Tenant Fees Bill (First sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We resume our public sitting and will hear evidence from the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the National Approved Letting Scheme, and OpenRent.

Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has just agreed. For this session we shall have until 10.25 am. Also, I ask whether any members of the Committee wish to declare any relevant interest in connection with the Bill.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have eight residential properties and three commercial properties, for none of which, however, we charge deposits or use letting agents.

[James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have one property of which I am a landlord.

Tenant Fees Bill (Second sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 7th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Rishi Sunak]

One of my colleagues has a follow-up to that question.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Q I live in North Yorkshire, so the trading standards authority is North Yorkshire County Council, but Scarborough Borough Council is our borough, which is a long way from Northallerton and from some of the trading standards officers. Will the boroughs and districts be able to step up to the mark? Should a disproportionate amount of the £500,000 be made available to the districts and boroughs where we do not have unitary authorities, or will it be difficult for those authorities that are not already trading standards authorities to step up to the mark? They are well involved in housing—we have one of those areas where the housing has to be brought up to standard. Will that work?

Alex McKeown: Some of the difficulty with the legislation that is already there with regard to letting agents is that you have to have knowledge of housing and of trading standards, so you almost need a trading standards and housing officer hybrid person. I have worked in authorities where I was a trading standards enforcement officer but I sat with private sector housing, and that worked quite well.

It is difficult to know, because there are also different problems in different areas of the country. In London, there is a much bigger problem than in the leafy counties. You will not get the same issues. In London, there are more vulnerable tenants who are being exploited, and you get the rogue agent element, but I cannot really speak for how it will work outside London, because I have worked in London for so long.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

Q I wanted to ask a couple of questions on the enforcement side. Do you have any numbers for how many enforcement officers—trading standards officers—we have now compared with five years ago? How much have the numbers gone down by?

Alex McKeown: Fifty per cent. I think a survey was done in 2010.

Councillor Blackburn: I have 56%—as in, it has reduced by 56%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

Under the Bill, how will people be able to enforce the rights they are being offered in the context of housing legislation as it exists at the moment?

Dan Wilson Craw: A tenant has two options apart from simply saying to the agent, “This fee is unfair.” The tenant can say, “If you don’t retract it, we’ll report you to the council,” or, “We’ll take you to the first-tier tribunal.” Those are the two options they have, in essence. The tenant can go to the council’s trading standards or to another authority and rely on officers to carry out an investigation, or take it upon themselves to make an application to the first-tier tribunal. We need that back-up process, but all a tenant can get through that process is the fee back, so we think there is merit in awarding a higher form of compensation to a tenant who goes through that process. That would create more of a deterrent for an operator who charges an illegal fee, it would potentially save the council work, and it would give the tenant something back for the effort they put in.

Rhea Newman: Enforcement starts with having a really clear ban in the first place. The clearer the ban is up front in terms of all the different provisions—for default fees and refunding holding deposits, and the ban on up-front fees—the easier it will be for landlords and agents to know what they can charge and for tenants to know what they should pay. When the Bill comes into force, there will need to be clear communication to all parties, so that it is very clear what should be charged and what should be paid.

Once the Bill comes into force, it may be quite difficult for a tenant to challenge an unfair fee charged by an agent during a tenancy. That is one of our concerns about default fees. There is concern among tenants, who do not want to raise issues with the landlord during a tenancy for fear that they might face a retaliatory rent increase or eviction. There are problems with challenging unfair fees once you are in a tenancy.

We have concerns that few tenants will use the option to go to the first-tier tribunal. Citizens Advice has done some research about how likely tenants are to take formal routes of redress, such as going to court, for disrepair issues. We know that few tenants will use that option, but it is important that it works as well as possible for those who can be supported to use it. I know you heard from local authorities this morning. I am sure they made the point about ensuring they are sufficiently resourced to enforce the ban. That will be a key part of it.

I come back to the point that the clearer the ban is in the first place, the easier it will be for all to enforce it. The evidence from Scotland really points to that. The reason the ban needed to be clarified in Scotland in 2012 was that the provisions were not clear in the first place. Even after 2012, Shelter Scotland has been running a campaign to help people to reclaim their fees. That just highlights how important it is to get it right in the first place.

Katie Martin: We think that it is really important to get enforcement right. We are concerned about the reliance on trading standards in terms of resourcing and the willingness of authorities to take action. We think the market is very much skewed in favour of landlords and agents, and that tenants actually have very weak bargaining power. As we have pointed out, tenants feel like they are intimidated and do not want to take action against their landlord for fear of retaliation.

We very much support the Government’s moves to introduce mandatory redress membership and we want that to happen as soon as possible, but we do not think that that will fix all the problems. We think that trading standards needs to be adequately resourced. We need to make sure that the requirements in the legislation are really clearly set out so that we hopefully do not get to the point where we have to resort to this kind of redress, but if that happens, it has to be adequately resourced and tenants need to be supported.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q In the opening comments from Citizens Advice, we heard that a four-week deposit was preferable to a six-week one on the grounds of affordability, but in a previous evidence session, we heard from the landlords that where there is a four-week deposit, often the departing tenant will just not pay the last month’s rent in the knowledge that the landlord will then take the deposit to cover that rent. There is then nothing left to cover any damage or any other problems, so they were very much of the view that a six-week deposit would prevent that from happening. In the experience of the panel, is that something that happens quite a lot and would a six-week deposit be preferable for that reason?

