry), (Power to seize documents following entry), (Access to seized documents), (Appeal against detention of documents), (Suspected residential tenancy: entry without warrant), (Requirements where occupiers are on residential premises entered without warrant), (Suspected residential tenancy: warrant authorising entry), (Suspected residential tenancy: entry under warrant) and (Powers of accompanying persons) do not bind the Crown.

(4B) Nothing in section (Offences) makes the Crown criminally liable.

(4C) The High Court may declare unlawful any act or omission for which the Crown would be criminally liable under section (Offences) but for subsection (4B).

(4D) An amendment or repeal made by this Act binds the Crown to the extent that the provision amended or repealed binds the Crown (but in the case of an amendment of the 1988 Act, this is subject to the amendments made by section 13).”

This amendment provides that the new clauses conferring powers of entry do not bind the Crown. It also provides that the offences applying in relation to the new clauses about requiring information do not make the Crown criminally liable (but can lead to a declaration of unlawfulness) and deals with Crown application of amendments made by the Bill to other legislation.

Amendment 99, in clause 54, page 55, line 31, leave out

“Subsection (2) does not affect”

and insert

“Nothing in this section affects”.—(Jacob Young.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 98.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,

That clause 54 be transferred to the end of line 30 on page 61. —(Jacob Young.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 97. It moves clause 54 into Part 5 of the Bill (general provisions). This is necessary because once clause 54 deals with the application to the Crown of new provisions added to the Bill, it will no longer relate only to Part 2, and therefore needs to be moved out of that Part.

Clause 55

Application to Parliament

Amendments made: 100, in clause 55, page 55, line 36, leave out “this Part” and insert

“Part 2 (and Part 3 so far as relating to Part 2)”.

This amendment is consequential on the motion to transfer clause 55. It also makes it clear that the general provisions about enforcement action in Part 3 of the Bill apply in relation to any tenancies and licences referred to in clause 55.

Amendment 101, in clause 55, page 56, line 16, at end insert—

“(2) The following provisions do not apply in relation to premises that are occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament—

(a) Chapter 2A of Part 1;

(b) sections (Power of local housing authority to require information from relevant person), (Business premises: entry without warrant), (Requirements where occupiers are on business premises entered without warrant), (Business premises: warrant authorising entry), (Business premises: entry under warrant), (Power to require production of documents following entry), (Power to seize documents following entry), (Access to seized documents), (Appeal against detention of documents), (Suspected residential tenancy: entry without warrant), (Requirements where occupiers are on residential premises entered without warrant), (Suspected residential tenancy: warrant authorising entry), (Suspected residential tenancy: entry under warrant) and (Powers of accompanying persons).

(3) Nothing in section (Offences) makes the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons or the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords criminally liable.

(4) The High Court may declare unlawful any act or omission for which the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons or the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords would be criminally liable under section (Offences) but for subsection (3).

(5) Nothing in this section affects the criminal liability of relevant members of the House of Lords staff or of the House of Commons staff (as defined by sections 194 and 195 of the Employment Rights Act 1996).”—(Jacob Young.)

This amendment provides that the new Chapter containing prohibitions on discriminatory practices in relation to tenancies and the new clauses on investigatory powers (except the power to require information from any person) do not apply in relation to premises occupied for the purposes of Parliament. It also provides that nothing in NC41 makes the Corporate Officers of the Houses criminally liable (though there can be a declaration of unlawfulness).

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,

That clause 55 be transferred to the end of line 30 on page 61. —(Jacob Young.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 101. It moves clause 55 into Part 5 of the Bill (general provisions). This is necessary because once clause 55 deals with the application to Parliament of the new clauses relating to discriminatory practices and to investigatory powers, it will no longer relate only to Part 2 of the Bill.

Clause 56

Regulations

Amendments made: 102, in clause 56, page 56, line 18, leave out “Part” and insert “Act”.

This amendment provides for the provisions about regulations in clause 56(1) to apply in relation to regulations under the new clauses expected to be added to the Bill.

Amendment 103, in clause 56, page 56, line 28, leave out “Part” and insert “Act”.

This amendment provides for the provision for regulations to be made by statutory instrument to cover all the regulations under the Bill.

