Renters (Reform) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Jacob Young

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

Let me address the hon. Gentleman’s point about local authorities and their ability to enforce. We will establish a new duty on landlords to ensure that their properties meet the decent homes standard. For landlords who fail to take reasonably practicable steps to keep their properties free of serious hazard, local councils will be able to issue fines of up to £5,000. That will encourage those landlords who do not already do so to proactively manage their properties, which will allow local councils to target their enforcement more effectively on a small minority of irresponsible and criminal landlords.

We will also explore requiring landlords to register compliance with the decent homes standard on the property portal. That will support local councils in identifying non-decent properties to target through their enforcement activity. As I have already said in response to different parts of the Bill, we will also do a full new burdens assessment for local authorities, and where there is a new burden, they will be resourced to fund that.

On the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the HHSRS review, the simple answer is that we will publish that in due course. Secondary legislation obviously needs to coincide with that, so I do not have anything further to add at this point. However, I am happy to write to him in further detail on that. Similarly, I will commit to writing to him on on the DHS review too.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

In what month is due course?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

The vast majority of fixed-term tenancies will be a 12-month agreement, so they would naturally roll on to being a periodic tenancy at the end of that fixed-term agreement. It is unrealistic to expect there to be tenancy agreements that are longer than three years, so they would all naturally convert to this new system anyway. We want to create a gradual process for all tenancies to join the new system; otherwise, it would cause confusion and perhaps overload the portal. If that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to write to him setting that out further.

On amendment 169, I understand that the hon. Gentleman’s intention is to gain more clarity on the timeline for implementation of our reforms. However, the amendment would mean that on the day of Royal Assent, section 21 would be removed immediately. There would be no transition period; no time, once the final detail of the legislation was known, to make sure the courts were ready for the changes; and no time for the sector to prepare.

As we have said a number of times in Committee, these are the most significant reforms of the private rented sector in 30 years, and it is critical that we get them right. I am as wedded to ensuring that section 21 is abolished at the earliest opportunity as the hon. Member is, in order to provide vital security for tenants, but we have to ensure that the system is ready.

It might be helpful for me to explain how we are improving the courts, and what needs to happen to prepare the courts for the new tenancy system. Court rules and systems need updating to reflect the new law; there is no way that this can be avoided. Furthermore, we have already fully committed to a digital system that will make the court process more efficient and fit for the modern age. Let me reassure the Committee that we are doing as much as possible before the legislative process concludes. The design phase of our possession process digitisation project is under way, and has more than £1 million of funding. That will pave the way for the development and build of a new digital service.

We are also working to tackle concerns about bailiff delays, including by providing for automated payments for debtors. That will reduce the need for doorstep visits, so that bailiffs can prioritise possession enforcement. We are going further with the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in exploring improvements to bailiff recruitment and retention policies; we touched on that. It would simply be a waste of taxpayers’ money to spend millions of pounds building a new system when we do not have certainty on the legislation underpinning it. That is why we will set out more details and implementation dates in due course.

Let me be clear that this is not a delaying tactic. There are 2.4 million landlords. Urban and rural landlords, their representatives and business tell us that they have concerns about delays in the courts. We cannot simply ignore that. We have always been clear that implementation would be phased, so that the sector has time to adjust, and we committed to giving notice of the implementation dates in the White Paper last year.

[Mike Amesbury]

How many people and families does the Minister think will be evicted while they wait for reform of the courts, or wait for them to go digital by default? What is the timescale for digital by default? There are literally hundreds of families a day being evicted through section 21 no-fault evictions; the numbers are starting to go through the roof. That is a massive cost to the state and taxpayers.

[Jacob Young]

Of course it is, and I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, every one of the 11 million renters in this country has a landlord. We have had representations from all the organisations representing the 2.4 million landlords in this country saying that they are concerned about the courts. Trying to introduce a new system and overriding the concerns of landlords would be unwise.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Jacob Young

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling the amendments, and I am glad that we are in agreement about the positive role that pets can play, especially his pup Clem—I wonder who that is named after. We know that pets can bring happiness to their owners and provide a vital source of companionship.

Clause 7 will help tenants to make their house a home by introducing a new implied term that strengthens their rights to pet ownership. In future, landlords will be required to consider each request for a pet on a case-by-case basis and will be unable to refuse a tenant’s request without a reasonable rationale. The clause also inserts new section 16A into the Housing Act 1988, setting out that the landlord has to respond to a tenant’s request to keep a pet within 42 days. The landlord can also request more information from the tenant within this time and will have a minimum of seven days to respond once the information is received. That will give landlords adequate time to consider a request, while preventing them from unfairly avoiding or delaying giving tenants a response.

I turn to amendments 183 to 187. Although I appreciate that tenants will want an answer to their request as quickly as possible, 14 days is simply too little. A landlord could easily be on holiday or in hospital, meaning that they would be in breach of the 14-day deadline. Forty-two days gives enough time for landlords to do more research and give due consideration to requests, but it prevents them from delaying indefinitely.

