Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, particularly being a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. As a fellow north-easterner, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, on his excellent maiden speech, and also on his mother’s impending 100th birthday. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, on her passionate maiden speech. I share her concerns for children. I also thank the Minister for the time that she has given noble Lords to explain the Bill. I thank the many groups and people who have written to us and sent us submissions on the Bill.

We all want everyone to have a safe, secure and affordable home. The question is whether this Bill will deliver this or whether it risks undermining a key housing sector to the detriment of landlords and tenants alike. The Minister has argued that the Government have no choice but to introduce this Bill to reform the private rented sector. However, this assertion does not hold up under scrutiny.

While the Renters (Reform) Bill was originally conceived by the previous Conservative Government to address long-standing issues in the private rented sector, in its current form the Bill risks doing more harm than good. Comparing this Bill with its predecessor, the Renters (Reform) Bill in 2023-24, we see some striking differences. The changes proposed by the current Government threaten to destabilise the private rented sector. This is a sector that has seen remarkable growth in recent years, now housing nearly 19% of all households —some 4.6 million people.

Rather than providing the stability renters need, this Bill risks exacerbating the very problems it seeks to resolve. According to Scotland's Housing Network, 16% of landlords are scaling back their supply, and 12% are considering leaving the sector altogether. Scotland shows that the overregulation proposed here has pushed landlords out of the market, reducing housing supply and leaving renters in a worse position, with the highest rent increases in the UK. While these reforms are meant to protect tenants, they threaten to leave them with fewer choices and higher costs.

The Renters’ Rights Bill has been said by many in this Chamber—including the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Thurlow and Lord Truscott—to risk introducing a series of provisions that are set to significantly disrupt the private rented sector. It is a well-established fact that private landlords, when faced with increased regulation, often choose to exit the market. This is not just speculation: research from the National Residential Landlords Association in 2023 revealed that one in four landlords were considering selling at least one of their properties due to increased regulation, with many citing the Renters (Reform) Bill as a major factor. According to the English Private Landlord Survey 2024, 31% of landlords planned to decrease the number of properties or sell them altogether, compared to 16% in 2018.

Get Living, a significant player in the build-to-rent sector, has expressed serious concerns about how these changes could undermine long-term investment in rental homes. Savills, Hamptons, Zoopla and others warn that the provisions in the Bill could exacerbate the housing crisis. This is a concerning trend that will directly impact housing availability. As more landlords leave the market, there will be fewer rental homes, and it will be tenants who feel the effects of this most acutely. Moreover, by reducing investment in the rental sector, these reforms could also undermine the Government’s targets for housebuilding.

The previous Conservative Government worked hard to increase housing stock, delivering 2.5 million homes between 2010 and 2024, with 1 million of these delivered during the last Parliament. If the proposed changes in this Bill push landlords out of the market, it will risk reversing the progress on housing delivery.

Further data from Oxford Economics paints a grim picture: only one in eight renters can afford to purchase a home in their area. For many, the private rented sector is the only viable option, but these new regulations are forcing landlords to sell their properties, tightening an already overstretched market. Will the Minister explain why this Bill seems to accelerate the exodus of landlords from the market? What steps do the Government intend to take to reverse this damaging trend?

An issue that has been raised by many noble Lords is Section 21 and its impact on the courts system. I was particularly struck by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The previous Conservative Government were clear in their approach: any abolition of Section 21 would come only after significant reform of HM Courts & Tribunals Service. This would have ensured that the court system was ready and able to process cases efficiently and fairly. Unfortunately, the Bill abandons that commitment, rushing forward with the abolition of Section 21 without first addressing the ongoing strain in our courts.

Our court system is already under immense strain. Landlords are facing significant delays when seeking possession of a property, and these delays would only worsen with the proposed changes to Section 21. The First-tier Tribunal is already overwhelmed with challenges related to rent increases; currently, it can take up to 10 weeks for the tribunal to make a decision. Introducing additional cases to this already overburdened system risks further delays, which would ultimately harm both tenants and landlords alike.

Moreover, the legislation includes provisions enabling tenants to challenge rent increases more easily. While the right to challenge unjust rent hikes is important, the process outlined in the Bill could overwhelm our already stretched court system. As highlighted by my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Northbrook, a system that allows all rent increases to be appealed with no downside risks flooding the court system. How will the First-tier Tribunal manage the added burden of rent appeals, when it is already struggling with its current case load?

The abolition of Section 21 repossessions means that responsible landlords will be forced to rely on the courts to process legitimate possession cases. However, as the Housing Minister himself admitted in the Bill Committee in the other place, the UK court system is “on its knees”. While the Minister correctly argues that “court readiness” is essential to the successful operation of the new system, which I assume refers to the abolition of Section 21 and the resulting shift in the equilibrium of the renters’ market, His Majesty’s Government have yet to clarify what “court readiness” truly means in practical terms. What resources will be allocated to ensure that the courts are properly equipped for these reforms? The Law Society has rightly warned that

“without investment in housing legal aid and the courts, the Bill will not achieve its aims”.

Student lets have been raised by many noble Lords. The Bill exempts purpose-built student accommodation from the requirement to end fixed-term tenancies, a provision that we agree with. However, this exemption will not apply to other forms of student accommodation, such as private rental properties where second- and third-year undergraduate students typically reside. This Government have abandoned our commitment to sufficiently carve out student accommodation, where it is essential that both landlords and tenants have the certainty of fixed-term contracts to plan for subsequent years. What about master’s and PhD students, who often require longer-term accommodation, typically in smaller, privately rented properties? According to data from accommodationforstudents.com, one- and two-bedroom properties make up one-third of all student housing. The provisions for purpose-built student accommodation should be extended to include all student properties, ensuring the smooth operation of the entire student housing market and protecting the annual cycle of student rentals.

In conclusion, the need for more homes in the private rented sector is urgent. Savills estimates that, by 2031, we will need as many as 1 million additional homes for private rent to keep up with rising demand. How, then, can we afford to risk policies that may drive landlords out of the market and make this shortage even worse? As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, how do we strike the right balance between protecting tenants and maintaining a healthy rental market that supports investment and meets the needs of renters across the country? It is crucial that the Government listen to the voices of landlords, housing experts and tenants who have raised concerns about the impact of the Bill, and we intend to table amendments that address some of the most pressing concerns. Ultimately, we must ensure that the policies we put in place strengthen, not weaken, the system that provides homes for renters, while also supporting landlords, who are crucial to meeting the nation’s housing needs. The future of our rental market depends on striking that balance.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Perhaps the noble Baroness and I should discuss this over a few glasses of wine also, although I do not drink—but she can have the wine. I do not think the amendment creates a new ground for repossession; it gives the tenant greater security of tenure by removing half the causes for which a landlord could serve notice—I think that is what we will have to discuss over the glass of wine. It applies in special circumstances, where a landlord does not anticipate the need to sell or the wish to move in a family member but wishes to incentivise their tenant, who could leave at any moment on two months’ notice, to stay longer. So they say, “I’m prepared to give you greater security of tenure as an incentive to remain and continue paying the rent”. It is not more complicated than that, but I am glad that I managed to lift the bafflement and look forward to a chat afterwards perhaps.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, before I start, I ask the Committee to note that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire and therefore have an interest. I welcome the opportunity to speak to this group and to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for raising this amendment and explaining it so carefully. I am quite grateful that I understood all along that the tenant was still eligible for the two-month notice period.

These amendments offer a clear and practical framework for tenants to request a voluntary extension agreement after four months of occupancy with terms that, as the noble Lord said, provide greater certainty and predictability for both parties. This would allow people the freedom to make a mutual agreement and choice that benefited both sides. As Conservatives, we believe that the Government’s role is not to overregulate or restrict but to create the conditions for stability, co-operation and choice. The amendments do exactly that: agreements built on mutual respect rather than compulsion.

Under the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, tenants would enjoy security of tenure for an agreed period. Landlords in turn gain the reassurance of occupancy, with their right to recover their property during the term limited to cases of anti-social behaviour or non-payment of rent. These are reasonable safeguards that encourage constructive relationships and stability in the rental market and will benefit both tenants and landlords.

This approach complements the amendments in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which we will discuss in due course. Together, they reflect a shared principle that flexibility, where it is entered into freely and transparently, strengthens rather than undermines tenant protections. We often speak in this Chamber about empowering tenants, but that empowerment must include the ability to make informed choices and enter into arrangements that suit tenants’ lives, reducing the risk that they will be forced to move. Voluntary extension agreements offer a proportionate and sensible way of achieving that aim without diluting the core purpose of the Bill. I hope the Minister will give these proposals the thoughtful consideration they deserve as we continue to shape a Bill that is fair, flexible and fit for the realities of today’s rental market. We look forward to working constructively with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as he considers his approach ahead of Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his amendments relating to mutually agreed voluntary extension agreement in tenancies and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their contributions as well. Amendments 3 and 12 would allow a form of agreement where tenants can leave the tenancy by providing two months’ notice and landlords could gain possession only for rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. Tenants would be able to request this after four months of the assured tenancy and the landlord would have to agree in writing.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for meeting me to discuss his proposals. No wine was involved, but other beverages are available. I have considered his amendments carefully and the points he made about their potential efficacy. One of the reasons the Government do not want to reintroduce fixed terms or anything like them is that they add complexity into the system. Having a simple, single system of periodic tenancies will make it easier for both parties to better understand their rights and responsibilities.

Having looked at the noble Lord’s proposal, I say that it is not clear that it will be of much benefit to either party. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly referred to the nature of assured tenancies, and I think there has sometimes been a misunderstanding—perhaps concocted—of what an assured tenancy is. It is a permanent tenancy unless the landlord uses the grounds included in the Bill or the tenant gives two months’ notice. It is not a two-month tenancy; it is a permanent tenancy with two months’ notice on the part of the tenant. If both parties wish the tenancy to sustain for a certain period of time, nothing in the Bill prevents this. The Bill already prevents landlords using the key possession grounds for moving and selling within the first 12 months of a new tenancy. This provides tenants with additional protections for a period of time. Landlords can also communicate their plans to tenants if the tenants need that additional reassurance. It is also unclear what this model would offer to landlords, given that the tenant could still leave at any point, so it is very unlikely landlords would agree to it. For the reasons I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

9: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert “, unless the landlord and the tenant mutually agree to have a fixed term during which period the landlord agrees to suspend the ability to seek possession under Ground 1 (Occupation by landlord or family), Ground 1A (Sale of dwelling-house) or Ground 6 (Redevelopment) of Schedule 2.
(1A) During a fixed term tenancy agreed under subsection (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to increase the rent as provided for by section 15.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow fixed term tenancies to continue if both the landlord and the tenant agree.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, I will speak also to Amendment 13, in my name and that of my noble friend. These amendments are grounded in a very simple but important principle: when landlords and tenants reach mutual agreement they should be trusted to make arrangements that reflect their individual needs and circumstances. This debate is not about fixed-term tenancies for their own sake; it is about preserving the ability of landlords and tenants to enter into legitimate, mutually agreed contracts that reflect flexibility and choice. If both parties are in agreement, there should be a legal mechanism to support such tenancies.

Amendments 9 and 13 introduce a degree of flexibility into the framework of the Bill, without in any way undermining its core objectives to enhance tenant security and stability in the rental market. Without these amendments the Bill risks reducing the security of tenants. Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend and supported by noble Lords across the House, would allow fixed-term tenancies to continue, but only where both the landlord and tenant have freely and mutually agreed to such an arrangement.

The Renters’ Rights Bill seeks to strengthen the position of tenants in the rental market. I support these aims but, in our efforts to provide stronger protections, we must also ensure that we do not inadvertently remove tools and options that serve tenants well, particularly where those arrangements are entered into voluntarily and in good faith. Under this proposal the landlord would agree to suspend certain grounds for possession and refrain from rent increases during the fixed term. It strikes a careful and fair balance, giving tenants greater security and predictability while allowing landlords to plan ahead with confidence.

Amendment 13 in my name would ensure that landlords and tenants retain the ability to vary terms of the tenancy by agreement. This is a modest but important provision ensuring that necessary flexibility is not lost under what would otherwise become a rigid and inflexible structure. We cannot predict the future and need to allow scope to enable a tenant and a landlord to mutually agree changes to their agreement to reflect this; for instance, where they both wish to see modifications to the property or to enable a temporary subletting where a tenant is going to be away for a time.

Beyond the immediate relationship between landlord and tenant, this also speaks to something bigger. A modern, dynamic workforce depends on geographic mobility. Working-age adults must be able to move for the opportunity, whether it is a job, an academic course or to support a family. Scrapping the option of a mutually agreed fixed-term tenancy risks restricting that movement and, in turn, limits potential.

We believe that flexibility drives productivity. The economy cannot flourish if people are locked out of areas of opportunity simply because the housing arrangements no longer accommodate short-term needs. This is not just about following a job, it is about making it possible to succeed, wherever life takes you. When we support mobility through flexible, fair rental agreements, we open the door to a future where success is not defined by the postcode of your birth but by your ambition, determination and ability to seize opportunity.

These amendments do not seek to weaken tenant protections—quite the opposite. They create opportunities for tenants to request greater security and encourage landlords to provide it willingly and transparently. In a rental market as diverse and complex as ours, this kind of voluntary flexibility is not just welcome, it is essential. If the Bill is to be a true Renters’ Rights Bill, it must include the right to choose through mutual agreement the housing arrangements that best work for each individual and their family. That is what these amendments seek to enable, and I hope the Minister will give them careful and serious consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my direct interest in the private rented sector with lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I am pleased to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Jackson, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on her damascene conversion following the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. I hope we will achieve the same with the current Minister. I will not repeat their well-argued points in favour of the amendment but will make the following additional points and reiterations.

I approach the PRS from a rural background, where the average length of a tenancy is around seven years. There is little churn, in view of the long-term nature of the accommodation in rural areas. As a result, assured shorthold and fixed-term tenancies are popular. This is somewhat different from the urban PRS to which this Bill is largely directed. I cannot understand why the Government would object to the continuation of the freedom to contract for a fixed term if both parties agree, particularly as it provides flexibility and certainty to both. The landlord gets his guaranteed rent and the tenant can negotiate additional conditions such no rent reviews for a certain period, improvements and security for the term.

In Germany there are two types of tenancy: indefinite and fixed-term. Fixed-term tenancies have move-in and move-out clauses and neither party is obliged to renew. Minimum rental periods in Germany, whether indefinite or fixed, can be up to two years. The German system shows that the assured and fixed-term tenancies can work well together. The ability to contract for a fixed term also has the effect of reducing rental pressure in the overall market as longer-term tenancies act as a natural brake on rising rental costs as there are fewer opportunities to increase the rent.

Another major advantage of retaining fixed-term tenancies is that it gives confidence to buy-to-let lenders and to institutional investors, because mortgage payments are more secure, as is the financial return to the institutional investor. These are the types of landlord we should now be encouraging if the PRS is to grow and the problems of bad individual landlords are to be minimised, because they tend to employ professional management and to produce a better product. I urge the Government to look again at this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington, Lord Jackson and Lord Truscott, for their thoughtful interventions in this debate.

Amendment 9 would retain fixed terms in the future assured tenancy system. Landlords and tenants would be able to agree to include a fixed term in tenancy agreements under which the landlord could not use the grounds for selling, occupation or redevelopment or increase the rent during the fixed period. Amendment 13 would remove the restriction on varying or adding new tenancy terms covering fixed terms or rent periods. I have already set out today why the Government will not accept amendments that would reintroduce fixed terms. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the Damascene conversion front, but that is not for me today. Allowing the option of fixed terms only creates the illusion of choice for tenants. In an oversubscribed market, tenants often feel they must sign what is required of them by landlords.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to groupthink, with reference to fixed-term tenancies and the purpose of the Bill. I prefer to refer to democracy. We set out an intention in relation to renters’ rights and received a strong electoral mandate for that, which we are now putting in place. So it is not groupthink; it is a democratic mandate that we have to deliver what we have set out in the Bill.

Fixed terms do not place equal requirements on both parties. In reality, landlords retain the ability to end the tenancy when the tenant is at fault, but tenants cannot leave the tenancy for any reason, even if the property is not safe to live in.

The amendments would also create a legal ambiguity about what new contractual terms could cover. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, raised the issues of rural tenancies—I know we will return to that in future groups—and investors, on which I have already commented so I will not repeat my comments around that. For the reasons that I have set out here and in previous debates, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions made by my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Truscott, and for the response from the Minister.

What has emerged from this discussion is a shared recognition that flexibility and tenant protection need not be opposing forces. That is a view held not just within this Chamber; across the housing sector, there is broad concern that eliminating the ability for landlords and tenants to enter fixed-term agreements by mutual consent risks overlooking the real-world complexities of today’s rental market. Propertymark has warned that fixed-term tenancies—when agreed freely—offer tenants a sense of security and help landlords to plan with certainty. It notes that these arrangements are particularly valued by renters with lower incomes, as they offer both predictability and peace of mind.

However, we must not overlook that predictability is just as important for landlords. When there is a clear start and end date, both parties benefit from a secure timeline. For tenants, that means a guaranteed period of stability. For landlords, it means reliable income and the ability to plan financially without the fear of an abrupt vacancy. By contrast, rolling tenancies without the option of a mutually agreed fixed term introduce a level of uncertainty. Tenants may leave with just two months’ notice, potentially leaving landlords with no income and limited time to find a new occupant. This kind of unpredictability is not just inconvenient; it undermines the landlord’s confidence and may discourage future investment in the sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, given the difficulty of getting buy-to-let mortgages.

These concerns are not hypothetical. In a recent survey of more than 900 landlords, nearly two-thirds said they planned to leave the sector, reduce their portfolio or shift towards short-term or holiday lets, citing this Bill as a central reason. A key concern on this side of the House is the availability of rental property. We remain concerned, and we have not received assurances from the Minister on that score. Many feel that their voices have not been heard during this process and their legitimate concerns have been too easily dismissed.

Of course we must listen to those who raise valid concerns about the historical misuse of certain tenancy models, but these amendments are not about reinstating the past. They are about creating a future where arrangements are respected and supported. This is not about rebalancing the system in favour of landlords but about recognising that trust and stability can emerge where both parties are empowered to agree terms that reflect their own needs.

We cannot afford to ignore the very real concern that excessive rigidity will push landlords out of the market and make it more difficult for tenants, leaving behind a smaller, less responsive and more expensive private rented sector. If a student, contract worker or family navigating a temporary relocation agree on a fixed term that suits both parties, should we really prevent that flexibility? That is precisely what Amendments 9 and 13 in my name seek to preserve. The ability to fix a term by agreement, or to vary the terms of a tenancy, where both parties consent, reflects the real needs of the modern, mobile and diverse rental landscape. It ensures that, where there is mutual understanding, the law does not become an unnecessary barrier.

I say again that this is not about exceptions to the Bill’s purpose but about contributions to it. The right to housing includes the right to enter into fair agreements that are mutual, transparent and freely chosen. That is also why I have included a probing amendment on why the Government are seeking to end certain types of assured tenancy. I hope the Minister will give these proposals the careful consideration that they deserve. There will still be time for a Damascene conversion as the Bill proceeds. I thank all noble Lords for the richness of today’s debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, this is my first speech today, so I will take the opportunity to thank the Minister and her team for all the discussions so far. I support the fundamental principles underpinning this legislation, in particular the long-overdue abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions—a change that, as we have heard, cannot come soon enough for countless renters across the country.

However, as we work to create a much fairer and more secure private rented sector, we on these Benches are also hugely aware of the pressing need to increase the supply of high-quality rental homes. For that reason, we have tabled Amendment 15, which aims to provide a very specific and targeted temporary exemption to the abolition of ASTs—assured shorthold tenancies. Specifically, the provision would allow assured shorthold tenancies for a period of six months for premises whose current tenants are the first tenants since the construction of the premises. This is a carefully considered proposal, designed to support the laudable aims of the Bill by incentivising the creation of much-needed new rental stock.

My honourable friend in the House of Commons, Gideon Amos, and noble Lords on these Benches have consistently championed the cause of increasing housing supply, particularly through new innovative models such as build-to-rent accommodation. This highlights the urgent need to restore hope to millions aspiring to a decent home after decades of decline in social housing provision. Indeed, ours was the only manifesto with a direct target of 150,000 new social homes to rent—a vital underpinning building block to change the lack of balance in tenures to match and accommodate the desperate need that has reached a crisis level today.

My colleague tabled an amendment in the House of Commons that would have specifically incentivised more build-to-rent accommodation by offering a degree of initial security for developers. Although that original amendment proposed a longer initial term of about two years, the underlying principle remains the same. New developments, particularly in the build-to-rent sector, require a degree of certainty.

We have heard directly from the British Property Federation, which is the representative body for the build-to-rent sector. It has expressed its support for measures that increase the certainty of rental income for institutional investors developing these new homes. It has engaged with us and our colleagues in the Commons on a similar amendment and explicitly stated support for its general thrust. The British Property Federation supports the new supply of rental housing and has said that six months would be an adequate period to incentivise investment in new construction and build to rent. I thank the British Property Federation for its engagement and advice, specifically on this issue.

In the previous group, I explained why I think ASTs are not very secure. This proposed six-month assured shorthold is a one-off exemption that would genuinely offer a limited period of certainty for developers to encourage them to build. That is what we are aiming for. It is a narrowly defined exemption that would apply only to properties being let for the very first time after their construction. It would not affect existing tenancies or undermine the core principles of abolishing no-fault evictions for the vast majority of renters, which we strongly support.

Indeed, by encouraging the creation of new rental homes, we believe the amendment would be a small, modest but useful way of ultimately expanding the options available to renters and contributing to a better balance in the market. The proposal is so modest, unlike other amendments that we have heard today, with build to rent currently estimated to be around 0.1% of the overall housing stock. We believe it would have minimal impact on the much broader move towards periodic tenancies. It may be appropriate at this point to say that we would not support removing Clause 2 from the Bill as we agree with its broad principles, but this approach would recognise the practical realities of bringing new developments to market.

In conclusion, while we rightly focus on enhancing security and rights for existing renters, we must not lose sight of the fundamental need to find ways to increase the supply of decent homes. That is what we are attempting to do with this amendment. We believe that it will act as a catalyst for increased investment in new rental properties, ultimately benefiting renters by providing more choice and contributing to a more sustainable and responsive housing market.

I urge the Minister and noble Lords to give this proposal careful consideration. We will be more than happy to do further work if it is not exactly to order. We believe that there is an opportunity to try to at least encourage a bit more supply in the market sector, even if we do not entirely agree with the suggestions that the whole market will suddenly disappear in the wake of this Bill. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for introducing an amendment that would allow short-term tenancies to continue for six months after a premises is constructed. The noble Baroness has highlighted the fundamental importance of increasing the supply of rented properties. Her case is compelling. This amendment would allow support for newly constructed properties by providing greater certainty for investors in that property. Additionally, it is often true that new properties have periods of vacancy while long-term lets are secured. We must consider, evaluate and listen to all solutions to ensure that liveable accommodation is not left empty and to help develop a stable and thriving community. I am thankful that the noble Baroness has brought this discussion to the attention of the Committee.

However, I wish to probe more widely why the Government are seeking to abolish assured shorthold tenancies, and therefore will speak to my opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. The short-term rental market supports job mobility, especially industries which require relocation or even temporary positions. Enabling the mobility of working-age adults to reach the depth and breadth of the United Kingdom is vital for economic growth. The modern workforce requires flexibility—the ability to move and adapt, and to pursue opportunities wherever they may arise. By discouraging the ebb and flow of economic activity, we discourage the labour market flexibility required for an expanding economy. Jobs must follow demand, not be restrained by the state removing the option of a short-term tenancy.

While the economic argument is compelling, so is the practical one. For individuals undertaking a home renovation or experiencing family breakdown, short tenancies provide not only a practical solution but an important reprieve, allowing people to escape the chaos of building works or to rebuild a new life without haste. Have the Government considered the benefits of shorthold tenancies for the tenant? Has the Minister considered both the economic and practical benefits of their existence?

With this Bill, the Government are overseeing a huge change to the rental market. Can the Minister please set out the impact on long-term housing pressures as a result of this ban? In markets with soaring demand and low capacity, is it not the case that short-term tenancies can alleviate some of the pressures that tenants face?

The Government have been consistent in highlighting the perceived drawbacks of short-term tenancies. Of course, as with any housing arrangement, there will inevitably be aspects that are less than desirable, depending on one’s individual circumstances. However, in identifying these challenges, it is only right that the Government also acknowledge and weigh the very real, tangible benefits that short-term tenancies offer to many others. As other noble Lords have mentioned, such tenancies expand the availability of housing which might otherwise remain empty. The decision to impose an outright ban is, in effect, the most extreme course of action—the so-called nuclear option. From these Benches, we cannot help but wonder whether sufficient consideration was given to alternative, more balanced solutions that might have addressed the concerns identified while preserving the flexibility and choice that short-term tenancies provide for so many.