Amendment 104, in clause 56, page 56, line 29, after “section” insert

“(Power of the Secretary of State to amend Chapter 2A to protect persons of other descriptions),”.

This amendment provides for regulations under the new clause inserted by NC15 to be subject to affirmative procedure in Parliament.

Amendment 105, in clause 56, page 56, line 33, leave out “Part” and insert

“Act made by the Secretary of State”.

This amendment provides for a default rule that all regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Bill are to be subject to negative procedure in Parliament. The reference to the Secretary of State is included because under other amendments there are regulation-making powers for the Welsh Ministers which are to be subject to procedure in Senedd Cymru rather than Parliament.

Amendment 106, in clause 56, page 56, line 35, at end insert—

“(6) This section does not apply to regulations under section (Power of Welsh Ministers to make consequential provision) or this Part.”—(Jacob Young.)

This amendment is consequential on the motion to transfer clause 56. It ensures that, once clause 56 is moved into Part 5 of the Bill by that amendment, the clause will apply only to the substantive regulation-making powers under the Bill and not to any regulations made under the general powers in Part 5 (Part 5 already contains specific provision about procedure etc in relation to the general powers).

Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,

That clause 56 be transferred to the end of line 30 on page 61. —(Jacob Young.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 102, 103, 104 and 105. It moves clause 56 into Part 5 of the Bill (general provisions). This is necessary because once clause 56 deals with regulations under provisions outside of Part 2 of the Bill, it will no longer relate only to that Part.

Clause 64

Meaning of “the 1988 Act”

Amendment made: 107, in clause 64, page 61, line 30, after first “Act” insert—

“‘local housing authority’ means a district council, a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;”.—(Jacob Young.)

This amendment inserts a definition of “local housing authority” for the purposes of the Bill as a whole.

Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

Power to make consequential provision

Amendments made: 108, in clause 65, page 62, line 1, at end insert—

“(2A) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—

(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;

(b) different provision for different purposes.”

This amendment allows regulations made by the Secretary of State containing provision that is consequential on the Bill to include supplementary or incidental provision and to make different provision for different purposes.

Amendment 109, in clause 65, page 62, line 2, leave out from “power”, in the first place, to “for” in line 3 and insert—

“under subsection (2A)(a) to make transitional provision includes power to provide”.—(Jacob Young.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 108.

Clause 65, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Commencement and application

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am speaking to the new clause to push back a bit on the idea that the courts should not have discretion about some of the grounds. The harm caused to an individual by their being moved out of a property could be far greater than any advantage for someone moving into it. A relative of someone who is ill might have another house for a period of time, for example. Rather than there being two months’ notice, the courts should be given the discretion to decide, “You’re undergoing cancer treatment. Your relative has somewhere to live for six months, and that should be grounds for a delay of six months.” Such discretion should be permitted to the courts. Discretion is permitted in some cases: courts can rule in favour of deferred possession in other areas, but not when it comes to issues involving the non-discretionary grounds.

We have had this debate before. The Minister will respond, but I hope he is open to thinking about how the courts can be involved in areas where there can clearly sometimes be exceptional circumstances. At the moment, it is just a case of the courts asking whether the form has been filled in correctly. That does not do justice to our judges and lawyers, who usually get these things right.

[Jacob Young]

New clause 67 would make all grounds discretionary. That would remove any certainty for landlords that they could regain possession if they were seeking to sell or move in. Even more seriously, landlords would not even be guaranteed possession if their tenant was in a large amount of arrears, or had committed serious crimes. That could fatally undermine landlords’ confidence in the process for recovering possession.

In last week’s debate, we talked about getting the balance right between tenant security and a landlord’s ability to manage their properties. Where grounds are unambiguous and have a clear threshold, they are mandatory. That includes where a landlord has demonstrated their intention to sell, or a tenant has reached a certain threshold for rent arrears.

However, we completely agree that in more complex situations it is important that judges should have the discretion to decide whether possession is reasonable. Hon. Members talked last week about ground 14—the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground, which is one of those where judicial discretion is required and will remain so. The Government think the new clause strikes an unfair balance that will ultimately hurt tenants, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

There remain many grounds that should involve more discretion. For example, rather than compliance with enforcement action being non-discretionary, there should be a discussion. If a landlord has been found guilty of not meeting the standards required, why should that automatically—just ticking the box—mean that the tenant is punished? Surely judges should be able to have some discretion on that ground.