Katie Martin: We have done some research on this. Our most recent research found that currently only 2% use their security deposit as their last month’s rent, and 34% have a deposit of four weeks, so it does not stack up as an argument for us. We think the benefits of bringing it down to four weeks would far outweigh the risks.

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed, the passporting arrangement that the Opposition mentioned would solve that problem as well. It is interesting to have some statistics behind that. Thank you very much.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Q I have a question for the whole panel. Two days ago, we heard from various landlords’ groups that they did not think that the Bill would lead to net savings for tenants. For complete clarity, could I get a quick answer from each of you on whether you think that the end of lettings fees will lead to benefits to tenants?

Dan Wilson Craw: The Bill will benefit tenants. Yes, we think that.

Rhea Newman: Yes, we do. Is this in relation to potential rent increases? Is that what the question is?

Tenant Fees Bill (Third sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 7th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is it not the case in many cases that there being a key meter or a prepayment meter in the property is due to the actions of a previous tenant, for whom the meter had to be installed because of an unpaid bill? It is then very difficult for either the landlord or the new tenant to change that situation.

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. It is certainly the case that landlords often find themselves feeling that they have no other option but to put a prepayment meter in to avoid ending up as the recipient of all the bad debt that may well have been run up. However, I think it has become a bit of a choice for some in the sector, particularly at the lower end of the market, and by doing so they devolve themselves of any more responsibility in relation to their tenants. That is a shame, because it means that a good relationship is then not built up between tenant and landlord and there is not the element of trust, or of being treated like an adult, that one might hope for in that situation.

Landlords come in all shapes and sizes and are at variance across the country in the type and number of properties that they hold. There are landlords who are not resident in this country; entrepreneurial, buy-to-let landlords with small portfolios; those who inherit a family home on the death of a loved one; those who find themselves with an additional property after meeting a new partner; professional landlord companies that purpose-build to cater for particular groups, such as students or young professionals; speculative landlords who devolve all responsibility to agents; and those who live in the next street and keep a very close eye on things. Subsection (4), which relates to utilities and communications, needs to be clear to all those different types of landlords. Does the Minister think that that is the case?

That clarity is especially important because there is continuing growth of large-scale investment in build-to-let or multi-housing, which is professionally managed rental accommodation, usually at scale, in purpose-built blocks. That market, which only emerged in force in the UK in very recent years, is now worth an estimated £25 billion. Will tenants be protected against being required by these large corporations to enter into a contract that may not be the most economical, and that may take away their ability to choose between providers?

What will happen if there are difficulties in the contract that tenants have been required to sign up to? How easy will it be for the tenant to extract themselves from that contract—or could they prohibited from doing so if it is connected to their tenancy? For example, if they want to live in a building, will they have to go with Virgin for broadband or Npower for gas and electricity—other good broadband providers and power and energy suppliers are available—as the landlord gets a special tariff when those are supplied to the whole building? That would be entirely outwith the tenant’s control. What are the Minister’s thoughts on that?

Young professionals aged 25 to 34 make up the largest proportion of households living in the private rented sector. That is expected to remain the same in 2021, with their stay in the sector further lengthening, as the affordability issues surrounding home ownership—particularly gaining access to a deposit—remaining a challenge. Why should those people be limited in their ability to make a choice on their provider?

Among professionals living in the private rented sector, it is expected that there will be slightly faster growth in the number of under-25 households during the next five years, as well as an increase in older households—especially baby boomers. We must have consideration for those when it comes to the affordability of bills.

Under-25s receive a lower rate of minimum wage than other workers, so their disposable income will be much more restricted. Younger workers are usually paid less commensurate with their post and experience, which of course does not make them any less professional, and their ability to access things like housing benefit, the limits on local housing allowance and the shared occupancy rate all have an impact on their securing housing in the first place. How much they are required to top up from their own funds will have a severe impact on what utilities they can afford.

Hon. Members present must have had numerous constituents come to see them about the challenges of utility bills. The Minister has mentioned the difficulties of trying to change provider. Such difficulties are encountered particularly when prepayment meters are involved and perhaps when there are multiple occupants. Getting bills straightened out when there is confusion about meters is a lengthy process that, in my experience, results in carrier bags full of contradictory letters from those providers. Older renters on fixed incomes may also face financial restrictions, and I ask the Minister to consider that in his response too.

On the definition of a landlord, I outlined some of the common understandings of the types of landlords that we might all recognise, but I would like assurances from the Minister about who will be covered by the Bill. We cannot have a situation where Parliament takes all reasonable steps to further protect renters from the precipitous situations that they currently find themselves in, only to discover that organisations are deliberately seeking to absolve themselves of the responsibilities that all other landlords are subject to under the Bill.