I hope the Minister will carefully reflect on these benefits and acknowledge the convenience of shorthold tenancies, as well as the key role they play in enabling economic mobility and the use of homes which might otherwise remain empty.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for speaking to the opposition that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill on behalf of himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

The assured shorthold tenancy regime and Section 21 mean that millions of tenants live with the knowledge that they could be uprooted from their homes with little notice. Some of them end up living in substandard properties for fear of retaliatory action and eviction should they complain.

This has embedded chronic insecurity in the private rented sector. It affects both tenants who want a stable home and the many good landlords who operate professionally but are undercut by rogue landlords. It is a drain on aspiration and prevents tenants having the chance to achieve their potential. Removing Section 21 is critical to giving renters greater security and stability. They will be able to stay in their homes for longer and avoid the risk of homelessness. They will also have the confidence to challenge poor practice and unjust rent increases. Clause 2 therefore removes the assured shorthold tenancy regime and in doing so abolishes Section 21 as well.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.

If many of the amendments to this Bill are designed to make us look at unintended consequences for certain groups of people, these amendments concern one group of people who wholeheartedly deserve and need us to look at how the Bill will impact their situation as shared owners who cannot sell their flats and are subletting due to a variety of legitimate reasons. The specific conditions of their model of part ownership were so cogently outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young, that, noble Lords will be pleased to know, I will not even attempt to repeat them. That has led to their campaign to plead with us—“plead” is almost not a strong enough word—to look at ways to ameliorate the devastating situation in which they find themselves.

The key element of concern is the stranglehold that the registered providers have on the property—no doubt deemed to be a good thing in normal times, but this situation is far from normal. Due to that stranglehold and the restrictive rules that shared owners must abide by, for the majority of shared owners subletting is a loss-making operation by design. I am not given to hyperbole, but I cannot think of anything worse than being in the situation that they are trapped in.

The term “accidental landlord” was a new one to me, but when I heard first hand from the shared ownership owners, I felt their pain—it is a really messy issue. Let us not forget that, if you have gone into shared ownership in the first place, it is highly likely that your finances are going to be stretched anyway—no high salary, no inheritance, and no bank of mum and dad—or you would have bought outright. As has already been said, the 2025 survey of the Shared Owners’ Network found that 90% of subletters were created because of the building safety crisis.

Another shocking statistic was that, in November 2024, the National Audit Office stated that the Government will not reach their 2023 target for the remediation of high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding. This building safety crisis is set to continue for over a decade or more, so it is not a big stretch to say that the problem of accidental landlords will increase. That is why I too was disappointed that this was not picked up by the impact assessment—perhaps the Minister can explain why.

The issue is certainly complex, and I am absolutely certain that the Minister is fully knowledgeable about it and sympathetic to it. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, are trying to find out whether there is a way forward through this Bill to help this group of people. Alternatively, perhaps the Minister will take it upon herself to follow this up by other means.

I will end with a few words from one of the many emails from the aforementioned Stephanie, but I will pick up on a slightly different point. She says that

“we are not bad people … we’re trying to cope with an impossible situation … we don’t need to be punished for failing to sell the unsellable flats that are already ruining us”.

Between the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Stephanie, they say it all—and they have our full support.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case and highlighted the unique circumstances of shared ownership owners. These amendments address the specific and pressing concerns faced by shared ownership leaseholders under this Bill, and we believe that they would help ensure that this group is treated with fairness and clarity.

Shared ownership has proved to be a valuable tenure, enabling many individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder. However, as has been highlighted, there are circumstances where shared ownership owners find themselves trapped, and we do not want them to be disadvantaged by this Bill and face unforeseen consequences. They are subletting not out of a desire but out of necessity

To avoid repetition, I will speak to the amendments together in a way that highlights their collective aim of protecting shared ownership leaseholders, who often have limited means. Clearly, they speak to the potential unintended consequences of the Bill and the repercussions of fire safety.

Amendments 19 and 20 focus on the impact that Clauses 1 and 2 will have on shared ownership leaseholders, particularly those who rent out their properties under licences. The amendments seek to provide clarity on how these leaseholders will be affected by the proposed regulations, ensuring that their unique circumstances are properly considered. In particular, Amendment 20, which defines “shared ownership lease” by reference to Section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, would be an important step towards eliminating any ambiguity in the application of the legislation to this group.

Amendment 107 addresses a significant practical issue: many shared ownership leaseholders face restrictions in their lease agreements that prevent them profiting from subletting. In some cases, they are not even permitted to increase rent during a subletting arrangement, regardless of market conditions. This amendment seeks to ensure that leaseholders in these circumstances are not unfairly burdened by rules that were never designed with their situation in mind.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

The Minister, at our meeting yesterday, for which I am deeply grateful, said that the amendment was not necessary as the superior landlord would in any event still be able to obtain possession after four months, come what may. Unfortunately, in many developments, which is what this is all about, there is a real need to regain the whole site with vacant possession on a timely basis. Allowing the assured tenant to remain in the holding after the intermediate landlord has left would slow down the process of regaining vacant possession of the site and might delay or adversely affect the planned development. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I was expecting a slightly longer debate this time, as we have been proceeding slightly more slowly than the other day. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing this debate on notice periods for intermediate landlords. Intermediate landlords make the rental market more flexible and accessible, precisely the kind of benefits we should be seeking to expand, yet the Bill now risks removing them. These landlords play a vital role in our housing system. They unlock additional housing options by turning single lets into shared accommodation. They offer more affordable arrangements and provide the flexibility that is so essential in urban and rural areas closely tied to the job market. It is therefore vital that any legislation we pass recognises their contribution and protects the value they bring to the sector. In the previous debate, many noble Lords talked about the red-hot market and the lack of housing. I genuinely worry about the risk of reducing the amount of housing.

On that note, I turn specifically to the amendments before us in this group and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for giving us such an erudite summation of a rather technical area, which I could not and do not wish to replicate, and therefore I shall move on swiftly. These amendments will certainly assist the Committee in considering how best to address this issue. Protecting small-scale renters should be the priority for us all. I hope to work constructively across the Committee to ensure that we get this right. From housing associations to charities and small local businesses providing accommodation, intermediate landlords are vital to the supply on which a secure, reasonably priced and decent rental sector depends.

Amendments 37 and 38 apply explicitly to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1985. These tenancies by their nature can be very long indeed, even multigenerational. The tenanted property can include farmhouses and cottages, which could be occupied either by agricultural employees or open market tenants, depending on the terms of the superior tenancy. While in some cases they may have fixed termination dates, in other cases these tenancies could be brought to an end unexpectedly with a short timescale. It is right that these intermediate landlords should have the power to terminate subsidiary tenancies in a shorter timeframe in order to deliver the property back to the superior landlord in compliance with the superior tenancy agreement. Otherwise, the risk is that they may choose not to let such properties. There are many such tenancies already in place that will not and could not have anticipated this Renters’ Rights Bill. Intermediate tenants could well be put in a position of being in breach of their own tenancies, with negative financial implications.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the amendments and for the meeting we had yesterday, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments on this set of amendments. Amendment 28 works together with Amendments 29, 37 and 38 to insert a new ground for possession, numbered 2ZZA. This proposed ground for possession is well intentioned but, in the Government’s view, unnecessary. It seeks to replicate ground 2ZA with a notice period of two months rather than four in the limited circumstances where agricultural landlords have been given short notice to vacate of three months or less by their superior landlord. Ground 2ZA already covers these circumstances and allows superior landlords and courts to treat a notice given under ground 2ZA as valid even after the intermediate landlord is no longer legally involved once their lease has ended, thus providing the affected tenant with the same protection.

Amendment 28 specifically seeks to ensure that the proposed ground has two months’ notice. This goes against the general principle of the Bill that tenants should generally be given four months’ notice to uproot their lives in circumstances where they have not committed any wrongdoing. We do not believe that a tenant’s security of tenure should be undermined due to the actions of a superior landlord and encourage communication between all parties, where a superior landlord’s notice to the intermediate landlord is shorter. By creating ground 2ZZA with a shorter notice period for circumstances where the intermediate agricultural landlord has themself been given short notice by their superior landlord, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is seeking to ensure that the superior landlord is not left managing the subtenancy.

Amendment 29 adds ground 2ZZA to the list, in subsection 4(3)(f) of the Bill, in which a notice given by an intermediate landlord can be treated as a notice given by a superior landlord once the intermediate tenancy has ended. As superior landlords will already be able to evict tenants under a notice given by an intermediate landlord, we do not think the noble Lord’s proposed ground 2ZZA is required.

Amendment 37 is an amendment specifically to ground 2ZA, disapplying it in the circumstances in which the noble Lord wishes ground 2ZZA to apply. Further to what I have already said, this highlights the redundancy of the proposed ground 2ZZA. Clearly, ground 2ZA would apply already, to the point that it needs to be disapplied to make proposed ground 2ZZA work. I am sorry—I hope everyone is following this.

Amendment 38 inserts the proposed ground into Schedule 1 to the Bill. For all the reasons I have already highlighted, in our view the amendment is not required. As such, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for speaking prematurely. I speak as someone—I should declare this interest—who has a small farm, as I said earlier, which is very small in comparison with those of some of the noble Lords who have spoken. However, I have seen at first hand some of the problems that have been described. In particular, I remember one old lady who carried on in a house where she simply was not able to manage the property and its upkeep. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord opposite are suggesting would help to avoid very painful, costly legal cases where people have to try and get somebody out, which causes enormous bad feeling and cost.

I am in favour of this amendment and would have been in favour of previous ones because I think in farming at the moment the difficulties that landlords face are so immense—I will not go through them all now—that the ability to keep a farm going, which is the interests of tenants and future tenants, is prejudiced if they cannot get back suitable accommodation. I completely understand the desire, which I am sure the Government have, to offer security to tenants. In fact, that is an extremely important part of the fabric of our society, but we have moved on in some ways and what has happened in farming and what I have observed around me in mid-Wales is that there is a need to be able to get back certain properties to bring in younger people to farm.

I broadly support these amendments and suggest to the Government, with great respect, that if there is any way that they can move to accommodate them, I would very much support them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for moving this amendment and again he has given an excellent technical explanation of the need for it. I shall not try and repeat it, in the certain knowledge that I would not give as good an explanation. It recognises the enduring statutory duties placed on certain landlords to house former employees. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, who have further explained and emphasised the issues and why this amendment is necessary.

Many of these tenants are retired agricultural workers who have given years, sometimes decades, of service and who now occupy homes with lifetime security of tenure. As such, landlords—often small family-run farming businesses—continue to shoulder a statutory duty to provide housing, even after the employment relationship has finished. This is not merely a moral obligation; it is a legal one that increasingly runs into practical difficulty.

The housing needs of retired employees can evolve over time. A once necessary dwelling may no longer be suitable, as has been mentioned, due to age, health, or changes in family circumstances and numbers. At the same time, that same property may now be needed to house a current employee whose work is essential to the functioning of the farm. Yet under the current drafting of the renters reform Bill, landlords cannot regain possession of that alternative accommodation in order to fulfil their continuing statutory duty. Amendment 65 corrects that oversight. It provides for a narrow, targeted new ground for possession applicable only when the landlord is required to rehouse a protected tenant or their successor, and only when suitable alternative accommodation is required for that purpose.

This is not about weakening tenant protections or finding a loophole—far from it. This is about balance, ensuring that landlords who remain bound by statutory obligations are able to meet them in practice. Without this amendment we risk trapping landlords in a legal Catch-22, where they are legally required to provide suitable housing but legally prevented from doing so. Importantly, they will be able to provide accommodation to retired employees who may have given many years of service and who deserve secure accommodation in their retirement, without the risk of breaking the law or leaving accommodation empty in expectation of its use later.

This amendment does not open a back door to wider evictions; it simply ensures the fair and functional operation of existing, long-established housing duties. It is balanced, proportionate and essential to upholding the very laws that protect these tenants.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendment which would create a new ground for possession, and thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley of Knighton and Lord Jamieson, for their contributions to this debate. This ground would enable a landlord to seek possession of a tenanted property in order to re-let the property to a person to whom they have a lifetime duty under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Housing Act 1988.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his collaborative engagement on this matter and for helping me through his reasoning for the amendment, both in our meeting and his clear explanation in this Chamber. However, our position towards this amendment remains the same. It would go against the general principle of increasing security of tenure for assured tenants that is consistent throughout the Bill.

We do not agree that there is a compelling reason that this particular group of agricultural tenants need to be housed in specific dwellings at the expense of existing assured tenants. Where a landlord has a statutory duty to house an agricultural tenant or their successor, in many cases landlords will be able to move tenants as and when suitable properties become available. Landlords can also use the existing discretionary suitable alternative accommodation ground 9, which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, to move an assured tenant to another property if needed.

The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, referred to the issue of underoccupation, which all landlords face. I certainly faced it as a social landlord when I was a council leader; it is not unique to farming. The idea that mandatory eviction is the answer to this, rather than incentivising people to move on from underoccupied properties, would be a completely new area of legislation to be considered and would be out of scope of this Bill.

The new ground would mean that an existing assured tenant could be evicted through no fault of their own, simply moving the problem around and creating insecurity for tenants. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, this is similar to the issue we discussed on Tuesday in relation to retired clergy. I understand the distinction that the noble Lord made in relation to the statutory duty, but it is not for a specific property. The issue of just moving the problem around is the same. As such, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

72: Clause 7, page 8, line 35, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another to this Clause in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, probes the Government’s reasons for increasing the notice period for rent increases from one month to two months.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the amendments, I will respond to the Minister’s comment. On this side of the House, we want to see a successful, thriving private rental market which gives everyone the opportunity to have a stable and secure home. However, as we have seen in Scotland, rental reform can have a deleterious impact on the availability of rental homes, and increase pricing. It is our concern that some of the reforms being proposed may harm tenants and the market. It is perfectly reasonable for us to have different views on what the potential reforms may or may not do, but let us be absolutely clear that, on this side of the House, we want successful tenanted private rentals. The Committee should have no doubt about that.

I turn to Amendments 72, 73, 74 and 81 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The group addresses the matter of notice periods. Amendments 72, 73 and 74 are all probing amendments and seek to question the purpose of increasing the notice periods for rent increases and why the retention of one month is not kept. The Government have failed to sufficiently explain why the Bill looks to change the minimum period for notice of a rent increase from one month for assured periodic tenancies, particularly as landlords will now be able to increase rent only once a year, which we support.

In that case, a rent increase could reasonably be anticipated by the tenant. It should also reflect the current market conditions and economic factors such as interest rates, particularly with the increased powers to challenge by the tribunal. Increasing the notice period means that those data points are more out of date. Surely the Government would wish for rent increases that reflect current market and economic conditions, and to reduce the likelihood of tribunals. This change will undoubtedly have significant implications for landlords and the rental market more broadly. On a personal level, many landlords rely on the funds they intend to retrieve from an increase in rent payments to meet loan repayments and other financial obligations.

It is important that all noble Lords consider this change in the wider context of this Bill and the other factors which landlords will have to tackle. Changing notice periods for rent increases is just one obstacle that landlords will have to address. Others include the annual rent increase, which tenants will be able to challenge through First-tier Tribunals, which will subject landlords to greater risk of court backlogs. These changes may result in increased administrative burdens for landlords, brought about by the use of Section 13 notices for rent increases and the two-month notice period.

The ultimate issue with the rental market is one of supply. There are simply not enough homes to meet the demand. We must look not only to incentivise landlords to stay in the market but to encourage new entrants. It is vital that the Government avoid introducing unnecessary measures that create a hostile market.

The proposed changes to the notice period will, with many other new measures, cumulatively create significant consequences for landlords across the country. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have consulted with landlords on the impact of these measures, and will they publish the findings from this consultation? If not, do they intend to do so? Similarly, will the Minister confirm whether the Government have conducted, or intend to conduct, an impact assessment on the changes to the notice period for rent increases?

Amendment 81, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to question the Government’s reasons for having one-month notice periods for rent increases in the low-cost tenancy sector, despite the fact that those who are not in those tenancies are entitled to two. For clarity, we are not decreeing that it should not be one month; we are asking why there is the difference and seeking to understand the logic behind it. I look to the Minister to explain exactly why someone in a low-cost tenancy would get less notice of a rent increase compared with someone renting in the open market, such as those on assured periodic tenancies. Should not those who are the poorest in our society require greater notice, particularly given the importance of financial planning?

I look forward to the contributions of all noble Lords on this group of amendments and to the Minister providing clarification on the concerns I have raised. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Currently, private registered providers can grant assured tenancies, and the majority of tenancies are let at social rent levels. This is low-cost rent, which is substantially discounted in comparison with market rent. Social rent levels are regulated by the Regulator of Social Housing via its rent standard. Due to the differences in how rents are set in the sectors, we are exempting assured tenancies let at a low rent by these landlords from key changes that the Bill makes to rent-setting practices. We believe that most of those tenancies will still be subject to review clauses. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to increase the notice period for low-cost tenancies. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to conclude our discussion on this group of amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. The Bill is a complex and far-reaching piece of legislation, and this group has sought to address the issue of notice period for rent increases. I still question in my own mind why low-rent tenants should be treated differently from those in the private rented sector. I appreciate that the Minister has said she will write to us on the various consultations, which addresses some of the issues I have raised. In particular, the point for us is an understanding of the need to go to two months. I also raise the clear understanding of how the whole sector functions and the practical consequences of operating in it, which are some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised.

Savills, a leading authority in the sector, has warned that these reforms may deter investment in the private rented sector. It raises concerns about increased administrative overhead, reduced flexibility and potential delays to rent adjustments. Similarly, the National Residential Landlords Association has been vocal about the unintended consequences of these measures, warning that more regulation without proportional support risks undermining the viability of the sector. To address the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised, it is not an issue of whether a landlord may or may not be able to afford the impact of this. It may be that they decide their investment is better placed elsewhere and they sell the property or do something else with it, therefore making it no longer available to the private rental sector. The issue that we face is whether this will harm the private rental sector.

These are not fringe voices that talk about this. They represent the heart of the industry, the landlords who provide the homes that tenants live in, so I ask the Minister again: what consultation has been undertaken? I appreciate that she will come back to us on this, but will the Government publish those findings? If that consultation has not yet taken place, will the Minister confirm when it will happen and whether it will inform the final shape of the Bill? Furthermore, have the Government conducted a formal impact assessment on the changes to rent notice periods? If so, when will it be made available to the House? If not, how can we legislate in good conscience without seeing the projected outcomes of these?

I return to the broader context, which we must not lose sight of. The fundamental issue facing the rental housing market is one of supply. There are simply not enough homes to meet demand. If we make it more difficult for landlords, particularly smaller ones who make up a significant share of the sector, we risk worsening the very crisis we are trying to address—a situation we have already seen demonstrated in Scotland. We support measures that improve fairness and predictability for tenants. If the outcome of the Bill is a smaller, more risk-averse rental market with fewer homes available at higher rents, we will have failed in our aims.

In closing, I reiterate the importance of these probing amendments. They are not about resisting reform; they are about getting it right. We have asked responsible questions and the Committee deserves answers. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, not only to clarify the Government’s thinking but to offer assurance that these concerns are taken seriously, that evidence will guide policy and that fairness will be applied consistently across the sector. The success of the legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it. With that, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I simply wanted to remind the House of something that we already know. These huge institutional investors are not bad people. They are not bad organisations. They are investing a small proportion of their portfolios around the world into the UK property market and a smaller portion still into the PRS. Do not let us frighten them away by controls that are so strict and so tight that they simply do not feel they will get a return on their efforts and cash.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate. Rental costs are a serious problem, and we know that the high cost of housing, coupled with other pressures, poses real challenges for hard-working families across the UK. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s English Housing Survey 2022-23 found approximately 1.2 million private rented households reporting it difficult to pay their rent. That represented 29% of private rented households when the survey was conducted. When nearly a third of tenants find it difficult to pay their rent, there is clearly a problem. When we were in government, we took decisive action on the cost pressures faced by hard-working families across the country, and we zeroed in on the most important issue of all for households: inflation. By the time this Government took office, inflation was back below target. However, following the Chancellor’s Budget last year, inflation is, concerningly, now above target.

It is against that backdrop of cost pressures that these amendments have been tabled, and while we do not agree that rent controls are the solution to the problem, we do, however, share the concerns many noble Lords have raised about the cost of renting. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised in the debate, supply is a fundamental part of the issue. We believe an adequate supply of rented accommodation is the way to address the cost of renting but, as we have warned in previous debates, the Bill risks driving landlords out of the sector and not attracting some of those institutional investors that could make a real difference if the quanta were increased. Decreasing the supply of rented accommodation at a time when demand is already high and rising will lead only to higher rents.

We also know that where rent controls have been tried, they have failed; and even the Minister has previously raised in Committee the impact of rent controls in Scotland, although, to be clear, we believe that rent controls are just part of the problem in Scotland. The SNP’s failed experiment with unbalanced renters’ reforms and rent controls in Scotland is a case worth dwelling on; there we have seen stifled supply and higher rents. That said, the Government must address the serious concerns raised by noble Lords across the Committee and listen to those tenants who are struggling with the cost of renting.

Last month, the Lord Chancellor warned that despite further court sitting days being announced by the Ministry of Justice, the sad reality is that the backlog of cases will still go up. It is right that we ask questions about the additional burdens that Clause 8 will place on our already overloaded courts and tribunal system. Can the Minister confirm what additional resources will be provided to the appropriate tribunals, so they have the means to cope with the increased number of cases brought before them under Clause 8?

Amendments 76 and 77 seek to introduce a cap on the increases in rent that can be brought forward by landlords, and we will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to those proposals. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, has put her opposition to rent controls on the record, saying that they

“restrict housing supply, which does not help anyone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/24; col. 335.]

We agree with the Government that restricting housing supply does not help anyone. Ministers should listen carefully to the concerns we have raised throughout the debates on the Bill.

Amendment 275, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would deliver an entirely separate body to set rules for rent increases. Leaving aside the fact that the noble Baroness’s amendment fails to provide parliamentary oversight, or that there are no clear objectives for the set of rules set by the independent living rent body which she is seeking to establish, and the lack of clarity on the governance of the proposed body, we do not feel that establishing what is, in effect, an additional regulator is the right approach. Our rental sector is already subject to heavy regulation and the Bill places additional burdens on the sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, we do not wish to strangle the market. For that reason, I am afraid we cannot support this even more onerous measure which the noble Baroness is proposing.

Amendments 79, 84 and 85, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, are perhaps the most pragmatic of the amendments in this group, and I understand why he has tabled them. We will listen carefully to the Government’s response to his amendments and continue to work on this part of the Bill before we proceed to Report. It seems clear to us that now is not the time to impose additional burdens on our tribunals—when, by the Government’s own admission, backlogs are already rising. Ministers need to take a long, hard look at this part of the Bill, if we are to deliver a Bill that strikes the right balance on the rights of tenants and landlords without adding to the growing backlog and without discouraging investment in the sector. There are serious questions for Ministers to answer in all these areas, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this group.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords. I agree that this is a very important group, and I was sorry to see other noble Lords leaving the Chamber, because this was a very important discussion.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, for their amendments, and thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Marlesford, Lord Jamieson and Lord Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to whose letter I have replied. It is in the post, so I have signed it off, and the noble Earl should receive it shortly.

As I have stated previously, and I am going to restate it, and the Deputy Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, has been very clear about this, our Government do not support rent controls. We have considered rent regulation within the broader context of the private rented sector, and we do not believe that limiting rents in this way leads to positive outcomes. Evidence suggests that so-called first- and second-generation rent controls may disadvantage tenants as well as landlords. They can have a long-term negative impact on housing supply and discourage investment in the sector, leading to declining property standards. Subtler forms of rent control—second- or third-generation rent controls—have differential impacts on different groups, typically benefiting settled and better-off tenants more than those looking for a home or needing to move.

Academic studies from countries such as Sweden and Germany, and from places such as San Francisco and Ontario, show that rent controls can limit supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to early attempts at rent controls and their impact on supply. We simply think that the answer to this is supply generally, and supply of social and affordable housing in particular, rather than putting controls on rents.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was right to say that my interactions with the financial sector indicate that institutional finance is available for rental property. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has spoken about build to rent very powerfully; the finance is there for that. That has the potential to drive the supply that will stabilise rents over time. That is why we do not want to introduce rent controls.