Equally, there are many reasons why a wider discretion will be important when it comes to grounds for redevelopment; otherwise, there is a danger of abuse. I would like the Government to go away and think about how those thresholds are at least being met in respect of some of the grounds—not all of them, necessarily. How do we ensure that courts do not end up just going through a tick-box exercise? I totally understand the Government’s concerns about security in the sector, so I will not press the new clause to a vote. However, I do expect the Government to come back with some greater clarity on the guidelines that they will be giving to courts to ensure that the provisions are not just tick-box exercises and therefore abused by landlords. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule

Decent homes standard

“Part 1

Amendments of Housing Act 2004

1 The Housing Act 2004 is amended as follows.

2 (1) Section 1 (new system for assessing housing conditions and enforcing housing standards) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3)(a), omit ‘hazard’.

(3) In subsection (8), after ‘This Part’ insert ‘, except so far as it relates to the requirements specified by regulations under section 2A,’.

3 (1) Section 4 (inspections by local housing authorities) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) If a local housing authority consider as a result of any matters of which they have become aware in carrying out their duty under section 3, or for any other reason, that it would be appropriate for any residential premises in their district to be inspected with a view to determining—

(a) whether any category 1 or 2 hazard exists on the premises, or

(b) in the case of qualifying residential premises, whether the premises meet the requirements specified by regulations under section 2A,

the authority must arrange for such an inspection to be carried out.’

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) omit the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (a), and

(b) after that paragraph insert—

‘(aa) in the case of qualifying residential premises, that the premises may not meet the requirements specified by regulations under section 2A, or’

(4) After subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) Regulations made under subsection (4) by the Secretary of State may also make provision about the manner of assessing whether qualifying residential premises meet the requirements specified by regulations under section 2A.’

(5) In subsection (6)—

(a) omit the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (a), and

(b) after that paragraph insert—

‘(aa) that any qualifying residential premises in their district fail to meet the requirements specified by regulations under section 2A, or’

(6) In the heading, omit ‘to see whether category 1 or 2 hazards exist’.

4 (1) Section 5 (general duty to take enforcement action) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) If a local housing authority consider that—

(a) a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(b) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 1 requirement,

the authority must take the appropriate enforcement action in relation to the hazard or failure.’

(3) In subsection (2)(c), for ‘a hazard’ substitute ‘an’.

(4) In subsections (3) to (6), after ‘hazard’ (in each place) insert ‘or failure’.

(5) In the heading, after ‘hazards’ insert ‘and type 1 requirements’.

5 In the heading to section 6 (how duty under section 5 operates in certain cases), omit ‘Category 1 hazards’.

6 After section 6 insert—

‘6A Financial penalties relating to category 1 hazards or type 1 requirements

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a local housing authority is required by section 5(1) to take the appropriate enforcement action in relation to—

(i) the existence of a category 1 hazard on qualifying residential premises other than the common parts of a building containing one or more flats, or

(ii) a failure by qualifying residential premises other than the common parts of a building containing one or more flats to meet a type 1 requirement, and

(b) in the opinion of the local housing authority it would have been reasonably practicable for the responsible person to secure the removal of the hazard or the meeting of the requirement.

(2) When first taking that action, the local housing authority may also impose on the responsible person a financial penalty under this section in relation to the hazard or failure.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2), “the responsible person” is the person on whom an improvement notice may be served in accordance with paragraphs A1 to 4 of Schedule 1 in relation to the hazard or failure.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)—

(a) it is to be assumed that serving such a notice in relation to the hazard or failure is a course of action available to the authority, and

(b) any reference in paragraphs A1 to 4 of Schedule 1 to “the specified premises” is, in relation to the imposition of a financial penalty under this section, to be read as a reference to the premises specified in the final notice in accordance with paragraph 8(c) of Schedule A1.

(5) In subsection (4)(b), “final notice” has the meaning given by paragraph 6 of Schedule A1.