On new clause 63, we expect that the reforms will increase the number of pet-friendly properties from the outset, as landlords will know that they cannot unreasonably refuse a request once the tenant is in situ. There would therefore be little for landlords to gain if they sought to discriminate against pet owners prior to the tenancy starting. We believe that strengthening the rights of tenants within tenancies means that landlords will have more confidence to advertise properties as pet-friendly from the outset. We are bolstering that by allowing landlords to put an insurance policy in place or to ask the tenant to pay for insurance, so that they can recover the cost of any damage. We therefore do not think that legislation is required to achieve this change.

On amendment 182, I reassure the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that when a landlord gives permission for their tenant to keep a pet, it is an implied term of the tenancy that the tenant may keep the pet, so consent cannot be withdrawn. It is clearly important that tenants are aware of their rights, and we will seek to make that point clear in guidance.

I turn to insurance and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Clause 7 provides reassurance to landlords concerned about damage to their property by allowing them to require the tenant to take out insurance covering pet damage, or to be reimbursed for the cost of getting the insurance themselves. Clause 8 amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to allow landlords to require tenants with a pet to take out an insurance policy to cover pet damage. Separately, we will also amend the Tenant Fees Act 2019 so that landlords are able to charge the cost of an insurance policy covering pet damage back to the tenant. This will be delivered using an existing power in that Act, and we will bring forward the secondary legislation before the measures in the Bill are implemented.

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about the single insurance product that is available at the moment. I really do welcome the Labour party’s position on the open market—it is a new one. As has been discussed in Committee, we feel that the lack of products is a result of the fact that very few landlords currently accept pets, so there is simply no market for it. We do think that will change with the introduction of this legislation.

[Mike Amesbury]

With regard to passing on the costs of those insurance products once the market responds—as a social democrat, I make no apologies for using that phrase—how will we ensure that those costs are reasonable and transparent? There are lots of practices throughout the private rented sector where that is not the case.

[Jacob Young]

That is certainly a role the ombudsman can play, which brings me on to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich as to whether a tenant requesting a pet could challenge the landlord’s decision. We feel that the ombudsman could play a role in that ahead of any court proceedings.

On new clause 64, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, it would be unusual for an insurance policy to explicitly ban pets as a condition of insurance. It is much more likely that pet damage simply would not be covered. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, and we will consider whether further action is necessary in relation to the new clause.

On amendment 181, we must ensure that the Government are able to work flexibly with stakeholders and properly align our planned guidance with implementation. I am happy to commit on the record today to guidance being issued, but it is vital that the Government are not constrained by the imposition of an arbitrary deadline. In the light of those points, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

I will end that point there.

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

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

[Mike Amesbury]

It is essential that the prevention duty is extended here. The Renters (Reform) Bill is supposed to be about homelessness prevention. Local authorities use their discretion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown said. I will not press the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Renters (Reform) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Jacob Young

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jacob Young]

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

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

[Mike Amesbury]

But if the guidance is not mandatory for the courts, what is the point?

[Jacob Young]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s question, he mentioned whether a victim of domestic abuse would fall short of these grounds. I would say to him that that is exactly what a judge is there to determine—whether it is reasonable to grant possession to the landlord in those circumstances. I think that I have addressed that in my remarks. I hope that this provides some reassurance and that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.

To further bolster landlords’ confidence in being able to regain their properties in cases of antisocial behaviour, Government new clause 1 expands the matters a judge must consider, as I outlined previously, when making a discretionary antisocial behaviour eviction. It ensures that the court must also consider specific issues that have been of concern to the sector. First, the new clause asks judges to give regard to whether the perpetrator has engaged with measures to resolve their antisocial behaviour, making it easier for landlords to evict non-compliant tenants.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Jacob Young

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

The question is why it would not be useful for a judge to base that professional, informed decision on criteria that are in front of them.

[Jacob Young]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

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

[Jacob Young]

I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for tabling amendment 136, which seeks to lengthen the notice period that landlords must give for some grounds of possession. The notice period in the Bill balances the needs of both tenants and landlords. We have not reached our decisions without a lot of thought and careful consideration over many years and in collaboration with the sector.

It is important to give tenants sufficient time to find a new home. However, notice periods must also balance that aim with ensuring that landlords can manage their assets. For example, they may need to sell or move into the property, which might also be their long-term family home. Landlords must also be able to comply with enforcement measures or contractual requirements, such as superior leases, in a timely manner. Setting a longer notice period would undermine landlords’ confidence in dealing with such reasonable scenarios. We encourage landlords to work flexibly with their tenants and notify them of their intentions as far in advance as possible, but we also recognise that that is not always possible.

As Members have indicated, we think our approach strikes the right balance, so I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I want to probe the Minister a little more on the point that the landlord “reasonably believed” someone could be a student. Some time ago I was a councillor in Fallowfield, which had large areas of student accommodation. Some of those were mixed tenancies, but people would have made an assumption—would have reasonably believed—that all the people who lived there were students. Is that covered? Is the clause tight enough?