I will start with my noble friend Lord Hacking’s amendments—perhaps he could ask the two tenants to whom he referred to come up with a solution to the Arctic temperature in your Lordships’ Chamber this afternoon. The weather forecasts of a heatwave have been grossly exaggerated in this part of London. On Amendment 76, the Bill as presented to the Committee today seeks to remove the ability of landlords to place rent review clauses in tenancy agreements. The effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend would be to reintroduce into the Bill a measure allowing landlords to make use of such a clause. To be specific, Amendment 76 would amend Clause 7 to allow for rent review clauses linking rent increases to inflation to be included in tenancy agreements so long as such an increase fell between 3% and 8%. Rent increases made under a rent review clause cannot be challenged at the tribunal. As such, the approach put forward by my noble friend Lord Hacking risks a significant reduction in the protection for tenants, who may not understand the effects of the rent review clause and could have limited power to negotiate these even if clearly articulated. It is likely that the use of such clauses would become standard, in effect taking us back to the status quo, where the protection the tribunal offers is available only to a small number of tenancies.

Furthermore, if the use of standardised rent review clauses became commonplace, there is a risk that this would, in effect, result in a system of de facto rent control. I will not repeat again our position on rent control, but it is worth while, if the Committee will allow me, to elaborate further on why any attempt to use a single metric for calculating rent increases risks unintended consequences. The danger of such an approach is that arbitrary increases prescribed in tenancy agreements could artificially inflate the rent for some locations. For example, in Leeds, rents increased by 2% between January 2024 and January 2025, whereas in Oxford, rents increased by 12% in the same period. CPI for this 12-month period was 3%. The measures contained within the amendment would therefore likely have led to rent increases in Leeds above the market rate, to the detriment of tenants there, and the controlling of rents in Oxford, with all the associated wider issues which we have already discussed. Therefore, I am sure my noble friend can understand why the Government cannot accept an amendment which would remove the right of tenants to appeal rent increases above market rate, risk some tenants being trapped in above-market-rate rent rises, and risk the implementation of de facto rent controls.

Turning to Amendments 79, 84 and 85, I join others in commending the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the clarity of his explanation and for all the work he has done as chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. This is vital work, and I sincerely understand the motivation behind his amendments: that these would limit annual rent increases during the first four years of a tenancy to a percentage calculated by reference to CPI or median national earnings over a three-year period—the noble Lord articulated his amendments much clearly than I could. If either of those things happened, a challenge to the tribunal by the tenant would not be possible.

The first of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Best, Amendment 79, would introduce measures into Clause 7 of the Bill which, as I have just set out, would separate the setting of rents from the market rate. As such, the amendment would introduce a form of rent control, and I have already explained our position in the Government towards rent control. The regulation of rents in the form proposed by the noble Lord could have a long-term negative impact on housing supply, discourage investment and lead to declining property standards.

In fact, the introduction of an in-tenancy rent control would create the risk of tenants in this country experiencing what has been seen in Ontario in Canada, where a similar form of regulation has limited the amount by which rents could increase each year for existing tenancies. For example, rental price growth in 2023 was capped at 2.5%, based on the Ontario consumer price index. Analysis suggests that the result of this measure has been higher rents for new tenants, with the impact felt by more mobile groups such as younger people, who are often new arrivals to the rental market. There is also evidence from Ontario that landlords have sought to evict tenants so that controlled rents can be reset at the market level. The risk, therefore, of causing unintended harm to tenants as well as landlords is too large for our Government to accept, even in an amendment as well-intentioned, as I know it is, as that put forward today by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Instead, as the Committee is already aware, our approach is to allow landlords to increase rents annually to the market rate, which represents a strengthening of rent regulation in the broader context of the entire system, including security of tenure, better enforcement and quality standards.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

108: Clause 9, page 14, line 5, after “for” insert “more than six months’”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to mutually agree a tenancy with a landlord which requires them to pay up to six months of rent in advance.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, relating to payments of rent in advance. The payment of rent in advance can provide a number of significant benefits to tenants. These go beyond avoiding late fees and the demonstration of financial security. Tenants may wish to pay rent in advance for financial planning or even to avoid the worry of monthly payments. Amendments 108, 109, 110, 112, 113 and 114 recognise and affirm the legitimate choice of a tenant to pay rent in advance. I emphasise that this is rooted firmly in mutual agreement. If a tenant does not wish to pay in advance, they are under no obligation to do so, but if a tenant chooses to take this step, if they believe it is in their personal best interest, why should we stand in their way? If a tenant makes a judgment on the basis of their financial circumstances that this is in their best interest, why should it be for the Minister to say, “No, the Government know best”? If a tenant believes their ability to pay may be inhibited by a financial burden coming down the track, they could legitimately plan for the payment now. But, regardless of the reason or even the need, if there is mutual agreement, what is the problem?

I turn to the impact of this on two groups who will be particularly impacted by this change: overseas students and those with poor credit ratings. Tenants with a poor credit rating history will inevitably appear risky—this may be through no fault of their own; they may just not have a rating history—and often this risk is too insurmountable to ignore. By paying up front, tenants can demonstrate responsibility and ultimately improve their chances of securing a rental agreement and the security of a home. In many cases, this proactive step, choosing to pay in advance, is the only practical means by which tenants can build trust, enhance their credibility and demonstrate financial reliability. Will the Minister please set out the impact of this change on those with a less than optimal credit history?

Next, I wish to address the issue of overseas students with no local credit history. The Committee will know that the UK credit rating agencies do not hold information about a person’s financial affairs outside the country, or any foreign credit reports. Therefore, overseas students often require a UK-based guarantor to cover potential property damage or unpaid bills. Where this is not possible, payment in advance can be a solution, and payments are often made for the entire term, or even the entire academic year. Will the Minister set out the expected impact of this change on overseas students, and the number we anticipate losing due to difficulties in securing student accommodation? Alternatively, does she believe that landlords will still have a sufficient incentive to house overseas students, despite their limited credit history? Will she outline what steps the Government are taking to strengthen the enforcement around credit arrears where overseas students are unable to pay? Current mechanisms are often weak, but it is an issue that is far less prevalent when payment is made up front.

I also want to highlight the plight of some of the most vulnerable, where councils have a duty of homelessness prevention. Councils often work with landlords and tenants, offering advanced rental payments, larger deposits and guarantees, which would be hampered by these proposals. Are councils to be banned from paying rent in advance to support some of the most vulnerable in our society? As has been raised earlier, the Home Office plans to offer landlords five-year tenancies to house asylum seekers. Will this involve rent being paid more than one month in advance? I invite the Minister to explain and I appreciate that she has offered to write to noble Lords regarding this. I look forward to that, and to any additional information that she is able to provide.

Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. This amendment requires Ministers to ensure that changes being made to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 are clearly communicated to tenants, letting agents and landlords. These changes involve fines of up to £5,000 for new offences and it is essential that landlords and letting agencies are aware of their new responsibilities. We regard this as a technical but important amendment and I hope that the Minister will see it as a practical and necessary change that can be accepted. This group will consider whether mutually agreed or tenant-requested payment of rent in advance should be permitted to continue. On these Benches, we are clear that it should. Mutual agreement can foster a more stable housing situation, one that recognises the unique benefits that rent in advance may offer certain groups of tenants in securing a home. I hope that the Minister will take note.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in his submissions just now. My Amendments 115 and 116 deal with the same problem but from a different perspective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Truscott and Lord Hacking, for their amendments in relation to rent in advance, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for commenting on these amendments.

Taken together, Amendments 108 to 110 and 112 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would allow landlords or agents to charge rent in advance when this has been mutually agreed with the tenants in a tenancy agreement. This Government are clear that the practice of landlords or agents charging rent in advance is unfair. Many of us will have heard the stories, many of them of requests for large amounts of rent in advance that have pushed families into financial hardship or locked some out of the sector completely. In other cases, unscrupulous landlords use rent in advance to pit prospective tenants against each other and create these dreadful bidding wars to help people secure a property. That is why the Bill will prohibit a landlord or letting agent requiring or accepting any payment of rent before a tenancy has been entered into. In addition, a landlord will be able to require only up to one month’s rent in advance in the window between a tenancy being entered into and that tenancy beginning.

I want to be crystal clear on this point: once a tenancy has begun, tenants will remain free to pay their rent prior to the agreed due date should they wish to do so, although landlords will not be able to require this and any attempt to require it will be challengeable by the tenant.

Amendment 108 would allow landlords to include terms in a tenancy agreement that require rent in advance to be paid up to six months before it is due. It is the view of the Government that this amendment would fail to protect tenants from exploitative rent in advance practices. Landlords, being able to require up to six months’ rent in advance when this is agreed in a tenancy agreement, could, in a market where properties are hotly contested, push tenants into agreements that stretch their finances to breaking point to secure a tenancy.

Amendment 109 would limit rent in advance to four months when agreed in a tenancy agreement. This has the same effect, with the potential for tenants in hotly contested markets to feel compelled to agree to terms that require significant financial outlay. Even the limit of two months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, proposes in Amendment 110, in our view does not go far enough to protect tenants. In a scenario where a landlord can request two months’ rent in advance, this is still a significant financial expectation of a tenant. Given that the tenant will also likely be required to pay a five-week tenancy deposit, they could face being asked to stump up more than three months’ rent to access a property.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I would just like clarification for my understanding. It has been made clear by a number of noble Lords that our concern is that some of the most vulnerable would be able to even up the playing field by providing rent in advance. I understand what the Minister is saying, but that competition, in a competitive market where there is a shortage of supply, risks excluding some of the most vulnerable. I am keen to hear how the Minister will address that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am coming on to the impact on vulnerable tenants, but it makes tenants far more vulnerable where they are being pushed to take on financial commitments well beyond their means just to get access to a tenancy in the first place.

In effect, Amendment 112 would enable some unscrupulous landlords to continue to pit tenants against each other in de facto bidding wars. In this circumstance, tenants under pressure to secure a property could face being required to offer in writing even greater sums of rent in advance.

Any one of these amendments could allow landlords at the pre-letting stage to insist upon a term in the tenancy agreement which permits rent in advance. This would leave tenants with a potentially impossible choice of stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness.

I would like to address the concerns of some in the Committee that those landlords who rely on rent in advance could find themselves left out of the market. We are clear that landlords are free to undertake the referencing and affordability checks necessary to give both the landlord and the tenant the confidence that a tenancy is sustainable.

The noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned foreign students. If landlords are not satisfied with the outcome of pre-tenancy checks, there remain a number of options available, including requiring a tenant to provide a guarantor or the use of professional guarantor products. If the tenant is unable to provide a UK-basedguarantor—I accept that that may be the case for international students—alternative options could be available, such as professional guarantor services.

We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms. We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned self-employed people and those on limited-income pensions. We maintain the powers to amend, should we need to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised a point about local authorities. Some local authorities are very proactive. The reason they take on this role is to prevent homelessness, and they recognise the benefit to families and individuals of not having to go into temporary and emergency accommodation. In addition, it can reduce the cost to the local authority if it does not have to find that family temporary and emergency accommodation, so it will take on that role.

The power gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to adapt the constraints on rent in advance to respond to a changing private rented sector. Changes in the balance of supply and demand within the private rented sector—driven, for example, by our commitment to building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament—may change the extent to which affordability is a barrier for prospective tenants entering the sector. In this scenario, the Government may consider it appropriate to make changes to the constraints on rent in advance. Equally, changes in the market could be driven by currently unanticipated future legislative changes, such as the introduction of new types of tenancies. In this scenario, the power would allow the Secretary of State to maintain the application of these measures to the intended cohorts of landlords and tenants.

The introduction of the power therefore provides the Government, or any future Government, with the ability to make sure rent in advance measures continue to apply as intended in the face of any changes within the private rented sector. However, I reassure the Committee that regulations made under the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any changes.

Amendment 117, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would introduce the legal requirement for the Secretary of State to communicate to tenants, letting agents and landlords the changes made by the Renters’ Rights Bill to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which prohibits certain payments of rent in advance. I know the Committee will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renter’ Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions are known and understood. I reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to raising awareness of the full range of Renters’ Rights Bill reforms across the private rented sector.

This amendment would require the Government to make stakeholders aware of one aspect of our rent in advance policy, which is given effect by amendments to the Tenant Fees Act—namely, the prohibition on landlords inviting, encouraging or accepting a payment of rent in advance before the tenancy agreement is signed by both the landlord and the tenant. However, it would not oblige the Government to communicate the details of the rest of the rent in advance policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I would just reiterate the comments I made to my noble friend that, having undertaken a tenancy, gone through the process of vetting and paid the deposit and the holding deposit, it will be a very rare case where the tenant proceeds not to pay their first month’s rent.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I just want to follow up on the question I raised regarding the Home Office’s plans to offer landlords five-year tenancies and ask whether the Minister can confirm whether there will or will not be more than one month’s rent in advance?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I did respond earlier to the points in relation to the Home Office position. Because it is the work of another department, it would be best, as I said earlier, if I clarify the situation in relation to the Home Office’s proposals and come back to noble Lords on that. It involves the contract between the Home Office and Serco and I do not want to comment on it without knowing the facts from the Home Office. So, I will come back to the noble Lord on that point.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to close this group of amendments. It has been an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords who have provided contributions to this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has demonstrated the case for his amendments. I thank him for the support he has given to our amendments, and I certainly support the intention of his amendments. We also share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, that the Bill will potentially exclude thousands of tenants from the rental market. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the issue of the difficulties of getting guarantors, particularly if you are an overseas student.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and others who raised the issue that there are 20 people seeking every tenancy and you cannot blame the landlord for seeking the most stable and secure tenant for their property, with the risk, as I said earlier, that the most vulnerable will lose out. We believe that this will have a negative impact on tenants who might otherwise struggle to find a tenancy. Amendments 108, 109 and 110 provide three options for how much rent could be paid in advance with the mutual agreement of the renter and the landlord. Amendment 114 would allow rent in advance at the discretion of the tenant.

The Minister has raised the prospect of guarantors and, for those people who are not able to provide a personal guarantor, using guarantor services. Many people who have used these services will well know that these can be substantially expensive, and frequently far more expensive and onerous than paying rent in advance. Therefore, it seems only logical that one should offer that option.

The Minister has rejected all three options and has not proposed an alternative. It is disappointing to see such a lack of engagement with these amendments when they are likely to have a negative impact on both international students and those with poor credit scores. This clause reduces their ability to prove their financial responsibility and, as such, reduces their likelihood of finding suitable rental property—and, as I highlighted earlier, reduces the ability of councils to secure accommodation for some of the most vulnerable in their communities.

We raised the issue of the five-year tenancies that the Home Office is using, and I am glad the Minister will come back to us. I look forward to being assured that there is no differential treatment of landlords and tenants depending on which part of government is dealing with them.

This clause removes a tenant’s ability to prove their financial responsibility. If a tenant and landlord agree to pay rent in advance, why are the Government standing in the way? I urge the Minister to consider these amendments. Noble Lords across the House have raised genuine and real concerns with this clause. Although we all want to see a better deal for tenants, removing their autonomy to pay in advance is not the best way to go about this. I hope that the Minister will consider this before the next stages of the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to delay proceedings, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, might not agree with me, but I did fully answer the question of why we consider that payment of rent in advance, even when agreed between two parties, can have a serious effect on other tenants in the rental market who are not able to make those very large payments in advance. He may not agree with me on that, but I did respond to the point.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 108 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a few words, particularly in response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Cromwell about loading costs on to the landlords. The problem is that, if you are in the countryside, they want to charge a huge amount to get it to you. We have one or two cottages and, to get a fibre cable out to us, we were being quoted £15,000 at one point. We would be connecting about five properties at the end of it—rented properties and another house. The other complication is that, if one of them is a business, for example, there are different rules on what they are allowed to charge. A lot of this is in the original regulations telling BT and the other networks what they had to do, particularly when BT was trying to block other people having access to the houses. There are a lot of unfairnesses in the legislation, which Ofcom never dealt with properly. I am not sure where it has got to now, but there are lots of little wars going on.

It can be very expensive: it is not just a matter of connecting something to a roadside, as it is in the city. If you are going to be running it half a mile or so, you will find that you can be loaded with enormous costs, and that they want five-year leases and so on. Sometimes, you can tell that the price will be slashed soon, because they suddenly make a big sales pitch, trying to get you to take on a five-year commitment to five grand a year; that is the best sign that they are about to roll it out in a couple of years’ time. So things are not quite as simple as they seem.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for bringing Amendments 134 and 135 to the attention of the Committee today. These rightly highlight the growing importance of fibre-to-premises broadband and the many benefits that come with high-speed internet connectivity.

In today’s world, where remote working has become increasingly common and where online applications are used to complete everyday tasks such as banking, a fast, reliable internet connection is essential. Applications that require real-time communication, such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams, not to mention watching the odd video, depend on high-speed connectivity to function effectively. For the working day to run smoothly, a strong and stable connection is essential.

We are all familiar with the dreadful “buffer face”, that puzzled expression we adopt as we wait for our devices to respond. What should be a simple task can become an exercise in frustration, all because of poor internet infrastructure. As many noble Lords have mentioned, a large group of people are excluded because of a lack of fast fibre.

Fibre to the premises is a significant step forward. It is far less susceptible to weather-related interference, and it offers future-proof capabilities. We are supportive of ensuring everyone has access to such high-speed broadband, and it is essential if we are to have a successful, dynamic and modern economy.

However, there is a need to consider some of the complications, as the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have pointed out. As the noble Earl said, rural broadband is a big issue: while many broadband providers offer contracts with no upfront installation fees, the reality is that some properties require additional work, such as laying new ducts or trenching. For some home owners, this may lead to excess construction charges, which can range from a few hundred to several thousand pounds. How will this be addressed?

While installing in a stand-alone dwelling may be relatively simple, there is the issue of multi-dwelling units such as blocks of flats, which a number of noble Lords have raised. There are significant additional complexities there, such as the potential logistics if every single flat tenant could claim to have their own separate installation; ensuring that the building’s integrity and things such as fire safety are maintained in that building; and the impact on other flat owners and so forth. For multi-dwelling units, this needs to be done on a system basis, working with the owners and the tenants. There is a need to make the process simpler and to ensure landlord engagement.

It is essential that the Government look to address these issues, ensuring that unaffordable costs do not fall unfairly on landlords or tenants and that the complexities of installation in multi-dwelling units are addressed. The Government should actively promote awareness of initiatives that may help to offset these costs and find solutions to complexities. Clear communication and guidance can also help property owners better understand their existing infrastructure and anticipate potential expenses.

The Government should consider how best to promote fast-fibre internet with affordable, practical solutions, looking to address potential costs and to deliver those practical solutions to the more complex multi-dwelling units.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

137: Clause 14, page 22, line 30, leave out “and section 16I(1)(a)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to limit the financial penalties by local authorities and probe the process on which non-judicial process is sought. Although it is right that those who deliberately flout the rules face financial penalties, it is also right that these financial penalties should be proportionate and applied fairly. Are fines of up to £40,000 reasonable? In many cases, they could be the equivalent of several years of rental income. We need a system that is balanced and just for both the tenant and the landlord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for moving those amendments. I send my get-well wishes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, as well, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving the noble and learned Lord’s amendments. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for taking part in the debate.

It might help if I start with a brief bit of context. We are taking a clear escalatory approach to civil penalties here. Across the Bill, less serious, one-off breaches will be subject only to the maximum penalty of £7,000. Only if landlords persist in not signing up to the database or the ombudsman will they become liable for a civil penalty of up to £40,000—and that is the maximum. Where landlords continue to fail to remedy unacceptable conditions in a property, they may be faced with a civil penalty of up to £40,000 or indeed criminal prosecution. Where there is evidence that landlords and letting agents continue to discriminate in the letting process, they can face multiple fines. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, good landlords—there are many of them—will not be subject to any of these fines because they do not commit the offences that would lead to those fines. The answer is to follow the outlines in the Bill and then there will not be any need for landlords to be fined.

Amendment 144 would remove the ability of local authorities to impose financial penalties for non-compliance with the tenancy requirements where this is not a criminal offence. Effective enforcement against landlords who flout the rules is a key part of ensuring that our reforms deliver their full benefits. Across the provisions in the Bill, as I said, we have taken a consistent, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties. The civil penalties of up to £7,000 for less serious or first-time non-compliance is an important part of that approach. Removing the ability of local authorities to impose civil penalties for non-criminal breaches of the tenancy requirement would create a gap. How would landlords who, for example, failed to issue tenants with a written tenancy agreement or ended a tenancy illegally be held to account? Transferring responsibility for determining fines for these breaches to the courts would be a poor alternative and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, it would unnecessarily increase pressures on the courts. We have had many debates about that in this House in response to other areas in the Bill. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the capacity of local authorities to deal with this, local authorities have significant experience of imposing civil penalties. I do not see a good reason for excluding breaches of the tenancy requirements from this well-established practice.

Amendments 137, 141, 149 to 151, 156, 158 to 164, 293 and 294 are consequential on Amendment 144 and remove references to new Section 16I of the Housing Act 1988, which Amendment 144 would delete. Amendment 146 would reduce the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements from £7,000 to £5,000. Amendment 147 would, in the alternative, set the maximum penalty for a breach of the tenancy requirements at two months’ rent. Amendment 154 would reduce the maximum financial penalty for tenancy offences from £40,000 to £30,000. Amendment 155 would set the maximum penalty for tenancy offences at 12 months’ rent. Amendments 153, 201, 217 and 241 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to tenancy reform, illegal eviction, the database and the ombudsman from £40,000 to £7,000.

Civil penalties need to be set at a level that provides an appropriate punishment and acts as an effective deterrent to future non-compliance. To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the level of the fines, we have set the maximum civil penalty for offences across the Bill at £40,000. This mirrors existing maximum civil penalties for offences under the Housing Act 2004, which are currently £30,000, but this takes account of inflation since those came into force. We intend also to increase the Housing Act 2004 maximum penalties to £40,000, via regulations, to reflect those changes in the value of money. The £7,000 maximum penalty for breaches represents a similar percentage uprating to reflect inflation, compared with a maximum fine level of £5,000 for less serious non-compliance in other housing legislation; for example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

Increasing maximum fine levels to reflect inflation ensures that the deterrent effect of the penalties is maintained. However, I emphasise that these are maximum levels: they will not be the normal penalty level. Local authorities will need to look at the particular circumstances of each instance of non-compliance. They will need to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors and arrive at the final penalty in line with their policy. When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent, allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or amount of the penalty, they will of course be able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

On a point of clarification, if I may, the Minister has made it very clear that there will be a range of fines that a local authority will be able to impose, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out earlier, with the 2016 Act, there was—I am not sure that I would say very clear, but let us call it very extensive—guidance on what would constitute a fine, with what burdens of proof, and whether it was knowingly reckless or unintentional. Is it the intention of the Government to provide very clear guidance to councils as to what level of fines they should impose related to what level of offence and so forth?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Of course, local authorities will need to have a clear rationale for why they have set a civil penalty at a particular level and apply aggravating and mitigating factors to that, but local authorities need to be able to pursue penalties that are high enough to deter landlords from committing offences, but not so high that they are unfair. I take his point about guidance, and I will come back to him on that point, if that is okay.

Setting maximum penalty levels by reference to rent received on a property introduces unnecessary complexity and runs counter to well established practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked whether it could be set at levels of rent. Local authorities may take account of local rent levels when arriving at the final penalty. It is clearer and simpler, though, for the maximum to be prescribed and be the same wherever in England the same breach or offence is committed.

Amendment 157 would require the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament of the funding provided to local housing authorities to support their enforcement of the tenancy requirements. To respond to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the cost to local authorities, we recognise that the enforcement duties we are placing on local housing authorities in the Bill represent an additional net cost. In accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that additional burdens created by the new system are funded. We will set out the funding we are making available to meet those new burdens in due course.

We expect enforcing the new tenancy requirements to be a significant part of the additional costs on local authorities. Local authorities will, though, have flexibility on how they use the funding provided—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—and we do not intend to specify the detail of what it should be used for.

For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this group. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for bringing amendments to this House. I also wish him all the best for his recovery. These amendments, while similar in spirit to ours, would go even further in addressing the limits placed on local housing authorities. The noble and learned Lord is right to highlight both the challenges faced by local authorities and the significant scale of the proposed fines.