(6) The amount of the penalty is to be determined by the authority but must not be more than £5,000.

(7) A penalty under this section may relate to—

(a) more than one category 1 hazard on the same premises,

(b) more than one failure to meet type 1 requirements by the same premises, or

(c) any combination of such hazards or failures on or by the same premises.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the amount specified in subsection (6) to reflect changes in the value of money.

(9) Schedule A1 makes provision about—

(a) the procedure for imposing a financial penalty under this section,

(b) appeals against financial penalties under this section,

(c) enforcement of financial penalties under this section, and

(d) how local housing authorities are to deal with the proceeds of financial penalties under this section.’

7 (1) Section 7 (powers to take enforcement action) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for ‘that a category 2 hazard exists on residential premises’ substitute ‘that—

(a) a category 2 hazard exists on residential premises, or

(b) qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 2 requirement.’.

(3) In subsection (2)(c), for ‘a hazard’ substitute ‘an’.

(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) after ‘hazard’ (in the first place) insert ‘or failure to meet a type 2 requirement’, and

(b) after ‘hazard’ (in the second place) insert ‘or failure’.

(5) In the heading, after ‘hazards’ insert ‘and type 2 requirements’.

8 In section 8 (reasons for decision to take enforcement action), in subsection (5)(a), omit ‘hazard’.

9 (1) Section 9 (guidance about inspections and enforcement action) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(b), omit ‘hazard’.

(3) After that subsection insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State may give guidance to local housing authorities in England about exercising their functions under this Chapter in relation to—

(a) assessing whether qualifying residential premises meet the requirements specified by regulations under section 2A, or

(b) financial penalties.’.

10 In the heading of Chapter 2 of Part 1 (improvement notices, prohibition orders and hazard awareness notices), omit ‘hazard’.

11 (1) Section 11 (improvement notices relating to category 1 hazards: duty of authority to serve notice) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) If—

(a) the local housing authority are satisfied that—

(i) a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(ii) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 1 requirement, and

(b) no management order is in force in relation to the premises under Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 4,

serving an improvement notice under this section in respect of the hazard or failure is a course of action available to the authority in relation to the hazard or failure for the purposes of section 5 (category 1 hazards and type 1 requirements: general duty to take enforcement action).’

(3) In subsection (2), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

(4) In subsection (3)(a), after ‘exists’ insert ‘, or which fail to meet the requirement,’.

(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) after ‘exists,’ insert ‘or which fail to meet the requirement,’, and

(b) in paragraph (a), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

(6) In subsection (5)(a), for the words from ‘that’ to ‘but’ substitute ‘that—

(i) if the notice relates to a hazard, the hazard ceases to be a category 1 hazard;

(ii) if the notice relates to a failure by premises to meet a type 1 requirement, the premises meet the requirement; but’.

(7) In subsection (6), for the words from ‘to’ to the end substitute ‘to—

(a) more than one category 1 hazard on the same premises or in the same building containing one or more flats,

(b) more than one failure to meet type 1 requirements by the same premises or the same building containing one or more flats, or

(c) any combination of such hazards and failures—

(i) on or by the same premises, or

(ii) in or by the same building containing one or more flats.’

(8) In subsection (8)—

(a) after ‘hazard’ (in the first place) insert ‘or failure’, and

(b) after ‘hazard’ (in the second place) insert ‘or secure that the premises meet the requirement’.

(9) In the heading, after ‘hazards’ insert ‘and type 1 requirements’.

12 (1) Section 12 (Improvement notices relating to category 2 hazards: power of authority to serve notice) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) If—

(a) the local housing authority are satisfied that—

(i) a category 2 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(ii) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 2 requirement, and

(b) no management order is in force in relation to the premises under Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 4,

the authority may serve an improvement notice under this section in respect of the hazard or failure.’

(3) In subsection (2), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

(4) In subsection (4), for the words from ‘to’ to the end substitute ‘to—

(a) more than one category 2 hazard on the same premises or in the same building containing one or more flats,

(b) more than one failure to meet type 2 requirements by the same premises or the same building containing one or more flats, or

(c) any combination of such hazards and failures—

(i) on or by the same premises, or

(ii) in or by the same building containing one or more flats.’