[Jacob Young]

As I said, everyone in a property would have to be a student. It would be an obligation on the landlord to ensure that they are students or that he or she reasonably believes that they are students. We will follow the Bill with statutory instruments plus guidance; we can make it clear in the guidance what we expect. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown not to press his amendment.

[Mike Amesbury]

It is about evidencing that. It would be in the guidance, but what kind of evidence would the landlord need to provide?

[Jacob Young]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

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

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

[Mike Amesbury]

Why could this not be added to the current evaluation plans? Surely good law is about assessment of the planning, implementation and then review. Given the nature of the current marketplace and how it can shape things, particularly for those who are out of sight or are vulnerable in the current population, surely that two-year review would be good law.

[Jacob Young]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is not usual for us to include such a review on the face of the Bill.

Renters (Reform) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Jacob Young

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th November 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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?

Anti-social Behaviour Awareness Week

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Jacob Young

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for securing this vital debate in this important week on antisocial behaviour awareness. I concur; I have a similar problem with off-road bikes in my constituency, in the Runcorn area, the Northwich area and certainly the Frodsham area. Weaver Vale Housing Trust is involved with various partnerships, and I know that Cheshire’s fire service is involved—when it is not involved with the other things that you referred to, Mr Sharma. However the police are undoubtedly under-resourced. We need more neighbourhood policing, such as neighbourhood hubs, which certainly the Opposition would propose. Would the hon. Member concur?

[Jacob Young]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, which is why I am pleased that, in the Cleveland force area, we have increased the number of police officers by 200 since the 2019 election. I also agree with him on that focus on neighbourhood policing—a return to common-sense policing, which I hope to come back to later in my remarks.

As I was saying, those situations can leave my constituents baffled. I have many law-abiding constituents who just want to do everything they can to make our area a better place, and they cannot understand how a problem as ridiculous as this is able to continue.

Another element of antisocial behaviour that I wanted to touch on was the criminal damage and vandalism that we see in communities such as Grangetown and South Bank, and in areas of Redcar and Marske. It was fantastic to see local children from Zetland Primary School recently create a beautiful mural depicting our town on a once-graffitied railway bridge. That is a great example of a community-led approach to helping us improve our area. Sadly, the following day vandals once again graffitied that bridge, destroying all of the hard work the schoolchildren had put in. I am sure hon. Members can understand how disappointing that was for the young people, but I am sure it will not prevent them making a difference in the future.

In Cleveland, our local police and crime commissioner, Steve Turner, is also the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners’ lead on neighbourhood policing and antisocial behaviour, which means we are in a unique position to learn from best practice in this area. Steve has been able to reduce reoffending rates among first-time offenders by a whopping 94% in parts of the force area, through the DIVERT programme, using resources such as the safer streets fund, which we are grateful to the Government for providing.

We cannot keep relying on one-off funding pots. We need the Government to set out their plans for further reducing this societal menace. For the first time since the establishment of PCCs in 2014, 100% of published police and crime plans now highlight preventing and tackling antisocial behaviour, which proves we are giving it the attention it now deserves.

We know that antisocial behaviour is not just a policing problem; it is a partnership problem. It is down to education providers in tackling those not in education, training or employment. It is the local authority failing to identify neglect and poor parenting. It is the local health authority and its strategies for tackling drug addiction and abuse in our communities. It is housing associations that fail to act when confronted with problem families and individuals who know the system better than they do.

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. Given I have her in front of me, there are a few issues that I feel the Government need to tackle. I appreciate not all of them may be within her remit. First, on sentencing, it cannot be right that the police spend hours of their time collecting evidence and processing paperwork to arrest an individual, to see them get only a slap on the wrist.

For repeat offenders of these crimes seemingly to face no escalation in penalty only leads to further harm in our communities. I refer to what I said earlier about antisocial behaviour breeding a culture of lawlessness. If they know that they can get away with it on their first try, their second try, their third try, perhaps on the fourth attempt the criminality begins to escalate. At that point, it is no longer a young lad flying around on an off-road bike. He might try to shoplift and ride off on his bike. Then it escalates and he mugs a woman in the street and flies off on his bike once again. To some extent, we have enabled that downward spiral to occur, as we have allowed a culture of lawlessness to take hold among some of those criminals.

To recognise the work that the Government have done so far, I mentioned the safer streets fund, and they have also introduced community behaviour orders. I say to the Minister that CBOs simply do not go far enough. They do not have enough teeth to act as an effective deterrent. Some officers tell me that they are not worth the paper they are written on. As well as beefing up CBOs, I would like to see the police feel equally empowered to use parenting orders more frequently, to place responsibility for looking after young people who are committing antisocial behaviour back on to the parents.

The police can only be in so many places at any one time. As I have mentioned, we are grateful in Cleveland for the extra 200 police officers we have gained since 2019, but it is fundamentally the responsibility of a parent to ensure that their child is not terrorising people in their area. That should also be linked to social housing, and there should be a duty on housing associations to seek to address problem tenants.