As there appeared to be a little bit of confusion, let us be absolutely clear: we need powers to hold to account rogue landlords who deliberately and maliciously break the rules to the detriment of tenants. That is something we can all agree on. However, we need a system that is fair and proportionate and does not ensnare essentially innocent landlords who inadvertently —or not maliciously—fall foul of the rules. They need to be encouraged to stay in the rental game.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, we need more rental homes, we need people to stay in the rental market and we need more people to come into it. We need to be very wary of coming up with systems where they fear very significant fines that they may perceive as arbitrary. Hence, I was very keen to get clear guidance from the Minister about how these fines would be placed and at what levels. I look forward to hearing further from her on this. I also appreciated what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said around the 2016 Act and the importance of guidance on that.

I thank the Minister for her reply and the commitment to share some reasoning for the figures that the Government have arrived at and some guidance— it appeared she would, anyway. Without insight into the rationale for the figures selected and the thresholds imposed, we are left to critique in the dark. For scrutiny to be effective and informed, the Government must provide not just partial explanations but a full and transparent account of how these conclusions were reached. Only then can Parliament properly fulfil its role in holding the Executive to account. I hope that the Minister will enable us to do this by sharing some of the Government’s reasoning and further guidance on how those fines will be brought forward.

Getting penalties right is not a technical detail; it is fundamental to the fairness and effectiveness of a system designed to remedy an offence. Significant fines and penalties for rogue landlords are appropriate and proportionate. However, as I said earlier, significant fines for someone who unintentionally falls foul of the law would be inappropriate. We need to be careful and calibrated to ensure that they deter offences but do not distort the functionality of the housing market. Although we want to address rogue landlords, we also want a thriving rental market and to avoid deterring good landlords who might perceive a significant risk of large, arbitrary fines.

I will finish with this message: a well-designed penalty framework should uphold the law, encourage compliance and support the functioning of housing authorities. The success of this legislation depends not just on good intentions but on practical deliverability, balanced implementation and trust from those who must operate within it.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I just ask him: did he really feel, in his time as chair of the Local Government Association and leader of a reputable authority, that local authorities were dishing out fines willy-nilly or were disproportionate in their measures when they were considering things? I found the opposite—there were times when I wished we would be a bit tougher and stronger and go a bit further. I do not recognise this picture that the noble Lord is painting: that landlords might perceive that it is terrible and feel bad about it. I genuinely believe that most good landlords have nowt to fear—it is not those that the Bill is gunning for. We have a duty to convey that message and not to make good landlords feel threatened by the fact that there is an escalation in fees.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much. She is absolutely right: most councils in this country are very good and proportionate and do not levy fines—or whatever—willy-nilly. I absolutely agree with that. However, it is very much in the eye of the beholder, and we need to do everything we can to encourage a successful and thriving rental market with good landlords. Within that, one needs to think what that single-, two- or three-home landlord will look at. They will see the potential risk of £40,000, and it is perception. I absolutely concur that councils act appropriately in many instances, but if a landlord feels that there is a risk, and particularly when that risk can be two, three, or, in some cases in the north of England, four years’ rent, they may just say, “I do not want to take that risk, I will sell my property”. That is one less house for somebody to rent and one more person on a council’s housing waiting list.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I am sorry, but I have to challenge that because the opposite to that is true. I think most good landlords are actually waiting for this to come into place because it damages their reputation when we have rogue landlords who cause their tenants the sorts of problems we are talking about. You will not come across the penalty regime unless you are the sort of landlord that causes your tenant problems. It is those landlords we want the Bill to impact.

Just to clarify the point on guidance, we will be issuing revised guidance on setting financial penalties to provide a national framework for local housing authorities. That will help to ensure the consistent approach which takes account of the seriousness of the offence and harm caused to the tenant and will help reduce the likelihood of reductions on appeal.

I want to be absolutely clear that this whole enforcement regime is aimed at those bad landlords we have heard too much about. Landlords want us to do this: they want to see that those people who do not do the job properly get an appropriate penalty for it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Can I just ask a point of clarification? The Minister talked about publishing guidance. Will that be available before Report so that we can consider the Bill in that context?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will come back to the noble Lord on that point.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 137 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

We have heard some compelling arguments from across the House on the very important issues here. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for her cogent and careful explanation of the reasons for bringing forward her amendments.

The issue we are addressing today is of great importance, particularly given that the Bill removes the options for tenants to pay rent in advance. Furthermore, the Minister has declined to support our amendment, which would have allowed for an arrangement between two consenting adults to agree on such a payment structure. This is a missed opportunity. Although His Majesty’s Opposition have not tabled an amendment to this group, we share the serious concerns that have been raised and I will try not to repeat the many arguments that have already been made.

Unfortunately, the Government’s proposals, in their current form, appear to pay little more than lip service to fairness. In practice, they fail to provide meaningful protection to those most at risk of exclusion from the rental market. Let us be clear about the deficiency of Amendments 170 and 265: they specifically prevent landlords requiring a guarantor in a wide range of circumstances, yet there remains ambiguity as to whether the amendments would still allow landlords to accept a guarantor if offered. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for being very clear that they could still accept it, but that does create some ambiguity.

While we recognise that requiring a guarantor can be a significant barrier for many prospective tenants, particularly those from vulnerable backgrounds, the guarantor system serves a legitimate function where it is used proportionately. It can provide a safety net for tenants with limited financial histories, such as students, individuals supported by local councils or those whose circumstances might not meet the traditional expectations of landlords. However, the Government’s approach to rent in advance is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. If tenants are not allowed to offer rent in advance as an alternative to a guarantor, we must ask: how will the Government ensure that fair and proportionate mechanisms are put in place to assess risk?

The private rental market is not a one-size-fits-all model; it encompasses a diverse range of tenants, from students and graduates to care leavers and older renters. How do the Government plan to accommodate those who may not have access to a guarantor but are still financially reliable? Crucially, where does the space exist in this framework for discretion, mutual agreement and choice between two consenting adults—tenants and landlords?

Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s proposed power to allow insurance-based alternatives to guarantors raises significant concerns. Can the Minister say how accessible these insurance products are likely to be and what steps are being taken to ensure that they do not create another costly barrier for tenants? As it stands, the insurance model seems unlikely to provide a fair and proportionate solution to the challenges that tenants face. These are not abstract concerns: the provisions, as drafted, place undue strain on tenants and their families without achieving the balance that the Government claim to seek. Unless there are significant revisions, this issue will undoubtedly return with force on Report.

As has been mentioned, the Bill has generated substantial interest across the rental sector, with campaigns led by the National Union of Students being particularly striking. Students across the UK, especially those from marginalised and underrepresented backgrounds are sounding the alarm. Guarantor requirements have emerged as one of the most significant barriers to accessing stable, affordable housing.

As the NUS has clearly outlined, these requirements disproportionately affect working-class students, care-experienced young people, estranged youth and international students—groups already navigating considerable challenges in their pursuit of education. Many of these students face an additional hardship: they do not have a family member in the UK who can meet the often arbitrary financial thresholds demanded by landlords. As a result, they are forced either to pay up to a year’s rent in advance—an impossible ask for many—or to turn to expensive guarantor services. We now find ourselves in the deeply perverse situation where it costs more to rent a home if you are poor.

Guarantor requirements contribute to this divide, by insisting that students find someone, often someone who earns up to 80 times the monthly rent and is based in the UK, to guarantee their tenancy. We are systematically locking out those who cannot meet these criteria. No one should be denied the opportunity to pursue academic excellence simply because of who they know or, more importantly, who they do not know. This is why these amendments fail, why the NUS and student representatives worked so tirelessly to bring this reform forward in the other place, and why it is so vital that we do not let this opportunity slip through our fingers in this House.

I focused much of my speech on the barriers faced by students, but it is essential to remember that this issue also affects many other vulnerable groups, none more so than care leavers. I speak as an ex-leader of a council, where I spent much time trying to enhance the position of care leavers. Having already overcome considerable challenges in their lives, they should not face yet another hurdle in their pursuit of independence. How can we in good conscience expect care leavers to comply with a condition that they simply cannot meet on their own? This also demonstrates the complexity of the situation, as often, their local councils—including Central Bedfordshire while I was there—were often willing and keen to provide guarantors to ensure that care leavers were on an even playing field to those from better financial backgrounds.

As I have outlined, the restrictions on rent in advance and lack of objective criteria for when a guarantor is required will only entrench existing inequalities. Penalising individuals who may be financially reliable but lack family support or financial connections to meet the arbitrary thresholds demanded by landlords is unjust. This is not just an issue of housing, it is an issue of fairness, opportunity and basic dignity.

Housing is not merely a financial transaction, it is the foundation of stability, security and opportunity. When we deny people access to housing because they cannot meet arbitrary demands for a guarantor, we are closing doors not only to homes but to education, career advancement and future independence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, raised a very valid issue regarding the right to rent and the fact that introducing what may seem quite a sensible rule leads to complications and places landlords in an awkward situation if they do not fully understand the legislation in front of them. Earlier today, we heard a number of noble Lords admit that they were not lawyers. It is also unreasonable to expect every landlord to be a lawyer. Where the law is complex, we need to make it simple and easy to comply with. This is one of our major concerns with this legislation.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to listen to the voices of those most affected by these provisions—the students, care leavers and low-income tenants—and make the necessary changes to ensure that the Bill delivers fairness for all.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond directly to the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about denying people access to housing, including students, care leavers and people on low incomes. The fact that so little social and affordable housing has been provided over the last 14 years is a very strong reason why we are in the situation that we now are. That those people have not been able to find affordable housing is largely due to the housing policies of the previous Government. I want to put that on the record before giving my answers on my noble friend’s amendments.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her amendments relating to guarantors and the right to rent. I add my thanks to Shelter, which has provided so much advice and support during the passage of this Bill, for which I am very grateful. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jamieson, for their comments.

Amendment 170 seeks to restrict the circumstances in which a guarantor could be required by a landlord. I appreciate that underlying this amendment—tabled with characteristic clarity, commitment and compassion by my noble friend Lady Lister—is the concern that those who do not have access to a guarantor will find it more difficult to find a home in the private rented sector than those who can obtain a guarantor. I make clear to my noble friend and the Committee that our approach to this issue is underpinned by the need to provide tenants with the rights and protections that they deserve. At the same time, we wish to guard against any unintended consequences that may, for some tenants, make renting more challenging. I recognise that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for many prospective tenants. The Government are clear that landlords should consider tenants’ individual circumstances when negotiating rental contracts.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seemed to indicate that there was some sort of compulsion for landlords to find a guarantor. If they wish to come to an agreement without one, they are more than able to do that. What they cannot do under the Bill is require significant sums of rent in advance. That is what was really discriminating against people. Those incredibly high sums of rent required in advance were making it difficult for people to rent.

However, it is important to acknowledge that, in many circumstances, the use of guarantors can provide landlords with the confidence to let their properties to tenants who may otherwise find it difficult to secure a tenancy in the private rented sector. This includes tenants with a history of rent arrears, people with incomes that fluctuate from month to month and those with no previous rental history—for example, students or young people moving out of home for the first time. Prohibiting landlords from accepting large amounts of rent in advance will benefit all tenants by giving them the confidence that the maximum financial outlay needed to secure a tenancy will not exceed the cost of a tenancy deposit and the first month’s rent.

The Government recognise that providing a UK-based guarantor may be difficult for some prospective students, including international students. Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, landlords will continue to be able to offer tenants who cannot provide a UK-based guarantor with the alternative of purchasing rent guarantor insurance. The measures set out in my noble friend’s amendment would inadvertently risk blocking certain types of renter from accessing accommodation in the private rented sector altogether, despite the amendment’s honourable intentions.

Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy’s question on guarantors, the Government are clear that landlords should consider each prospective tenant’s circumstances individually, including when it is appropriate to require a guarantor. They should not apply blanket requirements for guarantors to all tenants. In response to her other question, the landlord’s database will act as a record of landlords and properties rather than of individual tenancies. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for landlords to record the risk-mitigation measures that they have put in place for a particular tenant on the database. She also made a point about guidance on guarantors. I will take that back to the department to consider further.

I assure the Committee that we have carefully considered the extent to which different practices act as barriers or enablers to accessing the private rented sector. That is why we are taking this action to limit rent in advance through the Bill. I am always happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this further but, for all these reasons, I hope she will withdraw her amendment.

I turn to Amendment 265, which would abolish the right-to-rent scheme that applies in England. Right to rent was introduced to ensure that only those lawfully in the United Kingdom can access the private rented sector and—this is important—to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes by letting properties that are in very poor condition indeed. Some landlords who rent to those who are here illegally are criminal operators and we all have a shared objective to drive them from the market—I think everybody around the Chamber would agree with that.

We have been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out the right-to-rent checks is unlawful; the dreadful examples given by my noble friend illustrated that. The checks apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rental sector, including British citizens, and I will just elaborate a little further on that. The right-to-rent scheme is capable of being operated proportionally by landlords and letting agents in all cases. The very purpose of the statutory code of practice on avoiding unlawful discrimination when conducting checks recognises and seeks to address the risk of discrimination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I rise very briefly because I feel that this ties in quite neatly with his later amendments on letting agents becoming more professional and having better qualifications. Any means that will reduce the pressure on local authority enforcement teams are very much to be welcomed. The amendment is techy but simple, and I think it could be effective.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for moving this very sensible amendment, which is thoughtful and well-considered.

The integration of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into the framework of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, through Schedule 2, is not just a technical improvement but a step towards greater coherence and clarity in an already highly complex area of legislation. In a Bill of this scope and detail, ensuring that our legislative frameworks align and complement one another is not only sound law-making but essential for those responsible for implementation on the ground. Was that passionate enough?

The practical implications of this amendment deserve the Committee’s close attention. In essence, it would allow primary authorities to give assured, legally backed advice to letting agents on how to comply with the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Supporting letting agents through legislative transitions in this way will help avoid confusion and ensure compliance from day one—a key goal for any regulatory change.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned, the amendment would also relieve pressure on local enforcement teams, many of which operate with limited resources, in both finance and capacity. By reducing their workload where possible, we enable these teams to concentrate on the most serious breaches—rogue landlords, unsafe housing and the exploitation of vulnerable tenants—where intervention is most urgently needed.

This approach is not without precedent. Organisations such as the Lettings Industry Council have consistently called for greater clarity, guidance and consistency in how regulations are enforced across local authorities. Integrating the Tenant Fees Act into this structure directly supports those calls and shows that the Government are listening to those working on the front line of regulation and compliance.

We are, therefore, sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. It offers practical benefits to tenants, agents and enforcement authorities alike. We believe that it would contribute to a more effective, fairer and more streamlined regulatory environment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether it is because of the late hour, but my Whip, sitting on the Front Bench with me, just sent me a dancing emoji, as if to show me how to show passion when responding to amendments. I will do my best.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment, which would allow for the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to be included in the primary authority scheme. This would provide estate and letting agent businesses with the option to receive assured advice on complying with its regulations. The scheme allows the local authority nominated as a primary authority to provide assured advice to businesses that operate across multiple local authority areas, which helps those businesses comply with regulations. The scheme has the potential to streamline the interpretation of regulation for business. It can also be a more efficient approach to regulation for local government.

I welcome Members of the House sharing their views on this matter and we will undertake to consider this amendment further. For now, and for those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 185 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and signed by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and me. It has been explained very fully and in detail, so it needs no further repetition or expansion from me. Indeed, from our many and various discussions or Oral Questions during House business, we are all only too aware of the problem, both here and abroad. The loss of properties from the long-term private rented sector into the much more lucrative and less regulated short-term lettings is causing considerable problems in some parts of the country, as outlined in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Best.

It is a fact that some communities—I am sorry to keep stressing that, but I feel it is important to keep a balanced perspective on this—are being hollowed out as locals cannot find somewhere to rent for the longer term, nor can they find somewhere that they can actually afford to buy. They therefore feel that they cannot remain in their communities. Some areas where short-term lets proliferate can, as we have also heard, be the result of regular antisocial behaviour, which can be of various types, from the very obvious noise nuisance to the degradation of neighbourhoods. Any moves to incentivise landlords back into the long-term private rental market are therefore welcomed by us on these Benches and anything to deter landlords from flipping, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young, will also be supported by us.

We recognise the willingness of both the previous Government and this Government and the difficulties of efforts to balance the needs of tourists, home owners and local residents. It is tricky, because balance is key and individual local plans should be able to reflect each local authority’s needs and circumstances.

To help local authorities, as we have already heard, there was the mandatory registration scheme proposed by the previous Government. That was very positive, as it would improve transparency and ensure compliance with local regulations. However, I note that, in parliamentary debates on the Bill, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook stated that the previous Administration’s proposals to clamp down on holiday lets

“did not go far enough”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters' Rights Bill Committee, 5/11/24; col. 238.]

and that his Government are considering what additional weight to give local authorities to enable them to better respond to the pressures that they face, as a result of what have been called “excessive” concentrations of short-term lets and holiday homes in some parts of the country.

To keep this brief and to sum up, it would be welcome to have, before Report, an update on the mandatory registration scheme and any other powers that have been taken forward on this Bill or in other legislation, including actions on companies that take no action, as was well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. We could therefore judge whether this amendment is a helpful addition to take forward on Report or is completely unnecessary. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for proposing this amendment. It raises a serious solution to one of the most acute crises affecting the private rental sector: the supply of housing. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments. There is a fair degree of support for this from all sides of the Committee.

Noble Lords will remember that this is one of the themes that these Benches have been most concerned about. My noble friend Lady Scott highlighted the reduction in housing supply on the first day of Committee. Savills reported seeing a 42% reduction in the number of rental properties available on its books in the first quarter of this year. Data compiled for the National Residential Landlords Association found that 41% of landlords say that they plan to cut the number of properties that they rent out in the next 12 months. This is highly concerning, given that the supply of available rental properties is already falling.

TwentyEA found that the supply of properties available to let has dropped by 1% compared to the first quarter of 2024 and has plummeted 22% below the 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Currently, only 284,000 rentable homes are available nationwide—a decline of 18% from last year and 23% from 2019. In the first quarter of 2025, 15.6% of new property listings for sale were previously rental homes. This is a sharp increase from 9.8% in the same period of 2024. Renting is no longer simply a transitional phase or fallback option for many people. It is a deliberate and legitimate long-term housing choice. Renting offers flexibility, mobility and freedom from the financial and practical burdens of home ownership, but tenants cannot benefit if there is simply not enough supply.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, raised, as did many others, the risks associated from the Bill accelerating this trend to short-term lets such as Airbnb and other types. This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, would contribute to the solution. Where there is not enough supply of available rental accommodation and many landlords are planning to sell up, working to reduce the amount of short-term lettings could protect the currently available supply and hopefully prevent further reductions.

Planning consent helps local authorities manage the shift and safeguard their rental supply, especially in high-demand areas. This is especially true given the highly regionalised disparities in supply deficits of private rental housing. As the Bill goes forward, we need to ensure that local authorities have sufficient capacity in their planning teams and, in this context, to consider whether licensing may also be an effective tool in this area.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendment, which seeks to restrict the conversion of assured private rental sector tenancies into short-term lets, and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Young and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, for taking part in this debate.

The Government recognise that while short-term lets can benefit the tourist economy, they can also impact on the availability and affordability of housing, including in the private rented sector. I understand noble Lords’ frustration that little has been done to assess the impact of this as its development has accelerated over recent years.

As we have discussed at earlier stages of the Bill, we share concerns that landlords may be leaving the private rented sector to instead provide short-term lets. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, gave some figures about reductions in the rental market, but statistics released on 28 April from Rightmove’s rental tracker told a very different story. Its property site found that the number of new properties coming to the market in March was 11% ahead of the same period last year, while the overall number of rental properties is 18% up on 2024, just months before the legislation is set to come into force this summer, so there are differing opinions about the impact.

To address the issues that noble Lords have raised, the Bill includes a provision to ensure landlords will not be able to evict tenants simply to return the property to a holiday let. As many noble Lord will be aware, we have also abolished the furnished holiday lets tax regime. As a result of that measure, landlords will no longer be incentivised by the tax system to make their properties available as short-term holiday lets rather than longer-term homes for people who want to live and work in the area.

The Government will also introduce the short-term lets registration scheme, as legislated for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The scheme will collect crucial data on the sector and ensure that all providers of short-term lets are aware of their legal responsibilities to ensure that health and safety standards are met in their property.

With regard to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Truscott, Lord Young and Lord Jamieson, we are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the reform programme and have set out how we are developing our approach in the impact assessment for the Bill. Our approach builds on the department’s existing long-term housing sector monitoring work, and we will conduct our process impact and value-for-money evaluation in line with the department’s published evaluation strategy. We are not going to just drop the Bill and leave it; we will continue to monitor the situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked when the register will be operational. The Government are keen to introduce the registration scheme for short-term lets in England as soon as possible. The initial phase of digital development is now complete and public testing is planned to start in the next 12 months. During this next phase of work, we will test a working interface with a small number of users to make sure that the systems and processes are robust and effective before publicly launching a first version of the service. It is on its way; we have started working on it and will bring it forward as quickly as we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, asked a question about energy performance standards for the PRS and short-term lets. On 7 February this year, DESNZ launched a consultation on increasing minimum energy efficiency standards in the domestic private rented sector. The consultation includes proposals for rented homes to achieve an EPC C or equivalent by 2030. DESNZ is also seeking views on whether short-term lets should be included in the scope of these changes to help ensure a common standard across all private rented properties.

The proposed amendment seeks only to allow councils to place restrictions on the change of use from a private rental property to a short-term rental property and would not affect the change of use of owner-occupied properties. The amendment seeks to achieve this via a change to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. However, it would not have the intended effect, as the use classes order does not permit the change of use in the way proposed.

I assure noble Lords that we are carefully considering what additional powers we might give to local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short-term lets. However, I also recognise the complexities of introducing such restrictions, so I believe we need to explore the various potential levers that could help achieve that better balance that we all want between housing and the tourism economy before moving forward. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

May I seek a point of clarification before the Minister sits down? If I heard correctly, she said that the legislation would come into force this summer. Does that mean that everything will be in place, including things like the database, ensuring that there is court capacity and so forth?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The comment related to the finishing of the Bill. There may be subsequent work to be done on it after that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Thank you very much.

[Lord Best (CB)]

I am grateful to noble Lords around the Committee for their support for the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who emphasised the urgency of the situation, and the position in many other places—Paris, Barcelona, Menorca, Santa Monica —where other countries are getting ahead of us in taking action that we should probably learn from. He mentioned, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young, the disruption to other residents that comes from short-term lettings, and the nuisance of parties, fly-tipping and security problems. That is not the main reason for the proposed amendment, but it is an important additional factor, which emphasises its importance.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, said that we must strike a balance between the interests of the tourism industry and the interests of those who are looking for somewhere to live—and the local authority is best placed to do that. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was a bit worried about owner-occupiers being badly affected and not being able to let out their properties, when they were on holiday, for example. I think the amendment takes care of that; it certainly should. It is not the individual owner who lets out their spare room, or even the whole house, for a week or two that we are talking about here; it is the businesses that operate on some scale.

I am grateful to the CPRE, the Countryside Charity, for helping to formulate the amendment, and I give many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who made important points. We must protect the current supply of accommodation at a time when we are worried about the loss of any homes, which are badly needed. I will withdraw the amendment, but, as I do so, I thank the Minister for telling us about registration. I think that the timescale was that testing would take place for a new registration scheme for short-term lettings over the next 12 months, with a first version then being tried. It is all good stuff, but it sounds slightly slow—the “as soon as possible” bit was the best bit.

The Minister said that other solutions, alongside the possibility of introducing a use class that works—that must be part of it—were being considered. Pulling the right levers is obviously going to be important. Yes, the Government are prepared to do something, but they should take away the message that the speed at which it is done will be important too. We cannot let this fester much longer. With those comments, I beg leave—

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment probes how landlords would recover their homes from abandonment without a court order.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, which rightly brings the issue of abandonment to the attention of the House tonight.

I wish to be brief, but I will take the opportunity to pose several questions, so that the Minister can set out the Government’s position. The Government are correct to note, in their Explanatory Notes, that Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which sought to address the recovery of abandoned properties, has never been brought into force. However, in light of the significant changes now proposed to the grounds for possession, I ask the Minister: have the Government sought to revisit this? With the departure of Section 21 and the insistence that landlords must rely on specific grounds for possession, as outlined in Schedule 1, what options are available to a landlord if a tenant abandons their property?

I would welcome clarity on several practical matters. For example, is there a requirement for specific types of evidence of abandonment, in terms of format, scope or detail? How many attempts must a landlord make to contact the tenant? I understand that this may appear later, but, as the Government have refused to implement these changes gradually, these really are burning questions.