(5) In the heading, after ‘hazards’ insert ‘and type 2 requirements’.

13 (1) Section 13 (Contents of improvement notices) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) after ‘hazard’ (in each place) insert ‘or failure’,

(b) after ‘hazards’ insert ‘or failures’, and

(c) in paragraph (b), after ‘exists’ insert ‘or to which it relates’.

(3) In subsection (5), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

14 In section 16(3) (revocation and variation of improvement notices)—

(a) after ‘hazards’ (in the first place) insert ‘or failures (or a combination of hazards and failures)’, and

(b) in paragraph (a), after ‘hazards’ insert ‘or failures’.

15 (1) Section 19 (change in person liable to comply with improvement notice) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (2) substitute—

‘(2) In subsection (1), the reference to a person ceasing to be a “person of the relevant category”—

(a) in the case of an improvement notice served on a landlord or superior landlord under paragraph A1(2) of Schedule 1, is a reference to the person ceasing to hold the estate in the premises by virtue of which the person was the landlord or superior landlord, and

(b) in any other case, is a reference to the person ceasing to fall within the description of person (such as, for example, the holder of a licence under Part 2 or 3 or the person managing a dwelling) by reference to which the notice was served on the person.’

(3) In subsection (7), for ‘or (9)’ substitute ‘, (9) or (10)’.

(4) After subsection (9) insert—

‘(10) If—

(a) the original recipient was served as a landlord or superior landlord under paragraph A1(2) of Schedule 1, and

(b) the original recipient ceases as from the changeover date to be a person of the relevant category as a result of ceasing to hold the estate in the premises by virtue of which the person was the landlord or superior landlord,

the new holder of the estate or, if the estate has ceased to exist, the reversioner, is the “liable person”.’

16 (1) In section 20 (prohibition orders relating to category 1 hazards: duty of authority to make order) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) If—

(a) the local housing authority are satisfied that—

(i) a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(ii) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 1 requirement, and

(b) no management order is in force in relation to the premises under Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 4,

making a prohibition order under this section in respect of the hazard or failure is a course of action available to the authority in relation to the hazard or failure for the purposes of section 5 (category 1 hazards and type 1 requirements: general duty to take enforcement action).’

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after ‘exists’ insert ‘, or which fail to meet the requirement,’, and

(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

‘(b) if those premises are—

(i) one or more flats, or

(ii) accommodation falling within paragraph (e) of the definition of ‘residential premises’ in section 1(4) (homelessness) that is not a dwelling, HMO or flat,

it may prohibit the use of the building containing the flat or flats or accommodation (or any part of the building) or any external common parts;’.

(4) In subsection (4)—

(a) after ‘exists,’ insert ‘or which fail to meet the requirement,’, and

(b) in paragraph (a), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

(5) In subsection (5), for the words from ‘to’ to the end substitute ‘to—

(a) more than one category 1 hazard on the same premises or in the same building containing one or more flats,

(b) more than one failure to meet type 1 requirements by the same premises or the same building containing one or more flats, or

(c) any combination of such hazards and failures—

(i) on or by the same premises, or

(ii) in or by the same building containing one or more flats.’

(6) In the heading, after ‘hazards’ insert ‘and type 1 requirements’.

17 (1) Section 21 (prohibition orders relating to category 2 hazards: power of authority to make order) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) If—

(a) the local housing authority are satisfied that—

(i) a category 2 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(ii) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 2 requirement, and

(b) no management order is in force in relation to the premises under Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 4,

the authority may make a prohibition order under this section in respect of the hazard or failure.’

(3) In subsection (4), for the words from ‘to’ to the end substitute ‘to—

(a) more than one category 2 hazard on the same premises or in the same building containing one or more flats,

(b) more than one failure to meet type 2 requirements by the same premises or the same building containing one or more flats, or

(c) any combination of such hazards and failures—

(i) on or by the same premises, or

(ii) in or by the same building containing one or more flats.’

(4) In the heading, after ‘hazards’ insert ‘and type 2 requirements’.

18 (1) Section 22 (contents of prohibition orders) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) after ‘hazard’ (in each place) insert ‘or failure’,

(b) after ‘hazards’ insert ‘or failures’, and

(c) in paragraph (b), after ‘exists’ insert ‘or to which it relates’.

