Renters (Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Amesbury]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Francesca Albanese, director of policy and social change for Crisis. We have only until 2.45 pm for this panel, so please can we have short questions and shorter answers? Please can the witness introduce herself for the record?

Francesca Albanese: I am Francesca Albanese. I am the executive director of policy and social change at Crisis, the national homelessness charity.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Does the abolition of shorthold tenancies with section 21 no-fault evictions give the protection that renters need? Is that sufficient?

Francesca Albanese: We welcome the abolition of section 21. I think we have heard from others giving evidence today that it is one of the leading causes of homelessness, so that is definitely welcome. However, there are still some areas of the Bill that cause us concern with regard to homelessness. One is not automatically carrying over some of the areas of section 21 into the new ground 8. That would decouple the link around automatically triggering a homelessness prevention duty, which is currently in the Homelessness Reduction Act. We are concerned about that area—if we abolish section 21, we do not want to then disproportionately increase the risk of homelessness in other areas.

There is also an issue about the repetition of some of the rent arrears grounds. Ground 8 covers fault evictions, but ground 8A also looks at rent arrears. We do not see the reason for having both; there are suitable protections just in ground 8. The other area—which we have heard about from previous evidence—is antisocial behaviour, and making sure that the wording is tightened so that it does not cause further issues for more vulnerable tenants, and does not affect them disproportionately.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q It does seem very vague. We in this room are all seemingly, according to that definition, capable of “causing anti-social behaviour”. On section 21, the Government are kicking the can down the road at the moment, and are talking about reforming the justice and court system. What is your assessment of that?

Francesca Albanese: We at Crisis recognise that changes do need to be made to the courts. Obviously, that is one of the central themes in this Bill and it is about making sure we get that right. But the problem is that if you bring in the court reforms first and then make the changes around abolishing section 21, you are effectively creating a two-tier system. For us, that does not protect tenants in the right way, so we would argue that both need to be brought in at the same time.

[Jacob Young]

Q I would be grateful for your views on abolishing fixed-term tenancies.

Francesca Albanese: To clarify, are you referring to ASTs, and their length?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

So that is where an assured tenancy is being offered.

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

[Mike Amesbury]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from members, let me thank the witness for her evidence and let us move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witness

Dr Henry Dawson gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

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

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

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

[Mike Amesbury]

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

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

Professor Gibb: I completely agree.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I would like to thank both the witnesses very much for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Fiona Rutherford and Professor Christopher Hodges gave evidence.