Next, with no distinct legal ground for abandonment, how does the Minister propose to ensure that landlords understand how to use grounds 8, 10 or 12, which appear to be the only potential avenues in such cases? Additionally, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the current average wait time for a court order in such circumstances. What, if anything, is being done to address the underlying causes of tenant abandonment?

I fully recognise that this issue extends beyond housing policy alone. However, ensuring that tenants are able to remain in their homes, and feel secure in doing so, is not only beneficial to them but vital to the health of our wider society and economy. In connection with this, I also ask: from the landlord’s perspective, how is one expected to assess the risk of a tenant returning after a property is believed to have been abandoned?

It appears there is currently no specific legal ground for possession on the basis of abandonment. While the Minister may point out that the incidence of abandonment is low, this is not a justification for leaving the issue unaddressed, particularly now, when the framework for possession is being overhauled. Getting abandoned properties back into the rental market will allow others to benefit from that tenancy and a tenant who has abandoned a property to not accumulate further unpaid rent.

I ask whether the Government gave any consideration to amending Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act, especially in light of the proposed removal of assured shorthold tenancies, which Part 3 originally referenced.

I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide clarity and, where necessary, commit to reviewing this area further. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister stands up to respond, I just make the point that it has gone midnight. We did not start consideration of Committee until 8.30 pm. That has meant that people have gone home without putting forward their amendments, and there has not been proper scrutiny on the last few groups. The Committee has done amazingly well to get as far as it has, but it has now gone midnight. I do not know if the Whip intends to resume the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the central aim of the Renters’ Rights Bill is to give tenants more security in their homes. Landlords must not be able to evict tenants without a ground for possession, as defined in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, which we are expanding and refining to ensure that landlords can gain possession where proportionate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has stated that they do not support Clause 61 standing part of the Bill. This clause will repeal Part 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which, if brought into force, would have allowed landlords to take possession of premises they believed to be abandoned without a court order. However, Part 3 of the 2016 Act was never brought into force. It also wholly pertained to assured shorthold tenancies. Those tenancies will cease to exist in the private rented sector after the implementation of the Bill. The repeal of Part 3, therefore, is necessary to maintain a coherent statute book.

As I mentioned, Part 3 of the 2016 Act would have enabled landlords to reclaim possession of properties under an assured shorthold tenancy that had been abandoned without a court order, provided they had issued three warning notices without response and the tenant was in rent arrears. While we acknowledge that genuine abandonment can present challenges—I dealt with a case that had gone on for years and years in Stevenage—not only for landlords but also for the wider community, these provisions were not the appropriate solution. At the time, they were criticised as a rogue landlord’s charter, and it is appropriate that they were never implemented.

Where abandonment has occurred, landlords will need to establish a ground for possession. It is likely that, in abandonment scenarios, tenants will also be in rent arrears, making those grounds for possession applicable. Landlords may also rely on breaches of tenancy agreements, such as clauses prohibiting prolonged unoccupancy or on grounds relating to deterioration of the property. In clear-cut situations, implied surrender may also apply—for example, where tenants have returned the keys and the landlord has accepted them even if no formal notice was given.

It is vital that tenants have access to justice when facing the loss of their home. Landlords must not be enabled to take possession without a valid ground. Clause 61 ensures the removal of these redundant provisions from the statute book. I commend this clause to the Committee.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not do a full closing speech. The purpose of this was for the Minister to give us some thoughts on how you might deal with abandonment rather than going through a lengthy court case when clearly the property has been abandoned. I would be very grateful if, before Report, the Minister could give this some thought. None of us wants abandoned properties; we want them back in use and available for rent. We do not want people accumulating rental deficits that have to be chased through the court. There clearly is a special case here that needs to be considered. I look forward to the Minister giving us a thoughtful response before Report on how we address the issue of abandoned properties. None one on either side of the Committee wants abandoned properties.

Clause 61 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, talk about save the Best until last—well, until the penultimate. The breadth, depth, knowledge, understanding and experience of the names backing these amendments is fascinating and extraordinary. I thank all noble Lords. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornhill who also put her name to both amendments. She signed these amendments and we backed them because it is so astonishing that property agents still, today, have none of these qualifications and that anyone can be set up and become a lettings agency. It is staggering given the amount of expertise that they need in order to advise landlords and tenants on these significant complex legal issues in exchange for the not insignificant amounts of money they get for doing that very job.

Propertymark and others are pressing for this. They know that there are people out there who are not doing a good job, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described, and that they are letting the side down and giving good lettings agents a terrible reputation. It is in everyone’s interest that this aspect of the private rented sector is regulated, precisely because the UK property market is very heavily regulated already, with strict laws governing tenants’ rights and landlords’ obligations across many different Acts. Knowledge, understanding and training around that is absolutely critical.

Qualified property agents should possess the knowledge and expertise to navigate this minefield. Legal compliance and risk management are essential. The list of what they have to do already is long and complex and the Bill will add to it, which is why a transition timeline is essential, with thorough, clear guidance as to what is expected, when and by whom. Landlords are rightly worried about this, and I hope that the Minister can reassure the sector on that particular issue of timeline.

It is worth stressing that without proper qualifications, agents risk costly legal battles, fines and damage to their own professional reputation. We have heard that there are already qualifications out there. The sector is keen to get going and roll them out, but they need that push; that degree of compulsion. Amendments 203 and 204 would provide that. Qualifications demonstrate that the agent is knowledgeable about market trends, property evaluations, but also, importantly, ethical practices and transparency itself. All these things are needed. This would create a virtuous circle, boost tenants’ confidence and make landlords more likely to trust their investments with a qualified agent who would also be able to conduct property inspections, manage maintenance, repairs and rent collection and handle financial management. Surely this has to be done with real professional skill, reducing the risk of disputes and maintaining property value. Those agents who get ahead of the curve and get qualified now will become the best. They will stand out from the crowd in a competitive marketplace.

If the Bill is about raising the standard in the private rented sector, rooting out the bad guys and making a once-in-a-generation shift in private renting, this is such an important part of the equation. The Government must grasp it, grasp it soon and get on with it. At the end of the day, it is not just about bricks and mortar, but people’s homes and livelihoods. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, where and when?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing Amendments 203 and 204 before your Lordships’ House today. They propose the insertion of new clauses after Clause 63 and rightly focus on training property agents and the enforcement of agent qualifications. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, who raised the important aspect of parity with the social rented sector, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who said that, actually, this is very complex, that people need to understand it and that inadvertent mistakes and omissions are frequently made. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, gave us some statistics—I could not write them down quickly enough, but I am sure I will get hold of them sooner or later. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made a good point, which I will come back to, about proportionality and the risk of overregulation—something that noble Lords may have heard once or twice from this side of the Chamber. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose comments I will also come back to.

Your Lordships’ House is correct to consider the value of proper training and qualifications, and the benefits this knowledge can bring to the property market. I shall focus my contribution on the impact that training can have in reducing the risk of regulatory breaches, thereby benefiting tenants. Not only will well-trained agents develop a broader and more cohesive understanding of the law but their ignorance, and the potential for breaches arising from a simple lack of understanding, will be greatly diminished. With this, significant benefits will also be felt by local authorities, as fewer cases of regulatory breaches will be brought to their attention for resolution.

Such a reduction in caseload is particularly important at a time when local authorities are tasked with implementing the Secretary of State’s reorganisation plans as outlined in the devolution White Paper. As your Lordships’ House will be well aware, local authorities are currently operating under immense pressure—facing financial constraints, staffing shortages and increasing responsibilities. It is not just a case of money; I know from my experience with local authorities and their housing teams that it is a lack of enough trained people. We need to seek to minimise the pressure that we put on them.

We must explore proactive measures such as ensuring that property agents are properly trained and qualified from the outset. By doing so, we not only improve standards across the sector but allow local authorities to focus their limited resources on strategic priorities rather than enforcement. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, there is an issue of proportionality. We must ensure that any powers we pass to the Secretary of State are proportionate and can be implemented. While ministerial oversight is, of course, necessary in certain respects, we must be cautious about top-down regulation of key aspects of training and enforcement.

If we are truly committed to getting this right, we must resist the temptation to defer action or consign this matter to the “deal with it later” category. This argument has been, and will no doubt continue to be, clearly articulated across this House. Not placing provisions in the Bill is not only inadequate but raises more questions than it answers. We must understand the Minister’s intentions fully before we consider granting such significant powers to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the intention behind these amendments is well placed. Educating letting agents is vital, as they occupy a central role in the rental housing market and have a direct impact on whether tenants are treated both fairly and lawfully.

Exploring ways to enhance tenant protection without compromising housing supply should be at the front and centre of the Government’s thinking. It is vital that we establish clear, accessible means to ensure that landlords understand their rights and responsibilities, and the regulatory framework in which they operate. Property agents must be at the heart of this ambition.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments relating to the regulation of property agents. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Truscott and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Coffey, who have all spoken in this debate, as well as my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lady Hayter.

Amendment 203 would enable the Secretary of State, through subsequent secondary legislation, to introduce professional qualifications for property agents who manage assured tenancies. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his continued engagement on such an important topic—I do regard it as such. He is an ardent campaigner for driving up standards across all property agents, not just letting agents, who are the focus of this amendment.

The Housing Minister and I have had a number of conversations with the noble Lord on how best to raise levels of professionalism. We recognise the challenges that tenants and landlords can face when using letting agents. Many agents provide a good service, but some do not.

The Government are committed to ensuring that landlords and those living in the rented and leasehold sectors are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous agents. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about parity with the social housing sector, we want to ensure consistency with our work to drive up management standards in the social housing sector. We are aware that in some blocks, including those managed by social landlords, managing agents will be providing services for both leaseholders and social housing tenants. It is important to ensure that any measures we bring forward on managing agent regulation take full account of other legal requirements, including qualifications proposed for the social housing sector.

Protections are already in place to make sure that both tenants and landlords are treated fairly by letting agents and can hold them to account. This includes the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which bans most letting fees and caps tenancy deposits paid by tenants in the private rented sector in England, and the requirement for all property agents, including letting agents, to be members of a government-approved redress scheme.

The Housing Minister made a Written Ministerial Statement on 21 November 2024 which set out the Government’s intention to revisit the 2019 report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, on regulating the property agent sector. We continue to engage across the sector to improve standards among property agents. We welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry itself, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Hayter.

We are continuing to consider this issue carefully and have already announced our intention to introduce minimum qualifications for property managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates, and to consult on this issue this year. We will set out our full position on the regulation of letting, managing and estate agents in due course. I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for the strong evidence she provided about why that is necessary.

Amendment 204 would have the effect that a property agent who manages assured tenancies may be part of a mandatory redress scheme only if they meet the relevant qualification requirements. In practice, this amendment would place responsibility for ensuring the appropriate property agent has the relevant qualifications on the Property Ombudsman and Property Redress. It would also give these redress schemes the power to award a financial penalty for non-compliance.

The main role of redress schemes is to deal with individual complaints by tenants against their agent. The existing redress schemes have a number of levers at their disposal, including the ability to award compensation to a tenant or a landlord where things have gone wrong. They may also expel members from their scheme. However, redress schemes are not designed to be enforcement bodies, so it would not be appropriate to give them powers to issue a financial penalty. Such measures should be reserved for enforcement authorities, such as local authorities. Furthermore, expulsion from or failure to join a redress scheme will not expressly prevent an agent from trading, although it does mean that the agent is in breach of regulations and liable for enforcement action by the local authority.

The question of who is best placed to enforce qualification measures is important and is certainly something the Government are taking into account as part of their consideration of the regulation of managing, letting and estate agents. As I have mentioned before, we will set out our position on this in due course. I am happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Best, and any other noble Lord to discuss this issue further. However, with these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I wrote in my notes that this was “hopefully” the last day in Committee on the Bill, but I have now inserted “possibly”. Regrettably, it is my last day, because of an important appointment tomorrow that I cannot cancel.

It is appropriate for me to thank profusely all those who have helped me personally, and probably helped all of us, with their excellent briefings, as well as giving help with amendments—and, in my case, frantic email exchanges when I have not quite understood things. I refer to all those in the Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Local Government Association, the National Residential Landlords Association and Suzanne, the Independent Landlord, to name but a few.

This is a very important part of the Bill, and we largely support the first two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, regarding having just the one scheme and changing “may” to “must”. However, I will speak to my Amendment 218, which is a simple probing amendment for what is a very complex issue. The Bill makes continuing or repeat breaches of the landlord redress scheme an offence, but not joining the scheme in the first place is merely a breach. That means that landlords can still be fined by the local authority for not joining but tenants cannot claim a rent repayment order as it is not an offence.

There is clearly an imbalance here; my amendment simply seeks to probe the Government’s reasoning for not making failure to join the scheme an offence in the first place, rather than waiting for landlords continually not to adhere to the new requirement. We want this failure to become an offence from the get-go because we believe that non-compliance with the redress scheme will have serious regulatory consequences, significantly impacting tenants’ ability to hold their landlord to account. That is the key matter on issues such as disrepair and the standard of the home. The rent repayment order gives tenants compensation for substandard accommodation and can incentivise them to report things in the first place. Interestingly, Generation Rent’s polling found that nearly one in three renters has had maintenance issues in their home, which they have reported, but their landlord has not dealt with—a simple but very telling snapshot.

In the Republic of Ireland, failure of a landlord to register a tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board—the Irish equivalent to what we are proposing—is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of €40,000, with €250 payable each day of non-registration. Perhaps they take a rather different approach.

We are concerned that, as councils are already overstretched and currently have very little resource for proactive enforcement, an undetermined number of landlords could avoid joining the redress scheme initially as they will think being discovered by the council is low risk. The risk of being reported by their tenants—who would not be eligible for a rent repayment order, so there is no incentive for them—is also very low. Both aspects are not what we want. Therefore, we feel that this imbalance does not treat seriously enough the impact that non-compliance in these matters will have in undermining and frustrating one of the fundamental tenets of the new regulatory regime. I hope that the noble Baroness will allay our concerns.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for introducing this group of amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

The landlord redress scheme is a vital function of the Bill, and the onus is on all of us to ensure that the legislation is as effective and robust as it needs to be. I hope that the Minister will take the time to reflect on the constructive suggestions made by noble Lords and take them back to the department for further consideration. The fact that the Minister has tabled amendments is, I suggest, a recognition that the Bill is not perfect, even in the eyes of those charged with defending it.

Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I shall speak to those amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 208 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress via a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. This would avoid duplication, unnecessary regulatory burden and the potential confusion between effectively being a member of two different schemes. This is vital, because clarity and efficiency in regulation are essential for compliance and enforcement.

Amendment 210A probes the Government’s proposed duration of the membership period for the redress scheme. This period is to be set by regulations, but as things stand there is no indication, or even a hint, of what that timeframe might be. Could the Minister provide some clarity on this point? Stakeholders need certainty to plan and prepare appropriately.

Amendment 210B seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations establishing the landlord redress scheme within six months of the passage of the Bill. A clear, time-bound commitment is essential if the Government are serious about delivering this long-promised reform. Without a defined timeline, there is a risk that implementation will drift or be indefinitely delayed, to the detriment of all stakeholders—especially tenants. Could the Minister say what, in her view, constitutes meaningful progress and what timescale the department is working to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am entirely supportive of pretty well every amendment that has been put down on this—this blizzard of amendments about a database across four groups. I agree that there should be penalties for not participating in it. It has to be something that is not a nice-to-have add-on: it has to be core to everything. However, I will just give two notes of caution, the first of which goes back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If you are going to start recording disputes on the system, there could be many, many reasons why a dispute runs for a long time. It would not necessarily be the fault of evil landlords. It could be illness on the part of the tenant; it could be a multitude of things. You have to be very careful there.

The second point is to be careful what you wish for. No one has suggested this so far, but is this database going to be searchable by tenant? Because a landlord looking at a tenant might search the database and find that every previous tenancy has ended in a dispute. Is that going to be a fair use of this database? Because it is a logical suggestion, looking at this from a landlord’s point of view, to look out for rogue tenants as well as rogue landlords.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for opening this group. The question of what data is recorded on the database is an important one and the Government need to give the sector greater clarity on their plans. Noble Lords need only look at some of the briefings provided by lettings agencies to landlords over the past few months to grasp the level of uncertainty around this Bill. For the benefit of both renters and landlords, we need greater clarity as soon as possible. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said earlier from these Benches, we believe the Government should be more ambitious. We are broadly content with the direction of travel on greater transparency, but taking this forward through regulations is leaving landlords and tenants in the dark.

We support the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Best, to the Government on the inclusion of gas and electrical safety checks within the PRS database. Amendments 221, 224 and 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, all touch on this issue. The database makes use of official UPRNs and covers the full end-to-end process of property compliance, including the urgent need to mandate digital property safety certificates. This will certainly increase transparency for landlords and tenants. Including gas safety certificates and electrical installation reports would assist tenants who wish to confirm that their property is safe.

That said, we have some concerns about Amendment 227, which appears to place the burden of registering digital gas and electricity certificates on the certificate provider rather than the landlord. We do not think that responsibility should be placed on the providers without a proper impact assessment and a fuller understanding of how this would work in practical terms. Perhaps the Minister can commit to considering this proposal from the noble Lord between now and Report.

Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, proposes expanding the types of information or documents that are required for registration on the PRS database. I commend the noble Baroness on her thoughtful drafting. This amendment highlights further the uncertainty and lack of clarity that have arisen from the Government’s decision to place broadly drafted regulation-making powers rather than detailed provisions in the Bill to enable their plans.

Finally, on Amendments 229 and 230, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, it has already been noted that UPRNs are a universal means of identifying properties. They will be central to this system. The database should be as easy as possible to use for both renters and landlords. We accept that the noble Lord’s amendments are well intentioned and we will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to them.

We have a separate concern. The Government do not have a strong track record on delivering large-scale IT projects. I make no political comment here. We share the concerns that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, earlier, on the time that it will take to roll out this database. Can the Minister assure us that this project will be delivered—and delivered on time?

I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these well-intentioned and constructive amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, for their amendments regarding which data should be recorded on the database. I also thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for their comments.

Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to expand Clause 76 and mandate the information that landlord and dwelling entries on the database must contain. I thank the noble Baroness for her very thoughtful amendment and for meeting with me to discuss the database in greater detail before Committee. We certainly both appreciate the potential of the database.

I reassure her that we expect to collect much of the information that is set out in Amendment 222 on the database. Detailed regulations about the making of landlord and dwelling entries in the database will be made under Clause 78(1) in due course. Our approach to data collection takes account of the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, to ensure that it remains proportionate. However, I stress that it is vital that the database is designed in such a way that it can evolve to incorporate technological innovation and changes in the sector. Although I very much understand the points made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, we do not think that, to accomplish this aim, the content of landlord and dwelling database entries should be mandated in the Bill. Rather, this detail should be set out in secondary legislation to ensure that the database can be more easily adapted to meet future circumstances.

Regarding points about when the database will be ready, we aim for the service to be operational as soon as possible following the passage of primary and secondary legislation. We are taking forward the digital development of the private rented sector database in line with the government service standard. We will conduct extensive testing of the new service ahead of implementation and continue to engage the sector on our proposals. We very much welcome the ongoing involvement of all those who have been helping us.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted the importance of why we must take our time on development, design and testing. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the difficulty of IT systems. I have had them in past lives, so I know that this can be a tricky issue. However, we have been in government for only nine months, yet the noble Lord accused us of having a track record—or did he mean all Governments? I hope that he did.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

All Governments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Okay, fair point. We need to make sure that we do the development and the testing of the system carefully. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the discussion on the seventh group of amendments, which addresses important changes to the rent repayment orders. These amendments seek to strengthen the mechanism by which tenants and local authorities can hold landlords accountable when they breach laws and ensure that rent repayment orders are both fair and effective.

The proposals tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raise significant points that warrant our attention. Among them, we see the suggestion to register RROs on a public database, which would make the existence of these orders transparent, allowing tenants and others to be aware of landlords with a history of non-compliance. This could serve as a powerful deterrent against landlords who might otherwise continue to disregard their responsibilities.

In addition, we see proposals to change the amount to be repaid in an RRO, as well as to extend the ability of tribunals to issue RROs in the case of non-registration on the public database. We need to ensure that the consequences for landlords are proportionate to the harm caused and that tenants receive a fair outcome. Although it is appropriate to have rent repayment orders where a tenant has been impacted or suffered a loss, as outlined so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, where a landlord has inadvertently breached a regulation and received a fine, but no harm has been done to a tenant, should they also receive a rent repayment order?

These Benches accept that rent repayment orders are an important tool for holding landlords to account and we welcome the intention to make these processes more accessible and transparent for tenants. However, we note that there are complex issues surrounding the practicalities of RROs, as I mentioned earlier, particularly in relation to the standard of proof and their scope.

Therefore, I ask the Government to respond to the following points. How do they propose to ensure that these amendments, particularly those relating to the registration of RROs, do not place unnecessary burdens on tribunals or create unintended consequences for landlords, who may not be aware of the rules? How do the Government intend to address the issue of non-registration on the database and the potential impact on landlords who fail to comply?

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Kennedy of Cradley. These are important questions and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their amendments relating to rent repayment orders. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.

I will begin by responding to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 226 seeks to extend penalties for non-compliance with private rented sector database requirements. The Bill already includes a clear, proportionate and escalating approach to penalties against those who flout the rules. For initial or less serious non-compliance, local authorities can impose a civil penalty of up to £7,000— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said she was beginning to sound like a stuck record; now I feel like that as well. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, to a first failure by a landlord to register.

For serious or repeat non-compliance, local authorities can prosecute or, alternatively, issue a civil penalty of up to £40,000. In the case of the database, that applies, for example, where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides information to the database operator that is false or misleading in a material respect. We will, through the Bill, significantly strengthen rent repayment orders because we believe they are a powerful mechanism for tenant-led enforcement.

In relation to the database, rent repayment orders are available where a landlord knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information to the database operator. They are also available where a landlord continues to fail to register or provide the required information to the database following a first penalty. These, though, are criminal offences, and it would not be appropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the database requirements. Rent repayment orders are intended to act as a punitive sanction against landlords who commit criminal offences. Extending them to conduct that does not amount to an offence would undermine this.

Similarly, Amendment 257 would make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman and initial failure to be registered with the PRS database. My view is, as before, that it may be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to these non-criminal breaches. The new ombudsman and database are fundamental parts of our reforms, and of a better private rented sector with greater accountability. It is vital that they are robustly enforced.

We think the routes of enforcement currently in the Bill represent an effective and proportionate approach. We will monitor the use and effectiveness of rent repayment orders under the new, strengthened regime and consider whether further changes are necessary. Therefore I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, withdraws her amendment.

Amendment 244A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeks to lower the standard of proof to which the First-tier Tribunal must be satisfied before making a rent repayment order against a landlord for an offence of illegal eviction or harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. She set out very clearly and concisely why she was putting that forward with a very convincing argument.

I am clear that illegal eviction and harassment are serious criminal offences and that offenders need to be robustly punished. I accept that this happens too rarely at the moment. We are seeking to address this through the Bill by extending civil penalties, as an alternative to prosecution, to illegal eviction and harassment offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

My noble friend pointed out that the First-tier Tribunal is not a criminal court and asked why the criminal standard of proof should apply. The rent repayment order regime is predicated on an offence having been committed, and it is an established principle in law that offences are taken to have been committed when proved beyond reasonable doubt. Creating a lower standard of proof for the same offences for a finding of guilt in the tribunal compared with the criminal courts would be confusing, inconsistent and could be subject to a successful challenge.

We are also placing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce against specified landlord legislation, which includes illegal eviction and harassment under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and we are looking hard at how best we can support them do so effectively. This Government are determined to bear down harder on illegal eviction and harassment. We are concerned, though, about what impact this amendment could have on the integrity of the rent repayment order regime as a whole.

Rent repayment orders are predicated on an offence being committed. As I said, they apply exclusively to criminal offences, and the penalty can be a very significant one. The changes that we are making through the Bill both double the maximum penalty to two years’ rent and extend the circumstances in which the tribunal must award that amount. I recognise that illegal eviction may be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that is not a principled reason for a civil standard of proof to apply to obtaining a rent repayment order in respect of a serious criminal offence.

The severity of the penalties that, quite properly, apply in the rent repayment order regime mean that there would be serious questions about procedural fairness should the criminal standard of proof not be required. The criminal standard of proof will of course be required when a local authority issues a civil penalty for illegal eviction or harassment under new Section 1A of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. All the other rent repayment offences would remain to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Making rent repayment orders for illegal eviction and harassment subject to the civil standard of proof would create an anomaly and be a departure from a well-established position, which we consider would be hard to justify. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and Safer Renting but, for now, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, to withdraw her amendment.