(3) In subsection (3)(b), after ‘hazards’ insert ‘, or failure or failures,’.

19 (1) Section 25 (revocation and variation of prohibition orders) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from ‘that’ to the end substitute ‘that—

(a) in the case of an order made in respect of a hazard, the hazard does not then exist on the residential premises specified in the order in accordance with section 22(2)(b), and

(b) in the case of an order made in respect of a failure by premises so specified to meet a requirement specified by regulations under section 2A, the premises then meet the requirement.’

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) after ‘hazards’ (in the first place) insert ‘or failures (or a combination of hazards and failures)’, and

(b) in paragraph (a), after ‘hazards’ insert ‘or failures’.

20 In the italic heading before section 28, omit ‘Hazard’.

21 (1) Section 28 (hazard awareness notices relating to category 1 hazards: duty of authority to serve notice) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—

‘(1) If—

(a) the local housing authority are satisfied that—

(i) a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(ii) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 1 requirement, and

(b) no management order is in force in relation to the premises under Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 4,

serving an awareness notice under this section in respect of the hazard or failure is a course of action available to the authority in relation to the hazard or failure for the purposes of section 5 (category 1 hazards and type 1 requirements: general duty to take enforcement action).

(2) An awareness notice under this section is a notice advising the person on whom it is served of—

(a) the existence of a category 1 hazard on, or

(b) a failure to meet a type 1 requirement by,

the residential premises concerned which arises as a result of a deficiency on the premises in respect of which the notice is served.’

(3) In subsection (3)(a), after ‘exists’ insert ‘, or which fail to meet the requirement,’.

(4) In subsection (4)—

(a) after ‘exists,’ insert ‘or which fail to meet the requirement,’, and

(b) in paragraph (a), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

(5) In subsection (5), for the words from ‘to’ to the end substitute ‘to—

(a) more than one category 1 hazard on the same premises or in the same building containing one or more flats,

(b) more than one failure to meet type 1 requirements by the same premises or the same building containing one or more flats, or

(c) any combination of such hazards and failures—

(i) on or by the same premises, or

(ii) in or by the same building containing one or more flats.’

(6) In subsection (6)—

(a) after ‘hazard’ (in each place) insert ‘or failure’,

(b) after ‘hazards’ insert ‘or failures’, and

(c) in paragraph (a), after ‘exists’ insert ‘or to which it relates’.

(7) In subsection (8), for ‘a hazard’ substitute ‘an’.

(8) At the end insert—

‘(9) A notice under this section in respect of residential premises in Wales is to be known as a “hazard awareness notice”.’

(9) In the heading—

(a) omit ‘Hazard’, and

(b) after ‘category 1 hazards’ insert ‘and type 1 requirements’.

22 (1) Section 29 (hazard awareness notices relating to category 2 hazards: power of authority to serve notice) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—

‘(1) If—

(a) the local housing authority are satisfied that—

(i) a category 2 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(ii) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 2 requirement, and

(b) no management order is in force in relation to the premises under Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 4,

the authority may serve an awareness notice under this section in respect of the hazard or failure.

(2) An awareness notice under this section is a notice advising the person on whom it is served of—

(a) the existence of a category 2 hazard on, or

(b) a failure to meet a type 2 requirement by,

the residential premises concerned which arises as a result of a deficiency on the premises in respect of which the notice is served.’

(3) In subsection (3), for ‘a hazard’ substitute ‘an’.

(4) In subsection (4), for the words from ‘to’ to the end substitute ‘to—

(a) more than one category 2 hazard on the same premises or in the same building containing one or more flats,

(b) more than one failure to meet type 2 requirements by the same premises or the same building containing one or more flats, or

(c) any combination of such hazards and failures—

(i) on or by the same premises, or

(ii) in or by the same building containing one or more flats.’

(5) In subsection (5)—

(a) after ‘hazard’ (in each place) insert ‘or failure’,

(b) after ‘hazards’ insert ‘or failures’, and

(c) in paragraph (a), after ‘exists’ insert ‘or to which it relates’.

(6) In subsection (8), for ‘a hazard’ substitute ‘an’.