I will end with a brief—I promise—explanation of the Government’s amendments in this area. This Government view rent repayment orders as a critical part of ensuring higher standards and better compliance in the private rented sector; that is why we have significantly expanded them through the Bill. Government Amendments 244 to 248 aim to ensure that they work as intended in their application to the offence of breaching the restricted period after relying on the moving and selling grounds of possession, and the amended licensing offences are described correctly.

--- Later in debate ---

I realise that I have spoken at some length on these matters. They are very important issues. I very much hope that the Minister, who I know has had discussions with the relevant bodies, may be able to give some comfort on these five amendments because they all reflect problems that it is within the capacity of the Bill to solve. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments in this important debate concerning property licensing. This discussion touches on a particular practical part of the regulatory framework: how local authorities manage and enforce licensing regimes for rental properties and meet appropriate standards of safety and quality.

The amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Young of Cookham, address both the effectiveness of the licensing schemes and the administrative burdens that they impose on landlords, local authorities and tenants alike. Amendments 253 and 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, speak to the role of selective licensing in improving housing conditions and propose to extend the maximum duration of these schemes.

We already have selective licensing. UK government guidance is clear that local authorities can use this process to tackle poor housing conditions, as well as other issues. These are worthy proposals. We will listen carefully to these concerns and work with noble Lords across the House both to get the balance right and to ensure that the Bill plays its part in driving up the quality of housing, particularly in the areas where local authorities can clearly demonstrate poor housing conditions or evidence of anti-social behaviour.

However, we must also ask: are licensing schemes always the right lever for improving housing quality? In the right circumstances, licensing can help drive up standards, but, if it is poorly targeted or applied too broadly, it risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy and placing costs on good landlords while doing little to deter the worst offenders. We must guard against the risk of licensing becoming a tick-box exercise rather than a tool for real enforcement.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for introducing Amendments 267 to 269, tabled by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. They are pragmatic and draw on my noble friend’s extensive experience in both government and housing policy. They propose more proportionate licensing fees in large blocks, simplified procedures for name changes and facilitated bulk applications. All are practical measures designed to reduce red tape and bring common sense to what can sometimes be a cumbersome process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we all want to see energy efficiency, better homes for tenants and reduced fuel poverty but, as we discussed earlier this evening, this needs to be done in an affordable and pragmatic way that does not force older, rural and heritage homes out of the rental market. Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to extend the powers of local housing authorities to use available data to enforce and exercise their functions under the Energy Act 2011. As the noble Baroness has established, that Act provided obligations on landlords to meet certain energy efficiency requirements for their properties before they are able to let their properties to tenants.

Clause 134 already enables local housing authorities to use the information they possess to enforce housing offences and other functions under a wider range of legislation than was previously permitted in the Housing Act 2004. This amendment would therefore extend the already expanded remit of Clause 134 to the domain of energy efficiency. We understand the intentions of the noble Baroness in this amendment and will be interested to hear the response from the Minister.

However, I question the necessity of the amendment. The Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, made under the Energy Act 2011, already provide for the energy efficiency regulations to be enforced by local authorities in the case of domestic private rental properties and by trading standards in the case of non-domestic private rental properties. Those enforcement authorities are empowered by the 2011 Act to impose monetary penalties of up to £5,000 for any landlord who breaches the energy efficiency regulations. Given the powers that already exist and the highly significant changes to energy performance certificates that the Government plan to implement, this amendment appears unnecessary.

A review of energy efficiency improvements required and the methods for funding these improvements would be more appropriate, which is why we support Amendment 274 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, supported by my noble friend Lady Penn. This amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to publish a roadmap for using private finance initiatives to provide the funding for any required improvements to energy efficiency for the private rental sector. This is a sensible and measured approach to the issue at hand, as opposed to any prescriptive requirements. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman, for their amendments relating to minimum energy efficiency standards, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—who I think described herself as the Green night owl—the noble Baroness Lady Grender and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for contributing to the debate.

I turn first to Amendment 259 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment would allow information given to local authorities by tenancy deposit scheme administrators to be used by local authorities for a purpose connected with their functions under the Energy Act 2011, including enforcement against breaches of minimum energy efficiency standards under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. I reassure the Committee that local authorities are already equipped to enforce the private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standard of an EPC rating of E.

In February, a consultation was published to amend regulations and raise energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, addressing fuel poverty and carbon emissions. The consultation proposes that local authorities will be empowered to issue fines of up to £30,000 for non-compliance with the new minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. To respond to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are exploring support for enforcement in collaboration with stakeholders, including local authorities.

Local authorities often identify non-compliance during other property engagements and can take appropriate action. A local authority may issue a compliance notice to a landlord suspected of breaching the energy standard. If the landlord fails to comply, the authority has the power to issue a penalty notice. Of course, I recognise the value that data plays in aiding enforcement, which is why we have widened access to information for other enforcement purposes through the Bill. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 274, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a road map for scaling up private finance initiatives to support the funding of energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes within six months of the passage of the Bill. I strongly support improvements to energy efficiency in privately rented homes. The Government have pledged to take action to stand with tenants and deliver the safety and security of warmer, cheaper homes. In February, we published our consultation on improving energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector in England and Wales. The consultation closed on 2 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to publish a government response later this year.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, as we recognise the important role that private finance will play in supporting the private rented sector to meet the proposed energy-efficiency standards. We are currently considering the consultation feedback and options to further support landlords to make the necessary improvements to their property. I believe that the amendment is not necessary as the information on support, including private finance to fund energy-efficiency improvements in privately rented homes, will be available shortly.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to demote tenancies for anti-social behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities, but it is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. It undermines community spirit, leaving tenants feeling trapped and helpless. It strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. Too often we overlook the consequences. It is not just the cost of repairs, increased security and time-consuming administration of complaints, placing an unsustainable burden on housing associations and local authorities, but the misery and social breakdown it can cause in communities. As currently drafted, the Bill weakens the powers available to local authorities and social landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why we have sought to bring back Amendment 3 today to preserve the ability of social landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour.

Demotion is not about punishment for its own sake. It is a vital tool—a proportionate deterrent that enables landlords to uphold community stability. Whether it is loud noise, vandalism or intimidation of tenants, those engaging in persistent anti-social behaviour must know there are consequences. Without the option to demote, how are landlords expected to maintain safety and harmony in their communities? Those with experience in local government will know that when a tenant causes disruption, it is often the landlord who receives the enforcement pressure from the council. If landlords are to be held to account, they must also be empowered to act. Amendment 3 would ensure that social landlords retain this power. It is not a radical departure but a practical necessity to deal with real-world situations where one tenant’s behaviour causes misery to many others.

This is about protecting the quiet minority—the families, the elderly and the vulnerable who rely on their home being a place of safety. It is about ensuring that social landlords are not left powerless in the face of persistent disruption. I urge the Government to reflect on the value of demotion as a tool of last resort and the message it sends that anti-social behaviour has consequences and that community cohesion matters. In conclusion, if we are serious about supporting tenants and local authorities, we must ensure they have the tools to act decisively and fairly. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we say ditto to every single thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about anti-social behaviour. We all know it blights people’s lives and how difficult it is to stem it. We have arrangements where councils work with their local strategic partnerships to deal with it. Nobody is disputing that.

The reason we have come to the conclusion that demoted tenancies are not needed is really very simple. I contacted the National Housing Federation, whose members are social housing providers. It genuinely does not see a need. It is comfortable enough with the Bill and how it deals with anti-social behaviour. It wants to know that it has effective tools to deal with anti-social behaviour and is concerned about the capacity of the courts to deal with evictions based on anti-social behaviour.

My instinct straightaway was to support the amendment on demoted tenancies, but the National Housing Federation said it did not see the point of it but did want to know that it was going to get the tools to deal with things. Many providers, ones I know personally, feel that they deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, including my own council and I suspect the Minister’s. They were concerned about having those tools and the capacity of the courts to deal with that ground when they choose to use it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this amendment. It seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. I can honestly say that one of the most frustrating things I dealt with in 27 years as a councillor was anti-social behaviour. While we all agree with the need for tackling the blight of anti-social behaviour on individuals and communities as a priority, I cannot accept the amendment as a way of dealing with that. It would fundamentally go against one of the core principles of the Renters’ Rights Bill—to improve security of tenure for renters. There is also a technical reason, which I shall come to shortly.

The amendment would seemingly enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy. As I said in Committee, as drafted, the amendment would not work: the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure whereby assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict a shorthold tenant via Section 21 are abolished. There will, therefore, no longer be a tenancy with lower security to which one can demote tenants. For the amendment to work, a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies would be required.

Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many councils and housing associations already do a great job in tackling this in partnership with each other, but I accept that it can still be an issue.

The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. The Bill also amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under that discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.

For all those reasons, we feel that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments, and I am grateful for the wide recognition of anti-social behaviour and the problems it causes. While we will not press the amendment today, I hope the Government have truly heard the problems that this causes. Evicting someone and going to court is very draconian, and this proposal would provide the opportunity of an interim step without the need for eviction. That is a useful tool, but I recognise the Minister’s comments. I hope that the Government will reflect and consider how the Bill can more robustly support those affected by persistent anti-social behaviour. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

4: Schedule 1, page 173, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and insert—
“(a) the landlord;(b) the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(c) a person who is—(i) a child,(ii) a grandchild,(iii) a parent,(iv) a grandparent,(v) a sibling,(vi) a niece or nephew,(vii) an aunt or uncle, or(viii) a cousin,of the landlord or of the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(d) a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a person falling within paragraph (c).For the purposes of this Schedule—(a) one person (C) is the “co-habitee” of another person (P) if P lives with C as if they were married or in a civil partnership;(b) a “niece or nephew” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of a sibling of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a sibling of P;(c) an “aunt or uncle” of a person (P) is a sibling of a parent of P;(d) a “cousin” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of an aunt or uncle of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of an aunt or uncle of P;(e) “sibling” includes a sibling of the half-blood and a step-sibling.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in clause 20 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we return to the issue of equalising definitions across the Bill, not just for consistency but for fairness, and ensuring that the definition of “family” is the same when it comes to guarantors and grounds for possession. It is not about expanding the law, but about clarity and equity. We want to place on record and state clearly that we believe the Government are making a mistake in resisting this change.

Amendment 21 is sensible and necessary; possession, for the purpose of housing a carer, is an issue of growing importance. Many families are already making plans for future care needs. With social care under increasing pressure, we believe that this amendment is timely and proportionate. We must allow older or less able people to stay in their own home if that is what they choose. Having a carer close by or even in the annexe next door would enable them to do so. I hope that the Minister understands the value of this ground.

Finally, Amendments 22 and 23, the first in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester and the second in my own name, speak to the need for a clearer message around redevelopment, not only for commercial purposes but for private regeneration as well. Really good regeneration in urban areas requires a certain scale. When a large site is available, something truly transformational can be achieved, as we have seen with the King’s Cross redevelopment. But large sites like King’s Cross are the exception: they just do not exist. Many forward-thinking investors and developers seek to build up a site of sufficient scale through piecemeal acquisition over many years, continuing to let the housing and commercial properties in the meantime.

We believe that we should support and encourage those seeking to do these high-quality regeneration projects. Are the Government seriously suggesting that the tenancy should be terminated on change of ownership and the home left vacant, potentially for many years, thereby not only reducing the rental housing stock but undermining the viability of such large-scale regeneration projects and blighting the neighbourhood? Would it not be far better to allow property owners to continue to rent their homes until such time as the property is needed for redevelopment? I beg to move.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 21 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support. This amendment makes a very small change to the Bill, but it could make a significant difference to the lives of individuals who need long-term full-time care due to their age or disability.

I also thank the Minister for her time in meeting with us to discuss the amendment. We have listened, but still feel strongly that our amendment is important to those who need care. We do not see that it would create a loophole, which was one of the Government’s concerns, or that it treats tenants unfairly when trying to ensure that they have security of tenure and are not moved on unnecessarily from a home that they enjoy and are settled in.

For a loophole to be abused, there must be opportunities in the wording or function of the clause for this happen. We believe we have addressed this, as the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s residence—for example, an annexe or a flat within the same block, or in the same street or village—so that daily and emergency care can be provided to the person who needs care.

Due to the proximity, the tenant would be aware of where the landlord lives. If there were a caring requirement for the landlord or a member of their family and notice was given on the grounds of the need for a carer, they could investigate, ask neighbours or visit the landlord for confirmation. If they were not satisfied that the requirement was met, they could use the provisions in the Bill to challenge the notice.

One of the principles of the Bill is to provide more security of tenure. This amendment would change the Bill in only a very small way as it would apply only to a small number of properties, but for a very important and valued reason for a family.

We have spoken to several national care organisations, which support our amendment. There are many benefits if a long-term carer lives close by, and these were pointed out to me by the National Care Association.

Continuity of care is so important. Carers have private lives, and this separate property would give the carer the opportunity to live their own life in their own space, thereby improving retention and their own mental and physical health. It would also give private space to the family in their own home, which can only help with all the family’s health needs.

During Covid, a lot of live-in carers suffered from loneliness when living in the same property as the person they were caring for. Allowing them their own housing would be a big advantage. Caring is a professional and skilled job, and therefore, when care is provided, it should be done by the most appropriate skilled person. Surely, this could be a professional carer.

If the individual being cared for has a family member living with them who could be the carer, would it not be more appropriate if that individual went out to work and did an appropriate job with the skills they have, rather than doing the job of the carer, when a professional carer might provide better care? Is not one of the Government’s primary objectives to get people into work? Surely, this must involve doing roles that they are most productive in.

Many people of different ages require full-time care, and this can be for many reasons and can come unexpectedly due to age, significant health reasons or sometimes, sadly, an accident. If there is a need for long-term care then surely, if you have a property in proximity, you should be able to gain possession. Is it not reasonable and fair to extend the grounds to allow a professional carer to live at the property, rather than a reluctant family member providing care services?

In terms of care, surely keeping an individual in their own home rather than in a care home or another institution, would benefit not only them but society in general. This amendment achieves this without adding pressure on the already stretched social care sector. We acknowledge that some tenants will suffer disruption by having to leave their property. This is the same as if the landlord wishes to sell the property or move a family member in, but this is for a very specific reason and most tenants would understand why notice has been given.

The amendment is all about family and landlords gaining possession for the use of a property for the family. That is what ground 8 lists. All we seek is to extend the provision for what is an essential service for a family in a time of need. We hope that the Government consider this amendment and make this small change for the benefit of those in care. If they are reluctant to do so, I may need to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Carrington, for their contributions to the debate.

Amendment 4 seeks to expand the definition of “family member” for the purpose of the moving-in ground, ground 1, to a much wider range of relations. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into a property. This amendment would allow landlords to evict their tenants in order to house nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins. It would enable the ground to be used to house the equivalent relatives of their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee. The family members we have chosen who can move in under ground 1 aim to reflect the diversity of modern families, but this is balanced with security of tenure for the existing tenant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated.

I appreciate that this draws the line short of where some might hope, but to go too far would open up tenants to evictions for a wide range of people, potentially very significant numbers of cousins, nieces and nephews, where families are large. I know that this depends on families—it would certainly be a large number in my family. This would provide more opportunities for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system. It is right that the definition used here is narrower than the definition in Clause 20, which removes guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. That is because this is a possession ground, so it results in people losing their homes; whereas Clause 20 protects bereaved families, where the net should be cast more widely.

Amendment 21 aims to introduce a new ground for possession that would permit the landlord to seek possession of their property for the purpose of housing a carer for them or a member of their family who lives with them. This is qualified by the requirement that the property is within sufficient proximity to the landlord’s residence to facilitate emergency callouts. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their considered and passionate engagement on this proposed ground in Committee and when I met Peers to discuss the proposal in the run-up to Report. I recognise the difficulties they highlighted that may be faced by landlords who wish to evict their tenant in order to house a carer. We are all aware of the importance of carers and the remarkable work they do in supporting individuals and families in difficult circumstances. These amendments clearly come from a good place, and I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns.

However, there are some practical considerations that weaken the rationale for this intervention. Adding more possession grounds increases opportunities for abuse by those unscrupulous landlords who, sadly, exist in the market. We are committed to giving renters much greater security and stability so that they can stay in their homes for longer. That is why we have developed very specific grounds. We also think that there are very few landlords who would be in the position of both needing a carer and owning a second property close to their home to accommodate that carer. I appreciate the examples that both noble Baronesses gave. Given the potential risk of abuse and the very narrow group of people who might benefit from this ground, we do not think the additional ground is warranted. Our view is that it is not fair that a tenant should lose their home, with all the disruption that entails, in order for another person to be housed in those circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about supporting people into work, but this amendment might involve another local worker being evicted to house that carer. Indeed, if the evicted tenant were also a carer, it would be likely to deprive one of the very organisations that have been contacting noble Lords of a key member of their staff, so we have to be careful that we do not cause those kinds of circumstances.

Amendment 22 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that I too visited the King’s Cross development when I was looking at the development of the central part of Stevenage. The work that has been done there is fantastic.

As I stated in Committee, in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I do not believe that the proposal in Amendment 22 is the right approach. The Government have thought carefully about where landlords should be able to take possession of their properties, particularly where it would lead to a tenant losing their home through no fault of their own.

Encouraging residential lets to be converted to other uses, at a time of such chronic pressure on housing supply, would not be right. It is for the same reason that the Bill abolishes ground 3, which enables landlords to evict long-term tenants in order to turn the dwelling into a holiday let. Where landlords wish to convert their property to non-residential use, it is right that they should do this as tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant who has done nothing wrong.

It is also worth noting—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to—that the existing redevelopment ground, ground 6, could potentially be used in some circumstances. This is the right approach, not the approach put forward in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.

I turn to Amendment 23. This well-intentioned amendment would create a new mandatory possession ground to allow landlords to evict tenants in order to redevelop their property, if they have received planning permission for the works and these works cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that landlords will already be able to evict in these circumstances. They can do this by using the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6. This also does not require the landlord to prove that they have planning permission, which may not be necessary in all circumstances. In effect, this proposed new ground would merely duplicate ground 6, but with additional constraints. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can she be categorical that anybody seeking to redevelop their property would be able to terminate a tenancy to do so?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

You can use the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6, when you are redeveloping property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Turning to my first amendment, I recognise that the Minister has given some serious consideration to the definition of family and is satisfied with the Government’s position. We respectfully disagree, but I will not press Amendment 4 and will therefore withdraw it.

We have had an excellent debate on Amendment 21. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing it and the many noble Lords who raised issues on it. They have spoken with clarity and conviction. We believe that allowing a property to be used to house a carer in a time of need not only is reasonable but can be vital to the well-being and living standards of the property owner, and on these Benches we are pleased to support this amendment.

Finally, turning to the issue of redevelopment and regeneration, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his contribution. Revitalising areas is key to improving living standards and supporting the long-term well-being and development of communities, delivering the growth that this Government have said is their number one priority. It is also crucial to delivering the homes that are so vital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the Minister said earlier in the debate. I appreciate the Minister’s comment that this may already be covered, but we are not satisfied that it is. The Minister’s comments were not conclusive when I sought clarification. I will therefore test the opinion of the House on Amendment 23.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

23: Schedule 1, page 194, line 7, at end insert—
“Possession for redevelopment and regeneration of private rented homes
24A After Ground 8 insert—“Ground 8A
The following conditions are met—(a) the private landlord intends to redevelop the dwelling-house for the purpose of regeneration, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied; (b) the private landlord has complied with all relevant tenancy obligations up to the date of possession;(c) the private landlord has given six months’ notice; (d) a planning application has been made.In this Ground—“Redevelopment” means—(a) demolition or reconstruction of all or a substantial part of the dwelling-house, or(b) substantial works to the dwelling-house or any building of which it forms part;“Regeneration” means the process of improving an area through coordinated measures that either—(a) secure the redevelopment, refurbishment, or enhancement of land, buildings, or infrastructure,(b) promote economic growth, including through the creation of employment opportunities and support for local enterprise, or(c) advance social wellbeing by improving housing, public services, community facilities, and the overall quality of life for residents;“Private landlord” means a landlord who is not a registered provider of social housing.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new group for possession where a landlord has made a planning application, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we should be supporting regeneration, enabling more housing and employment, and the renting of property in the meantime. While I appreciate the comment from the Minister, I am not reassured. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

24: Clause 6, page 8, leave out lines 11 and 12
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from expanding the definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” by regulations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet my noble friend Lady Scott and me to discuss the contents of the government amendments in this group. We are grateful that she has returned to the House with what has been referred to as a “break glass” provision, finally acknowledging that the Government’s policy may indeed lead to a significant backlog in the tribunal system.

However, on these Benches we struggle to understand why the Government, having recognised the problem, have not sought to take proactive steps to prevent such a backlog in the first place. Waiting until the system is overwhelmed before acting is not good policy. It also cannot be right that rent determinations made by tribunals can result only in the rent being revised downward. This creates a clear and perverse incentive. There is no risk to bringing a case if the rent cannot go up and can only go down. Why not try your luck? You may as well. It encourages unnecessary and speculative tribunal claims.

That is why I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for their consistent work on this issue and for the thoughtful amendments they have tabled. Both noble Lords have highlighted the problem with clarity. The current system gives tenants an incentive to challenge rent, knowing that they have nothing to lose. We would therefore support Amendment 31 should my noble friend decide to press it to a vote. It would correct the imbalance by allowing for rent to be revised upwards as well as downwards, restoring fairness to the process.

Amendment 42, which stands in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct a formal review of the tribunal system responsible for rent determinations. We on these Benches recognise the potential for tribunal backlogs that the “break glass” amendment is supposed to address, but we do not believe that will be the case. Hence, we believe that a comprehensive review is necessary to help us understand the true pressure being placed on the system and how best to mitigate it.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for recognising the overburdening of the tribunal system with Amendment 29, but it would add an additional filtering step rather than seek to reduce the incentive to go in the first place, especially when there is no downside to doing so, which we think would be the more appropriate way of addressing the issue.

Finally, I will say a word on Amendment 24, which concerns preventing the Secretary of State expanding the definition of a relevant low-cost tenancy by regulation. This is important because such a power, if exercised without scrutiny, could significantly broaden the Bill’s scope in unintended ways. It is vital that any change to this definition comes before Parliament not simply through ministerial discretion. From these Benches we look forward to hearing from noble Lords across the House on these issues. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness.

Regarding Amendment 24, at present private registered providers of social housing can grant secure or assured tenancies. The majority of these are let at social rents. Social rents are regulated by the social housing regulator. The definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” in the Bill reflects these arrangements. If the Government or the social housing sector were to change how rent is determined or regulated, this power would enable the Secretary of State to make technical amendments to reflect this or other changing circumstances. As the power relates only to the definition of relevant low-cost tenancies, I assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State will not be able to use this power to change the legislation to affect market-rate tenancies. Based on this, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 30, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her engagement on this issue. The Government fully support efforts to improve the energy efficiency of homes in the private rented sector, particularly where tenants are proactive in accessing support through government-backed schemes. The amendment as drafted would mean that any increase in value arising from these improvements would be disregarded, even if it was funded partly by public money. Therefore, if landlords have made sizeable investments themselves in improving the energy efficiency of their properties without government grants, under this amendment they would not be able to increase rent to reflect those improvements.

The tribunal has experts, such as surveyors, who will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence on whether or not they think that the rent increase is justified. The tribunal already ignores any improvements to the property made by the tenant, to avoid inflating the rent. However, it is likely to be more challenging in practice for the tribunal to differentiate rent levels based on whether energy-efficiency upgrades were funded through specific grant schemes—particularly where the tenant was not directly responsible for the work. This may complicate the tribunal process.

We recognise that it is very important that means-tested energy-efficiency grant schemes are used to benefit tenants. That is why, for the warm homes local grant, which was launched in April, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a clear expectation that landlords should declare that they do not intend to raise rents as a direct result of the upgrades being made. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly highlighted the importance of ensuring that landlords do not profit unduly from government-funded improvements and that the value of these schemes should flow primarily to tenants, given the impact on many people living in poverty, and the threat of eviction. We have carefully considered these points and believe that the measures already being introduced strike the right balance.

In conclusion, the landlord declaration, introduced and overseen by DESNZ through the warm homes local grant, will include a commitment from landlords not to increase rents as a result of improvements made using the grant funding. I hope that this offers the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reassurance that the Government are taking this issue seriously. For those reasons, I respectfully ask her not to move her amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard, has proposed two amendments to the process for challenging rents at the tribunal within the first six months of the tenancy. On Amendment 31, the ability to challenge rent in the first six months of the tenancy is a vital safety valve, ensuring that tenants cannot continue to be ripped off if they have been pressured into an unfair rent. Landlords who have agreed a fair market price have nothing to fear from this mechanism. This amendment would exacerbate the worry that tenants already face about going to a tribunal to enforce their rights. Tenants will not challenge rents if they risk being worse off following a tribunal ruling. The Bill encourages tenants to engage the tribunal when they have legitimate concerns. By reinforcing the rights of tenants to do so, we are disincentivising the minority of landlords from pressurising tenants into unfair rents at the beginning of a tenancy. The way for landlords to avoid this is to make sure that their rents are fair at the start of the tenancy.

On Amendment 32, the Government are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal during the first six months of their tenancy only where they believe that their rent is above market rates or that they have been pressured into an unjustified initial rent. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate about what adjustments to rent might be reasonable. The noble Lord asked how a tribunal determines a fair rent. To determine the market rate, the First-tier Tribunal considers a wide range of evidence, such as the price of similar properties being advertised online and evidence submitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase.

The First-tier Tribunal has experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors that result in the market rate and determining whether the rent is reflective of this. The First-tier Tribunal is best placed to do this in the new tenancy system. It is also worth noting that tribunals have had the power to adjudicate rent levels in line with the market rent since the Housing Act 1988, and since then the market rate has continued to increase. However, if the rent is challenged and the tribunal determines that a rent exceeds the open market rate, it is right that the tribunal can backdate the lower rent to the date of the tenant’s challenge and that the landlord repay the difference to the tenant. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Howard, not to press his amendments.

I turn now to Amendments 33 to 36 and 40. The Government recognise that some tenants may avoid challenging unreasonable rent increases out of fear that they will be saddled with significant amounts of backdating, which they will be unable to afford. By removing the ability of the tribunals to backdate a rent increase, tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, will be empowered to challenge what they believe to be an above market rate rent increase. This reduces the risk of an unreasonable rent increase causing a tenant financial hardship, or even being used to force someone out of their home. This is a really important measure to encourage people to challenge unreasonable rent increases.

Amendments 34 to 36 and 40 in particular may only heighten the risk of vulnerable tenants feeling unable to challenge an above market rent increase. We know that tenants and landlords are usually eager to maintain a positive relationship and will not bring the other to court or tribunal without good reason. As such, I ask the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Howard, not to press these amendments.

I turn finally to Amendment 42. The tribunal has over 30 years’ experience in making determinations of unfair rent increases, having carried out this function since the Housing Act 1988. We have full confidence in the tribunal’s ability to carry out this function in a fair way. I appreciate the need for the justice system to be ready for our reforms and for landlords and tenants to access justice in a timely way. We are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of our reforms on the tribunal and to lessen these wherever possible. This close collaboration has been ongoing for a number of years and in a great amount of detail.

The amendment we have tabled to our rent increase measures shows that we are listening to the concerns of the sector and this House about tribunal workloads. It puts in place a safeguard in case it is needed. We will already be collecting extensive data to assess the impact of these reforms. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we have committed to monitor and evaluate our reform programme. We will use a range of sources to support this. Existing datasets will be used, and new data will be collected. We are committed to publishing the evaluation findings at the two and five-year points after the Bill’s implementation.

I will respond to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the justice impact test. The justice impact test we are undertaking with the Ministry of Justice will identify additional burdens on the justice system, but they are internal government documents and are not published. The test is ongoing and regularly reviewed to ensure that it reflects any changes to legislation as the Bill continues its journey through Parliament. We are fully focused on making sure the justice system is prepared for changes to court case load and procedures that will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to that effect, including investing additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated.

In this context and in the context of the review that I have already outlined, both in the course of discussing these amendments and earlier today, I do not think it is necessary to commit to undertake any further review. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for setting out the Government’s amendments. However, we remain disappointed that the so-called “break glass” power is reactive in nature and fails to address the underlying incentives that drive unnecessary cases. Noble Lords across the House have raised the risk of the tribunal system being overwhelmed. Although I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on mechanisms, there are no firm proposals. Therefore, on that basis, we will support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on Amendment 31 if he is minded to push it to the vote.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has raised, and we requested in Committee, the Government have failed to publish the justice impact test. I heard the Minister’s comments, but I asked her to publish it before Report given its importance and the concern across the House about the impact of the Bill on the justice system.

Amendment 42 seeks a review of the impact on the tribunal system. As we have another amendment later, reviewing the impact on the justice system in its entirety, we will not press this amendment now.

Serious concerns remain about the Secretary of State’s discretion to expand the definition of low-cost tenancies. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the breadth of the powers they are granting. That said, I will withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to try to understand what the definition of rent is if we are going to control rents or somehow curtail them or attenuate the increases.

One can see the base rate just by googling property websites. It is a good idea to get a feel for the cost of a basic, low-cost, unfurnished property in the worst part of town, but that is not necessarily the market price, which is determined by a number of factors: the property may be furnished; it may be serviced accommodation; there may be porterage; there may be other benefits— I am not going to go as far as swimming pools and gyms, but I know they are available in some circumstances. Parking would be another one. All these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases, which may be determined by factors outside the landlord’s control. A property that has inclusive parking may become significantly more valuable, one could anticipate, if the local council applies permits on the streets around it.

I am tempted to support Amendment 25, but I am reluctant to do so because at the moment all these extras are rolled into the single price. The logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we will get menu pricing, rather as we see on low-cost airlines. There may be an attractive flight—£5.99 to fly to Spain or whatever—but by the time you add in the baggage, the booking fee and everything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point that the risk of the price going up over the four-year period may be somewhat attenuated, but those extras amounting to what I would call the landed price, or total cost of ownership, could vary accordingly.

Another significant point that we need to take into account is that there may be Section 20 repairs or improvements, particularly in the case of furnished accommodation where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade the fixed furnishings, such as tables and chairs and possibly soft furnishings as well. All of this complicates what is a rolled-up figure at the moment. The logical conclusion is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, so it is going be harder to compare for the potential tenant. But it is going to be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way in the circumstance of a First-tier Tribunal appeal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent—that £5.99 figure. It is very difficult.

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I cannot support it because I think the logical conclusion of it will be that we will get a fragmentation of the landed rent so that the tail wags the dog. The landlord will be so focused on restricting the base rate that those other things will get lost.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have concerns about a number of amendments in this group on the basis that they are unduly prescriptive and risk the introduction of what could be regarded as, in effect, a form of rent control.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seek to protect the tribunal from being overloaded due to the Bill. While we agree that there is significant risk of overload, we have concerns about how the arrangements would function. In particular, we do not feel able to support a system that ties rental increases to CPI. CPI is a generalised index that reflects the prices of bread, fuel, clothing and so forth, but not rental market dynamics. What happens in areas where market rents are falling but inflation is high, or where incomes are stagnant while CPI rises? This approach uses a national economic measure to benchmark against a highly localised rental market, and the result would almost certainly be a distorted rental market. That said, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the impact of the Bill on tribunals’ backlogs, which we discussed at length in Committee.

Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raises some important points. There is no doubt that rent affordability is a serious issue, and the amendment rightly draws attention to a range of important factors: the regional disparities in rental costs, the strain of high rents placed on household finances and the need to understand how effectively the First-tier Tribunal is working in practice. However, I must also sound a note of realism. We do not need another report for its own sake. We need actual change that improves the lives of renters and restores fairness to a housing system that too often feels stacked against ordinary people. If this review is to go ahead, it must not become just another document left to gather dust on the shelves of the department—it must lead to action. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline how the Government will respond to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness in her amendment, which we agree are all points which matter in this debate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments relating to rent affordability and rent controls, and the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for speaking in this discussion. I have the deepest respect for the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young, and their experience, and for the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who has vast experience in this area too. I am grateful for their contributions.

I do not intend to revisit the detailed discussions we had in Committee. They were detailed and informed deliberations, and I know how strongly some noble Lords and tenant groups feel about helping those who struggle to pay high rents. I absolutely understand the pressure that rents put on the budgets of individuals and families. To come back to the points that we made earlier in the debate, obviously the solution to this is to create a lot more social and affordable housing, but I realise that is not going to happen overnight.

However, I must reiterate the Government’s concern that rent controls, as proposed, would risk reducing housing supply, discouraging investment and ultimately lowering property standards. In the case of Amendment 25, the most relevant international comparator is Ontario, an example that I also cited in Committee. I am afraid that the Ontario model, whereby rent increases are capped according to a measure of inflation, has not led to desirable outcomes. In fact, analysis suggests that the result has been higher rents for new tenants.

In respect of the experience in Scotland, a recent Nationwide Foundation report by the Indigo House Group found that rent control measures had not protected the majority of private rented sector tenants against excessive rent increases or against high advertised market rents, considering average advertised rents in the system as a whole. The measures in Scotland do not appear to have impacted rental price growth, because Scotland has consistently been one of the regions in the UK with the highest growth in asking rents. For example, according to Zoopla, in the year to January 2024, when the rent freeze was in place, Scotland was the only UK region with a double-digit annual rent growth, at 11.6%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the three amendments here are interesting. The noble Baroness is well aware that we share the same concerns as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, regarding shared owners. I was allowed to gatecrash their meeting. I admit that it was eye-opening for me. I was aware of the issues around shared ownership, but I was shocked at the costs incurred and the amounts of money lost, which the noble Lord has amplified superbly. I hope the noble Baroness can give us some way forward on this and other issues that seriously affect shared owners—accidental landlords who are trapped in the situations the noble Lord has accurately described and see no way out. The “What can I do?” was quite revealing. It is no surprise that we will support Amendment 59.

We know that the not-able-to-sell situation applies to thousands of shared owners—far greater numbers than, I suspect, Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, applies to. This is yet another area in the Bill where we do not know the numbers. We do not know how many homes will be affected. I have to pay credit to the noble Lord because Amendment 58 has been patiently worked on and lobbied for by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I completely understand where he is coming from but perhaps do not agree that the detriment to the relatively few landlords who find they cannot sell their property is worth the abuses that might occur if prohibition on re-letting is reduced to six months rather than 12 as in the Bill. Perhaps this is an area for some compromise.

I have a simple question, and I am sure somebody will tell me I am wrong. If I genuinely wanted to sell my property and realise my capital for whatever reason, given the amount of time to evict, I would probably not serve notice to my tenant until I had sold my property. I can serve the notice; the process of selling, conveyancing and everything else carries on; the tenant leaves at the appropriate time; the buyers exchange contracts and we say, “You can’t move in until that time”. I do not see how that would be unachievable. I am sure somebody will tell me why that would not be the case. I certainly would not evict them before I put it on the market or had some sense of the market or of how things were. As I said in Committee, a letting agent said to me, “All houses will sell, Dorothy. It just depends on the price”.

Amendment 41, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is clearly designed to act as a disincentive to landlords trying to abuse this ground, but maybe if the landlord is genuine, it is just a little too draconian. We broadly agree that the Bill has got this right, as far as we can tell.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to offer my full support to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 59 addresses a significant gap in the Bill by providing a vital exemption for shared ownership leaseholders from certain provisions within Clause 14. Shared ownership is an important tenure model that enables many people to take their first step on to the housing ladder, yet it is not without its challenges, particularly when sales fall through, as my noble friend has highlighted. Amendment 59 is a sensible and necessary provision that recognises the realities faced by shared ownership landlords. Protecting this group helps to maintain confidence in shared ownership and prevents unintended consequences that could undermine the Bill’s original intent. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is minded to test the opinion of the House, the Opposition will support him without hesitation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments and their engagement on these issues. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

On Amendment 58, we want to strengthen tenant security and prevent abuse of ground 1A. A 12-month no re-let period will act as a deterrent to unscrupulous landlords who want to evict tenants so that they can let to a new tenant for more rent or because the tenants are asking for repairs that the landlord does not want to do. We understand this is a strict measure, and it is meant to be. It is intended to ensure that only landlords who genuinely wish to sell their property will wish to use that ground and to deter from using it landlords looking to evict a tenant in order to re-let at a higher rent or to a different tenant. Not only will landlords have to forgo rental income for 12 months after using ground 1A but should they be found to be misusing the ground, they could be fined up to £40,000. It is right that we have these strong tenant protections in place.

This amendment would also bring significant complexity to the system, and I struggle to see how it would work in practice. It would allow the courts to require evidence that the dwelling had been on the open market for six months and that no suitable offers had been received, but it is unclear how the courts would become involved. Additionally, it could place undue burdens on courts which may have to follow up on any ground 1A evictions to check whether the landlord had tried to sell for six months and whether they had received any suitable offers. The court would also have to determine what a suitable offer was, which would be another undue burden. The no re-let rule is a clear and simple rule that would not benefit from further complexity. I believe this amendment would open the no re-let period to abuse, reducing tenant security and contradicting the aims of this Bill.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated, if a landlord is genuinely planning to sell a property, they can market it to gauge interest before upending the tenant’s life by evicting them. This would be more effective for all parties than evicting as soon as they decide to sell and only then putting it on the market and waiting for suitable offers. For all these reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, not to press this amendment.

On Amendment 41, I understand from our helpful discussions that my noble friend Lord Hacking’s intent here is to remove the period during which a landlord cannot re-let the property after using grounds 1 and 1A and instead prevent the rent being increased in the new tenancy. While this amendment addresses one of the goals of the no re-let period by making it unprofitable for landlords to abuse the moving and selling grounds, it does not address the other key reason to prevent abuse. Even if an unscrupulous landlord could not profit from abusing the grounds, they could still, under my noble friend’s proposals, use these grounds with no intention of moving in or selling to pursue retaliatory evictions. This means abusing the grounds to get rid of a tenant who had done nothing wrong but whom, for example, the landlord simply did not like or who they considered raised too many issues with the property.

These abuses of the system are exactly what the 12-month no re-let period aims to prevent. In the current system, under Section 21, we hear all too often of tenants afraid to ask for repairs because the landlord has made it clear that they will evict them if they do. Under my noble friend’s proposal, this could still happen. The opening up of the grounds to abuse must be resisted. The 12-month no re-let period is a strong disincentive for landlords to abuse the grounds, and I believe that it strikes the right balance. As such, I ask my noble friend not to push his amendment to a Division.

I turn now to Amendment 59. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his engagement on this issue and for introducing me to the Shared Owners’ Network. These clauses implement critical protections for tenants. If a landlord has used the selling or moving-in ground, they will not be able to re-let or market a property for 12 months. That period starts from the date of possession proceedings, as specified in their Section 8 notice to the tenant. These clauses also include other important prohibited landlord behaviours.

The Government are aware that some shared owners with building safety issues are facing very difficult circumstances through no fault of their own. The Shared Owners’ Network has provided invaluable insight into this issue. We are continuing to engage with it to determine how best to support these shared owners. We will have a dialogue with the registered providers as well. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion in that regard. To respond to another of his comments, I will clarify the licence points to him in writing.

However, I do not agree that, by helping in one area, other blameless tenants should have reduced security of tenure or be exposed to the risk of wrongful eviction just because of who their landlord is. We have to get the balance right somehow, to support those who find themselves in this awful position but not at the expense of other tenants. We will continue to work on that. All assured tenants must benefit from the new system.

I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press this amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 72 and 86. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for giving such a good explanation of them. I wish I had lobbied the Minister more, as all three amendments in this group are very good and very sensible.

Turning first to Amendment 72, I was talking last night to a friend who has very severe disabilities. He said he had noticed that, while landlords are very slow at making improvements or adaptations and allowing their tenants to do so, business, retail business in particular, is moving ahead. He talked about a new retail development in Yeovil where everything is accessible. It is roll-in, roll-out, and people with disabilities in wheelchairs, for example, have full access.

It seems that businesses are taking this seriously, so why are the Government and landlords not doing so? Renters of all ages face challenges—it is not only the older ones among us—but older renters are particularly vulnerable, for several reasons. They are more likely to have health issues or disabilities, which means they are more at risk of becoming ill because of poor housing. They are also more likely to live in poor quality homes. In view of our ageing population, this is not just a good thing to do but entirely necessary.

I welcome the support of the LGA for Amendment 86, as promoting equitable housing access and preventing discrimination is fundamental to our society. It is essential that tenants are protected from unfair discrimination when seeking housing. I do hope that Labour listens. We have seen with its welfare reforms what happens when Labour does not listen to the needs of disabled people. These are simple changes, but they are important. They would change the lives of our ageing population for the better, now and in the future—and that is what a progressive Government should do.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for speaking in this debate. It is a sensitive issue. It concerns adaptations for some of the most vulnerable in our society and touches on those who require the greatest compassion and care. We do need to support people to live independently in their own home. As a council leader, I was proud that we built a number of fully accessible, affordable homes for the disabled.

However, I must express some concerns about Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This Bill is focused on the private rented sector, yet the amendment introduces provisions relating to social tenancies. As my noble friend Lady Scott alluded to earlier today, social housing providers have not been widely consulted in the lead-up to this Bill. Imposing new requirements on them without proper consultation and discussion would be inappropriate. Any such change rightly belongs in a dedicated social housing Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said earlier that she would seek to write to social landlords and perhaps this is another opportunity for her to do so.

Furthermore, the amendment is riddled with gaps. It lacks clarity on important matters such as what happens when a tenant leaves, who is responsible for reinstatement, its cost and the loss of rent while work is carried out. There is also the issue of ensuring work is carried out to a high standard and that structural integrity is maintained. These issues are vital to maintaining the value and usability of the property, and the amendment fails to address them adequately.

Turning to Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I note that it defines “minor changes” as including structural alterations. Structural alterations hardly seem minor. While I fully appreciate the noble Baroness’s intentions and her compassionate approach, which we all share, this is a complex issue. I strongly believe that we must strike a careful balance between compassion, cost and deliverability, and we must do so in a thorough and considered manner. I hope that your Lordships’ House agrees.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for moving it so ably, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. He may remember that I visited some of the housing that he developed when he was a council leader to pinch some ideas for my own local authority. It was indeed very accessible.

Amendment 56, from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would require landlords to allow disability adaptations when a local authority has carried out a home assessment and recommended changes to be made. While the Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled renters, I completely accept that they are not always as well understood as they should be. It is right that we consider how to address barriers preventing disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need. However, as I stated in Committee, I do not consider that this amendment is the right way to do this. A new requirement linked to local authority home assessments would create a confusing two-tier system. As a consequence, even these well-intentioned measures might make it harder for people who are not eligible for disabled facilities grants to access adaptations.

As I previously set out, the Government have committed to take steps to clarify matters further to support disabled renters. We all recognise what a vital issue this is and the difference it can make to someone’s life to have adequate access to their property. We will look to ensure that the written statement of terms that landlords will have to provide to new tenants includes the duty on landlords not to unreasonably refuse tenant requests for disability adaptations.

We also intend to work closely with the sector to deliver a communications and engagement programme to raise awareness of disability-related rights and obligations among tenants and landlords, and we will explore enhancing guidance to help landlords and tenants better understand the current system. This is in addition to existing provisions in the Bill that empower disabled tenants to request the home adaptations they need. For example, by abolishing Section 21 evictions, we will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction, and the creation of the new ombudsman will give tenants a new route of redress when their adaptations are refused.

The Government have also increased funding for the disabled facilities grant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned. We have increased the grant by £86 million, bringing the total amount to £711 million. On the role of local authorities, they must provide a decision on the disabled facilities grant application within six months of receipt and the works must usually be completed within 12 months of the approval date. I appreciate that that can feel like a long time when you are waiting for an adaptation, but the Government have published guidance for local authorities in England to help to support the efficient local delivery of the disabled facilities grant, including speed of delivery. I appreciate that in some areas the availability of occupational therapists to do the assessments has proved an issue. Many local authorities are looking carefully at this issue, and I know we will be taking steps to address it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

It is my understanding that student groups are happy with this amendment and against the blanket use of guarantors. The current use of guarantors is, I am afraid, a proxy for discrimination against vulnerable groups. There is evidence that black renters are 66% more likely to be asked for a guarantor—I know that has already been said, but it is so profoundly shocking that it bears repetition. If you are on benefits, you are 60% more likely to be asked; if you have a disability, it is 20%. The great Equality Act 2010 is being driven over with the use of guarantors and I am delighted to support this amendment.

I read with a lot of care the Front-Bench speeches in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested that guarantors can be a lifeline for those with poor credit or no rental history, but on these Benches we genuinely believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The harsh and stark reality is that 550,000 private renters were unable to secure a desired home in the last five years because they lacked a guarantor.

There is not a single organisation that I am aware of that campaigns and advocates on behalf of people who could be described as those who need that kind of lifeline, who are on no or a low income, which opposes this amendment. That includes working-class, international, estranged and care-experienced students who struggle to find suitable guarantors because they do not know anyone in those highest quartiles, which are the only guarantors that many landlords will accept. They just do not have those contacts or connections.

The noble Lord further suggested that tenants have market discretion or choice if a landlord is imposing a blanket guarantor policy. That defies the logic of the current marketplace, where the low-income tenant is never in the luxury position of shopping around. Again, that choice rests only with those whose income is in the higher quartiles.

On the Minister’s point in the same discussion about guarantors providing confidence, we must ask: at what cost to fairness? Landlords already have really robust tools: a five-week deposit, the first month’s rent up front, and affordability checks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, guarantors are rarely invoked in practice. Like the noble Lord, I am currently a guarantor for my son, who is a student, so I completely understand that this is what we currently do. But in the past two years less than 3% of landlords have ever attempted to claim lost rent from a guarantor. When they did, it was 16 times more likely to be difficult than easy. Landlords have other, much more appropriate business risk management tools, such as rent guarantee insurance, rather than relying on a tenant’s family member, and so many of these tenants do not have a family member who is earning way above the median income, which is what is demanded.

Even before this legislation has come into effect, there is a worrying rise. A 2024 Generation Rent survey of its supporters found that 30% of private renters who had moved in 2023-24 had been asked for a guarantor—up from 22% of people who had moved in 2019. Always in this context, I fear that the debate is held on a presumption that renters lack responsibility somehow, unlike other tenures. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, only 2% of tenants were reported as in arrears in 2023-24. The vast majority of tenants are responsible individuals, who, by the way, often forgo other things, such as heating and eating, in order to pay rent, because they understand the severe consequences of not doing so and because the market is so limited for them.

This amendment is not a radical proposal. As Generation Rent and Shelter argue, it simply ensures that guarantors are used sparingly, appropriately and only when absolutely necessary, when a prospective tenant genuinely cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This entirely aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own current guidance.

When the Minister responds, if the Government are unable to stop this loophole for discriminatory practice, will she at least make it clear, either today or perhaps in a letter to follow, that guarantors should be used only as a last resort, that the Equality Act should be used if there is further evidence of discrimination, and that landlords already have the means to ensure that tenants pay through other mechanisms? I hope that her words today will ensure that the widespread use of guarantors is not the next version of no-fault evictions.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the many who have spoken in this debate, particularly the three noble Baronesses who have spoken very passionately to say that we need to support some of the most vulnerable in our society. I agree that we need to support them.

As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, many councils use the fact that they can act as a guarantor to enable many of the most vulnerable to access a home which they would, in other circumstances, not be able to. There is clearly an appropriate role for the guarantee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, just mentioned, there is a shortage of rental accommodation—I think the figure is something like 12 people chasing every available rented home. We need to think about this when we are discussing this Bill. How do we encourage more people to rent their home so that we have a more dynamic market, with more availability there?

It is widely recognised that we need more rental homes, as is the importance of small landlords, particularly in rural areas. We also need to recognise that many of these small landlords have only one or two homes. For many of them, it is a substitute pension, and many of them have mortgages on these homes. If that is the case, they need security that they will get the rental income; otherwise, it is just too high a risk. Some noble Lords have said that the risk is small, but if it is your only asset and you have got a mortgage on it, you may not feel able to take that risk. As we have discussed before, without this, many would have no choice but to exit the market, meaning fewer rental homes and fewer people able to access a home—more people on the street. That is a particular issue in rural areas with small landlords.

Guarantors play a crucial role in the rental market. They provide an essential layer of security, offering landlords the reassurance that the rent will be paid, even if the tenant experiences financial difficulties. As we have mentioned earlier, for tenants, particularly students and young people or those without a strong credit history, a guarantor can be key to securing a home which might otherwise be out of reach. This is partly why we are so passionate about enabling rent in advance. That provision is especially helpful for individuals facing barriers, such as overseas students without UK credit records, or those who simply have no one to act as a guarantor.