(7) At the end insert—

‘(9) A notice under this section in respect of residential premises in Wales is to be known as a “hazard awareness notice”.’

(8) In the heading—

(a) omit ‘Hazard’, and

(b) after ‘category 2 hazards’ insert ‘and type 2 requirements’.

23 (1) Section 30 (offence of failing to comply with improvement notice) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

(3) In subsection (3), omit ‘not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale’.

(4) in subsection (5), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

24 In section 32 (offence of failing to comply with prohibition order etc), in subsection (2)(a), omit ‘not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale’.

25 In section 35 (power of court to order occupier or owner to allow action to be taken on premises), for the definition of ‘relevant person’ in subsection (8) substitute—

‘“relevant person” , in relation to any premises, means—

(a) a person who is an owner of the premises;

(b) a person having control of or managing the premises;

(c) the holder of any licence under Part 2 or 3 in respect of the premises;

(d) in the case of qualifying residential premises which are let under a relevant tenancy, the landlord under the tenancy and any person who is a superior landlord in relation to the tenancy.’.

26 (1) Section 40 (emergency remedial action) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) If—

(a) the local housing authority are satisfied that—

(i) a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(ii) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 1 requirement, and

(b) they are further satisfied that the hazard or failure involves an imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupiers of those or any other residential premises, and

(c) no management order is in force under Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 4 in relation to the premises mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii),

the taking by the authority of emergency remedial action under this section in respect of the hazard or failure is a course of action available to the authority in relation to the hazard or failure for the purposes of section 5 (category 1 hazards and type 1 requirements: general duty to take enforcement action).’

(3) In subsection (2), after ‘hazard’ insert ‘or failure’.

(4) In subsection (4), for the words from ‘of’ to the end substitute ‘of—

(a) more than one category 1 hazard on the same premises or in the same building containing one or more flats,

(b) more than one failure to meet type 2 requirements by the same premises or the same building containing one or more flats, or

(c) any combination of such hazards and failures—

(i) on or by the same premises, or

(ii) in or by the same building containing one or more flats.’

27 In section 41 (notice of emergency remedial action), in subsection (2)—

(a) after ‘hazard’ (in each place) insert ‘or failure’,

(b) after ‘hazards’ insert ‘or failures’, and

(c) in paragraph (a), after ‘exists’ insert ‘or to which it relates’.

28 In section 43 (emergency prohibition notices), for subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) If—

(a) the local housing authority are satisfied that—

(i) a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, or

(ii) any qualifying residential premises fail to meet a type 1 requirement, and

(b) they are further satisfied that the hazard or failure involves an imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupiers of those or any other residential premises, and

(c) no management order is in force under Chapter 1 or 2 of Part 4 in relation to the premises mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii),

making an emergency prohibition order under this section in respect of the hazard or failure is a course of action available to the authority in relation to the hazard or failure for the purposes of section 5 (category 1 hazards and type 1 requirements: general duty to take enforcement action).’

29 In section 44 (contents of emergency prohibition orders), in subsection (2)—

(a) after ‘hazard’ (in each place) insert ‘or failure’,

(b) after ‘hazards’ insert ‘or failures’, and

(c) in paragraph (a), after ‘exists’ insert ‘or to which it relates’.

30 In section 49 (power to charge for certain enforcement action)—

(a) in subsection (1)(c), for ‘a hazard’ substitute ‘an’, and

(b) in subsection (2), for ‘a hazard’ substitute ‘an’.

31 In section 50 (recovery of charge under section 49), in subsection (2)(b), for ‘a hazard’ substitute ‘an’.

32 In section 54 (index of defined expressions: Part 1)—

(a) at the appropriate places insert—

[Jacob Young]

Ms Fovargue, I would like to put on record my thanks to you and the other Chairs of this Bill Committee; to all the Clerks and parliamentary staff; and to the many other people who have worked hard on this Bill, including all my officials and my private office, who have had to get up to date with this Bill in a matter of weeks.

I thank all members of the Committee, including Opposition Members, for their constructive dialogue. We have had some robust debate on several measures, but I hope we can all agree that these are important reforms—the first in a generation—for landlords and tenants. I look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.