With that context, I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has brought forward this amendment. However, I regret to say that, on this side of the House, we cannot support it. First, it is overly prescriptive and would constrain landlords from making what is, in many cases, a reasonable response to financial risk. Secondly, preventing landlords requiring a guarantor in such circumstances could have the unintended consequence of discouraging them from renting to high-risk tenants altogether. Thirdly, it would undermine a market-led approach to risk mitigation. Finally, the amendment would afford a broad and, we believe, inappropriate delegation of power. Combined, this would, as I said earlier, reduce the supply of available homes, increase the cost to a tenant and mean fewer people are able to get their own home. For these reasons, we cannot support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 62, I will speak also to Amendments 63, 65 and 66. In Committee, I raised some problems with the way the Bill was drafted for joint tenants in respect of notices to quit under assured tenancies defined in Clauses 21 and 22. It was anticipated in Committee that the issues raised would be examined further, and I thank for the Minister for having done this.

The problem was that where joint tenants had a breakdown in their relationship, there could be unforeseen consequences for one joint tenant, who might be unaware, for example, that a notice to quit had been served by the other joint tenant. I am grateful for the assistance provided by Citizens Advice, whose front-line staff identified this problem and proposed solutions, and for the work done by the Minister and her department in drafting Amendments 64 and 67, which I welcome.

I look forward to the Minister’s explanations of Amendments 64 and 67 in the expectation that I will then seek to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to joint tenancies and the procedural requirements for serving and responding to notices to quit. These amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to ensure that the provisions in Clauses 21 and 22 apply expressly and fairly to all assured tenancies. The spirit of these amendments is to promote transparency and fairness, ensuring that no tenant is left unaware of or disadvantaged by unilateral actions.

As we have discussed in this debate and in Committee, joint tenancies are an important and increasingly common form of tenancy arrangement, particularly among families, couples and shared households. Given that multiple tenants hold equal rights and responsibilities, it is only right and fair that the Bill reflects this reality by requiring all parties to be kept informed of significant developments affecting their tenancy.

These amendments propose sensible procedural safeguards. The requirement that any notice to quit served by one joint tenant be communicated in writing to all other joint tenants is fair. Similarly, where a landlord serves notice, all joint tenants should be notified promptly. It is also noteworthy that some amendments specify that certain agreements, such as those shortening notice periods or withdrawing notices to quit, must involve the consent of all joint tenants rather than just one. This is a balanced recognition of the collective nature of joint tenancies and the importance of mutual consent in such decisions.

As the Bill continues to evolve, it is our shared goal to ensure a rental market that is fair and workable for all parties involved. Although we fully understand and respect the intentions behind these amendments and welcome the constructive debate they have sparked, it is important to consider the practical implications. Requiring unanimous consent or detailed notice procedures could, in some circumstances, add complexity or delay, especially in situations where tenants’ circumstances change rapidly. Therefore, although we support the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in joint tenancies, we urge careful consideration of the balance between protecting tenants’ rights and maintaining workable, efficient processes for landlords and tenants alike.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments on joint tenancies; Citizens Advice, which has provided the benefit of its significant expertise in this area throughout the Bill’s passage; and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution.

Turning first to Amendments 62 and 66, the Government’s intention is not that tenants on a joint tenancy can unilaterally end that tenancy sooner than expected, nor should a tenant be able to trap another in a tenancy indefinitely by withdrawing a notice to quit. As such, I am pleased to confirm that the Government have tabled Amendments 64 and 67, which achieve the same effect as those laid by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

Government Amendment 64 will apply where a tenant who wants to serve a notice to quit in a joint tenancy seeks to agree a shorter notice period with the landlord. All other joint tenants will need to agree the shorter notice period as well for the notice to quit to be valid. This will ensure that tenants will not be able to agree short notice periods for a notice to quit without their other joint tenants being aware, preventing tenants finding out at potentially very short notice that their tenancy is ending. This was not the Government’s intention, and I am pleased to be able to clarify this issue beyond doubt in the Bill.

Government Amendment 67 will clarify that all joint tenants must agree, alongside the landlord, for a notice to quit to be withdrawn. This will ensure that it is clear that tenants must all agree to sustain a tenancy and make absolutely clear that one tenant cannot trap another in a tenancy indefinitely. These changes will ensure that joint tenancies can continue to operate effectively in the future tenancy regime and ensure maximum clarity for all parties. As such, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments and will instead support the government amendments.

Turning now to the noble Lord’s other amendments, Amendment 63 would require a tenant to inform all other joint tenants of their serving a notice to quit, and the landlord to do the same. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord’s intent. We all agree that tenants and landlords should communicate transparently with one another and take action to ensure that all parties are aware that a tenancy is coming to an end. With regret, however, I am unable to support codifying a requirement for this in law. The Government are concerned that, in certain circumstances, this may place individuals at risk. This is particularly true for victims of domestic abuse, who may not be able to safely inform a perpetrator that a notice to quit has been served. Indeed, some victims may choose not to serve a notice to quit at all. I also have practical concerns about the amendment. It might give rise to frustrating and counterproductive disputes between tenants. It might also cause tenants to question whether a tenancy has been validly ended if the requirement is not complied with.

Amendment 65 would allow a tenant to serve one month’s notice to end a tenancy if a landlord has served a possession notice on grounds 1 and 1A. That would be a reduction from the usual two months’ notice required by the Bill. Although I appreciate that the intent is to offer tenants greater flexibility to find a new property, we think the Bill strikes the right balance. Landlords must now give four months’ notice when using these grounds, and we think it is reasonable that the property be occupied for at least two months of this period, unless there is specific agreement to a shorter period.

I note that allowing a shorter notice period automatically might place other joint tenants in a difficult situation—for example, if they have not been able to find alternative accommodation as quickly as their housemates. This is recognised in the noble Lord’s other amendments. In many cases, the landlord will be supportive of a tenant moving out sooner than would otherwise be permitted. In those cases, there is nothing to stop all joint tenants and landlords agreeing a shorter notice period.

I hope that the noble Lord recognises that we have given very careful consideration to these amendments and have accepted those where we think the Bill could be strengthened, although I fully appreciate the intent behind his other amendments. I therefore ask him not to press those amendments for the reasons I have set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, on this amendment, I think we are unanimous. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for this amendment. I approve of his technical knowledge on this and can agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender—just occasionally.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope that the next day of Report will go just like that. It will be wonderful.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 74. As he noted, I have added my name to it, and I am delighted to do so. The Government are very pleased to support the amendment, technical as it is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, it will make a positive difference. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing this forward. The amendment is a positive step towards creating a fair and transparent rental market with a more streamlined regulatory process. We want to ensure that letting agent businesses are able to receive reliable and tailored advice on complying with regulations under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

The amendment will allow a primary authority scheme to be set up for the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The reliable and tailored assured advice issued by the primary authority is recognised by other local authorities. This helps businesses avoid costs and difficulties caused by different local authorities interpreting and enforcing the same rules inconsistently. The primary authority scheme also promotes great co-operation between businesses and regulators, fostering a collaborative environment that ultimately increases compliance rates while lowering enforcement costs and reducing administrative burdens. The Government strongly support the amendment, recognising its potential significantly to improve the rental market. I hope the whole House will support it.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

91: Clause 65, page 104, line 21, at end insert “, whose property is not managed by an agent who is a member of an independent redress scheme approved by the Secretary of State,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would only require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme if their tenant does not already have access to one by virtue of the landlord using an agent who is a member of another approved independent redress scheme to avoid duplication.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 91 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress through a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid duplication, prevent unnecessary regulatory burden, and ensure that the system remains proportionate and clear. Clarity and efficiency in regulation are not just desirable, they are essential for both compliance and effective enforcement.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“We take seriously the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication. Careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent redress provision”.—[Official Report, 14/5/25; col. 2211.]


We fully agree that tenants should have a clear and accessible route to redress, but that route must be simple, coherent and proportionate. A system that is overly complicated by parallel and potentially overlapping redress obligations could hinder rather than help. For example, if a landlord were a member of two redress schemes, which one should the tenant apply to—or both? How would liability be determined and does this not risk delay and confusion as lawyers from both redress schemes seek to argue it out?

This amendment seeks not to water down tenants’ rights but to ensure that those rights are delivered through a streamlined, efficient system that works in practice for tenants, landlords and agents alike. Clarity here is important. I hope that the Minister agrees. I beg to move.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment on Amendment 91 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. Their amendment would exempt a landlord from joining the new redress/ombudsman scheme if that landlord’s property is managed by an agent who is already a member of one of the existing redress/ombudsman schemes. I declare a past interest as chair for eight years of the Property Ombudsman, which handles complaints about agents. This amendment’s intention of avoiding duplication of membership of redress/ombudsman schemes is entirely right, otherwise the tenant is left puzzling over which ombudsman—their landlord’s or the agent’s—they should address their complaint to.

However, this amendment would not achieve the desired result. I know, from having had some responsibilities for redress in respect of managing/lettings agents, that the response from the agent to a complaint by a renter is often, “I was only doing what the landlord told me to do”. The agent may be justified in this: a renter may have requested an urgent repair and the agent did nothing, but the problem has been the landlord telling the agent that the cost is too high or the work is not needed. The intolerable delay is not the result of the agent’s negligence; it is the landlord who has held things up. These cases cannot be resolved because the landlord is not a member of any redress scheme, and that problem would persist if the landlord was exempted from having to join the new redress/ombudsman scheme.

To avoid duplication of having one redress/ombudsman scheme for landlords and one for property agents, I suggest the solution is for a single redress/ombudsman service for both. This would avoid complaints resolution being stymied and tenants being sent from pillar to post where two different ombudsman services are involved with one issue. I know the Government are still considering how best to introduce the new redress scheme for landlords in this Bill, and I recommend one port of call for tenants with a complaint. The position is already confusing, with the Housing Ombudsman providing a redress service for a few private landlords— as well as for all social landlords—and the Property Ombudsman and the separate Property Redress Scheme both providing redress schemes for property agents. Bringing in the new mandatory redress scheme for complaints about private landlords will add to the confusion for the consumer and the renter. This is a good moment to rationalise and consolidate the arrangements, but not by excluding the landlords who use an agent, which would not solve the problem.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her amendment on the landlord redress scheme, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.

Our new private rented sector landlord ombudsman will ensure that tenants are able to seek redress against their landlord when they have a legitimate complaint about the landlord’s action, inaction or behaviour. We are clear that landlords who use letting agents cannot delegate responsibility for their own actions or behaviours. Landlords almost always retain some responsibility for their property that cannot be passed on to agents—for example, making structural repairs in buildings. Tenants should be able to access redress if they experience issues such as this, regardless of whether their landlord uses an agent. That is why we think it is essential that both landlords and agents can be held to account for their individual responsibilities.

For landlords who have already voluntarily joined a redress scheme, once a mandatory private landlord ombudsman service is in place it will be tailored to the specific needs of the private rented sector, and those landlords will have to move to it. This will work better for the private rented sector, rather than having it mixed up with social housing. Landlords will be required to sign up to the new landlord database, and we are exploring how to align the sign-up process for this with the landlord ombudsman. That will help make it simple for landlords who are already members of an existing redress system to join the new landlord ombudsman service.

We are committed to ensuring that private residential tenants know where to complain and enjoy consistent standards of service and outcomes. Having private residential landlords as members of the same service will support this aim. We also want to ensure that, where it is not clear which scheme a tenant should complain to, there is no wrong access point for tenants. The schemes will be expected to work together to ensure that, regardless of where a tenant raises a complaint, it is effectively triaged and referred on to the right body with minimal input from the complainant.

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication, but we will work closely with the new ombudsman and the property agent redress schemes, support them to work effectively together and ensure that the process works smoothly for both tenants and landlords. For the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking on this important topic. I think we all agree that we want a system that works and is clear and easy to understand, although we seem to have some slight disagreements on how that might be best achieved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his agreement that the current system is confusing. I am also grateful to the Minister for her response and for engaging seriously with the concerns that have been raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, first, I support Amendment 105, from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am very glad to support him; he and I have worked together quite a lot on homelessness in York, where some noble Lords assisted us to make sure that those who were homeless could get a house where they would have a bed and a little kitchen, so that they had a bit of independence. The standard that we expect for others ought to be given to the homeless as well.

I also support Amendment 106, movingly spoken to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. When we had a debate in your Lordships’ House on the duty of having regard to the covenant, I told your Lordships a story; I think some of you were not here, and if you have forgotten, I can remind you—I will be very brief. A gentleman who had survived in Afghanistan in the Parachute Regiment returned to Yorkshire. He had been injured, and therefore could not go back to service. He visited four widows who had already been rehoused out of service accommodation because their husbands had died in the line of duty. Their accommodation, they said, was not any better than it had been in the service, so he said, “We should make the point very clearly by having a parachute jump”. At my age, people were advising me not to do it, but we did it, and we landed. When I got home, there was a retired soldier who had just sold his business. He was the first to give to this fundraising for four houses for widows. He gave £50,000 pounds. Of course, the amount went up, and I am very grateful to all those people who supported us.

If there is a duty in the covenant, it should apply to all our service personnel, and their accommodation ought to be as good as the instruments they use when they go to war. There is a similar story of the Yorkshire Regiment, where widows were put into accommodation that was not suitable. It breaks your heart. We signed a covenant, if your Lordships remember, to all the people who are in the service—Army, Air Force and others—that we have a duty to support them. This amendment is a challenge to all of us: we passed that covenant and we had better show up.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to this group on the decent homes standard, a commitment to ensure that all tenancies, regardless of tenure or circumstance, have access to safe, healthy and secure housing. In particular, I turn to Amendments 106 and 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. She, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted the persistent and ongoing issues that military and service accommodation faces.

We are in no doubt that those who serve our country and whose families bear the burdens of that service deserve decent homes. It is regrettable that, despite the application of the decent homes standard to military housing on a non-statutory basis since 2017, serious concerns persist about the condition and upkeep of military accommodation. These amendments offer Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm that military and service families should not be left behind.

We therefore welcome the commitments made in the strategic defence review on 2 June 2025, in which the Government announced an additional £1.5 billion in funding for our service family accommodation, bringing a total investment of £7 billion. Alongside this, the development of a new defence housing strategy and consumer charter, including timelines for repairs, named housing officers and a strengthened complaints process, is a step in the right direction. But such undertakings must be matched by effective and timely delivery. We would be grateful for greater clarity from the Minister on when the additional investment will begin to make a difference on the ground; what time- frame the Ministry of Defence has set for the implementation of these reforms; and how progress will be assessed, monitored and reported back to Parliament. Commitments of this scale demand not only ambition but accountability. Our Armed Forces and their families deserve more than expressions of appreciation; they deserve action and results. These amendments speak to that imperative, and that is why we are pleased to support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Altmann, for their amendments regarding the decent homes standard. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his experience and knowledge, which he showed in his contribution. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

Amendment 105 would take away the power of Ministers to set out in regulations the types of temporary homelessness accommodation that the decent homes standard would apply to. I completely understand the sentiment and intent behind these amendments. The Government intend to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible. Indeed, the consultation that we launched on the decent homes standard, which was published on 2 July and closes on 10 September, makes this very clear and asks for further information on it.

As I said in Committee, we have to strike the right balance between improving standards and avoiding risk to supply. Given the pressure on local authorities, which we all understand, there is sometimes no choice but to use forms of temporary accommodation, such as commercial hotels. It may not be possible for this to meet all decent homes standard requirements—for example, where there are no kitchen facilities. We want to avoid a situation where applying the decent homes standard could mean that such accommodation can no longer be used, even where there is no alternative, as this could make things worse for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, not better. Of course, the long-term solution is to provide a much greater quantity of affordable housing. In the meantime, we have to make sure we do not shut off vital resources to local authorities.

I hope that the right reverend Prelate is reassured by the Government’s intention to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible and to deliver the affordable housing that we know we need to solve the problem in the longer term, and that he recognises that the most practical way to make this change to the decent homes standards is through a regulation-making power. I therefore ask that he withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 106 would bring Ministry of Defence service family accommodation within the scope of the decent homes standards measures in the Bill, including enforcement of this standard by local authorities. No one, especially me, is going to disagree that those who defend our country deserve to live in decent homes. As I said in Committee, the Government absolutely recognise that action is required to tackle the poor state of forces’ housing. That is why we are already taking decisive steps to remedy the situation that we have inherited— I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that their party was in government just over a year ago, and we inherited this situation from them.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Ministry of Defence has concluded a landmark deal to bring military housing back into public ownership. It is also developing a defence housing strategy, which will be published later this year, that will set out further steps to bring about a renewal of military housing to restore it to the quality housing that we all want to see for our armed services.

As my right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence—and a great expert on housing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, acknowledges—said in his Statement to the other place on the strategic defence review,

“we will invest £7 billion of funding during this Parliament for military accommodation, including £1.5 billion of new money for rapid work to deal with the scandal of military family homes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/25; col. 53.]

He has also announced a consumer charter that will introduce new consumer rights for families in military homes. The Defence Secretary is instructing the MoD to immediately plan improvements to enhance service family homes after the years of neglect from which they have suffered. Improvements set out in the charter will be in place by the one-year anniversary of the announcement to buy back military homes, made last December, with the final detail to be shared in the defence housing strategy later this year.

In relation to standards, the MoD already uses the decent homes standard as a benchmark and applies its own decent homes-plus standard as the target standard for service family accommodation. The MoD is reviewing this standard in line with recommendations from the Kerslake review and the House of Commons Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, we supported the right reverend Prelate in Committee and will support the Government now. In my experience, a local authority takes very seriously whether it decides to enforce an entry and go into a property. Again, we are not talking about the nice little cottage or the cottage belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking; we are talking about properties where bad stuff goes on, where modern slavery can be happening, where people are refugees and people are living in appalling conditions.

There is no way we would support saying, “Cooee, rogue landlord, we’re just letting you know that we’re coming in 24 hours”. There has to be an opportunity at this extreme end of enforcement to be able to make a surprise snap inspection. I am glad that the Government have listened to that. Of course there need to be safeguards, but I think this is another of those instances where the good landlords need not fear. The right reverend Prelate need not worry about his flat in the Midlands, because I cannot imagine that they are going to be dashing in at six in the morning. Because of some of the extreme things that happen in our country, sadly, the power needs to exist and therefore we will support the Government.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns powers of entry, particularly in relation to notices served to landlords and occupiers under Clauses 126 and 135. The amendments in the name of the Minister seek to make targeted changes to when and how notice must be given before entry is exercised by local authorities under their enforcement powers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, makes the case via the “extreme end” of the spectrum. The extreme end of modern slavery and other criminal activities, I do believe, might just be a police matter. This is dealing, rightly, with things that may need enforcement. The notice would be given to the tenant, but owners have rights such as also being given notice, not retrospective written notice after entry has taken place.

On these Benches we have consistently supported effective enforcement, but it needs to be proportionate, accountable and clearly justified. The balance between enforcement and individual rights is delicate, and changes to that balance demand close scrutiny. Government Amendment 111 may appear a consequential provision linked to wider changes proposed in other amendments in this group, but together they are not technical amendments. These amendments, brought to this House so late in the process, underpin a significant shift in approach, one that removes long-standing procedural protections for landlords and residents without adequate explanation or assurance.

These changes introduce ambiguity into what should be a tightly regulated area of enforcement. They risk undermining trust in local authority investigations and could lead to a greater number of legal challenges, confusion and even misuse. We cannot and will not support provision that weakens accountability without offering clear safeguards in return. Powers of entry are intrusive by their nature. If they are to be exercised without prior warning, there must be rigorous justification, robust checks and balances and explicit limits to prevent overreach. That bar has not been met.

We also have deep reservations about government Amendment 113, which proposes similar changes in relation to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004. Again, the proposed move from prior notification to retrospective notice raises serious concerns, particularly in the absence of a defined threshold for when such unannounced entry would be deemed necessary or proportionate.

This Bill is an opportunity to rebuild confidence across the housing system, but confidence rests on fairness. These amendments risk tipping the balance too far, undermining transparency and weakening the very safeguards that protect landlords and tenants alike. For those reasons, we will vote against this package of amendments and urge the Government to reconsider their approach in this area.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Can I just ask the noble Lord a question? I absolutely understand that the extreme end is criminal, but will he concede that local authority officers are very often the ones to uncover the criminal practices in their proportionate response to local concerns that have built up over time? They will go in and then find that there is more there than they originally thought, and then it is time to hand over to the authorities. In my experience, that prevents overreach. You have to be able to build your case and be quite confident before you would ever assert these powers, because they are quite strong.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I refer to my comments. If they are to be exercised without prior warning, there must be rigorous justification, robust checks and balances and explicit limits to prevent overreach. That bar has not been reached, and it is not in the Bill. It needs to be in the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this debate. We believe this is a well-balanced approach that enhances enforcement while respecting the rights of both landlords and tenants. Allowing local authorities—which have been very keen that we support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s proposal—to enter premises without giving advanced notice to owners and residential landlords will help them better target unscrupulous landlords, ensuring that properties are compliant with PRS legislation and meet safety standards.

On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, local authorities are able to use these powers of entry only if they consider them necessary to determine whether enforcement action is needed. Officers will need the correct authorisation and will need to state the purpose of the inspection and ensure lawful use of the power of entry. Compliant landlords will not face any detriment as a result of this change, which is not intended to impact on good landlords. They will benefit from streamlined enforcement, with transparency through timely post-inspection notices.

As I set out in my opening speech, this change will make a real difference to the ability to address unsafe or hazardous living conditions more promptly and will assist our local authorities to promptly tackle unscrupulous landlords.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord Best, in praising the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his tenacity and commitment to shared ownership owners, who really are the raw end of the market and get a raw deal in many ways. He has really shown his mettle in his commitment to this. It is also fair to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for listening and doing something about it. I hope that her commitment to shared owners continues in other areas that we will look at.

Turning to Motion C1, from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, which it appears we will vote on, it is very difficult to follow the eloquence of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Cromwell, but I will try. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already highlighted what we call “revenge evictions”, and we are approaching that issue from the position of working—for many years, in the case of my noble friend Lady Grender—with renter groups and renter charities. From that, we get a real idea of what is happening at the sharp end, which is not quite as narrow as we might like to think it is. There are probably more unscrupulous landlords out there than the number of homes that take over one year to sell.

On revenge evictions, there is the risk that a tenant will be kicked out because they ask for improvements—the noble Lord gave a very good example of that, but there are many others. In certain parts of the country where rents are not as expensive, six months’ rent would make it worth while for the landlord to kick somebody out on that ground if they ask for even some modest accessibility improvements and so on. We are arguing over six, nine or 12 months, and the truth is that only time will tell. What I seek from the Government is some reassurance that this will be looked at, because that could very well be the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned Scotland. It is interesting that the properties in one in five evictions that were made on this repossession ground then turned up on their database as still being for sale. That gives weight to the fact that people are prepared to do it, because in Scotland they have no period for not re-letting.

In several debates, I mentioned that I chatted to my women friends who are landlords; I referred to them as my “landladies”. I put this to them, and they looked at me as if it were a weird question. They said, “If I were concerned about my property sitting empty, I am actually able to sell my property with the tenants still in the property while the ‘For Sale’ board is up on the door, so I would talk to them and say that the ‘For Sale’ board is going up, but I certainly wouldn’t be serving notice until I was certain that I had a buyer”. That is due to—this is a statistic that has not been bandied about—the length of time it sometimes takes to sell a house. Interestingly, they did not see it as the kind of emotive, big, terrible, unfair problem that noble Lords have made it out to be. By keeping your tenants in the property, you are not only getting the rent but—much more importantly, in our view—you are giving your tenants more time to find a home.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I will speak briefly to support two important Motions before us, one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on no re-let provisions, and the other by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on shared ownership.

On Motion C1, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, clearly explained, under the Bill, where a landlord seeks possession to sell a property and that sale then falls through—as it does in about one-third of cases—the landlord is prohibited from re-letting the property for 12 months. In practice, that means perfectly good homes must stand empty for a whole year. The amendment does not undermine the Bill’s purpose; it retains the requirement for a genuine sales process and safeguards against abuse. It introduces the vital element of proportionality. A six-month restriction would still deter bad actors while avoiding unnecessary loss of rental supply at a time when demand and rents are rising sharply. We have a housing crisis, and we must take every opportunity to improve the supply of housing and homes. Leaving homes empty for 12 months does not help those desperately looking for a home to rent.

Turning to shared owners, I would also like to extend my appreciation of the dedicated work of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and we support the Motion in his name. He has made a compelling and deeply fair case on behalf of shared owners who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves trapped by the complexities of the shared ownership system. I want to thank Ministers for listening to the concerns raised across the House and for working constructively with my noble friend on this issue. We would support my noble friend if he took this to a vote, but from what the Minister has said, my understanding is that the Government are supportive of it. Therefore, we hope that a vote is not necessary.