In particular, I think about the case of Lifestyle Club London that I brought up on Second Reading. At the moment, that company can forgo many of the protections that are considered standard in a usual tenancy. By defining itself as a membership club, it can enter a property with absolutely no warning, it can levy huge fines to tenants for small things such as dirty dishes, and it can even give just seven days’ notice before terminating a contract and forcing the occupying person to move out.

Of course, that goes against many of the things that should be guaranteed for any renter, but companies such as Lifestyle Club London can justify that behaviour by saying that their residents are licensees and not tenants on assured shorthold tenancies. Residents pay a membership fee rather than a deposit, a monthly contribution rather than rent, and have terms and conditions rather than a tenancy agreement. That type of practice is completely unacceptable and unfair to residents, who often do not realise they are being exploited by companies that act in that way.

The Bill is the place to end that practice once and for all, by ensuring that licensees are covered by the same protections against fees as assured tenants and by prohibiting membership fees, monthly contributions and terms and conditions fines. The fact that a loophole exists to allow that type of agreement suggests that licensees of that nature have been left out of protections brought in by similar legislation to prevent landlords from acting in certain ways towards tenants.

I do not intend to move an amendment today because I await the Government’s response with interest. The Government have an opportunity to be explicit in their intentions and perhaps to table their own amendments in future to make it absolutely clear that companies such as Lifestyle Club London are covered by the Bill. Is it the Minister’s understanding that such clubs will be considered to be landlords under the terms of the Bill?

I would also like reassurance from the Minister that there are no loopholes around how tenancies and tenancy agreements can be defined that would allow de facto tenants to be afforded less protection from prohibited fees, and that if it turned out that a landlord could use alternative definitions to charge prohibited fees, the Government would return to the House to make the necessary changes to close that loophole as soon as it became apparent.

What type of loan is the Minister thinking of in subsections (5), (6) and (7)? I have spent a long time trying to conjure the purpose of such a loan from tenant to landlord, how that might come about and on what evidence the terminology is based, but it remains altogether unclear. I hope the Minister will provide some reassurance on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend says “spread betting” from a sedentary position. It does feel as though everyone is hedging their bets on the property of their choice. It seems nonsensical that anybody would have sufficient spare funds available to put down multiple holding deposits and undergo multiple reference checks, which would not work in their favour when it came to their credit scores. It is interesting that we heard something today that we did not hear during the Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny. It was suggested that the situation could be completely reversed, with holding deposits being used unscrupulously by letting agents or with landlords holding all that money for a period of time. That would then set back individual tenants in their search for a property. There absolutely is room for improvement.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady says that the aim of the proposed legislation was to make things fairer for tenants. Does she agree that all the NGOs that gave evidence this morning made it clear that it would make things fairer for tenants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 24, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) On provision of documentary proof from the tenant, sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply to tenancies terminated at the tenant’s request as a result of the tenant having—

(a) suffered a physical or mental health crisis that requires care to be provided in an alternative environment, or

(b) been subjected to domestic violence by a cohabitee

and the Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying the documentary proof required from the tenant for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.”

This amendment would enable tenants in particular circumstances to end fixed-term tenancies early without having to pay the full rent due to the end of those tenancies.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a landlord of two properties—actually, they are both in the Minister’s constituency, where I used to reside. I am also a tenant.

I rise to support amendment 1, which relates to the schedule of permitted payments and in particular to termination payments that are permitted when a tenant leaves their tenancy—whether fixed or variable term—early. I understand that a landlord or agent may ask for payment of rent up until the end of the fixed term or for the agreed period of time—usually two months. They may also ask for payment of utilities and perhaps council tax, and that would be permitted.

If someone decides of their own free will to leave a tenancy agreement early, it is reasonable and legitimate that they should pay those extra costs. However, I propose two groups of people for whom paying such costs is not reasonable and legitimate and as such they should be excepted from them. Both groups involve people who have exceptional problems that require them not to be present in that house: through no fault of their own, they require care or support that would involve their leaving the property.

The first set of circumstances that someone may incur is having a serious physical or mental health crisis that is so bad that they cannot stay in the home. Let us say someone has a serious road traffic accident, perhaps involving a head injury, and requires a long period of hospitalisation followed, perhaps, by rehabilitation in an alternative environment. If they are insured against that possibility, they could continue to pay their rent, but if they are not—many vulnerable people are not—it would be catastrophic for them to have to continue paying rent while they were in a hospital or rehabilitation centre, perhaps for many months, until the end of their tenancy.

The other set of circumstances to do with health would be when someone has a mental health crisis, particularly one that requires admission to hospital or relocation to another area for support. For example, a student might have a mental health crisis at university. As part of their rehabilitation, it might be appropriate for them to leave their university town and go back to live with their parents for a few months. Under those circumstances, if they have to continue to pay the rent because they are unable to terminate the rental agreement, not only will they get into serious financial problems, but those financial problems are likely to exacerbate their mental health crisis and make recovery more difficult.

There is an excellent report by Mind, called “Brick by Brick”, which looks at some of the implications of housing on mental health. I think this is a particular situation where mental health could be adversely affected. These people have entered into a contract in good faith and their situation has changed radically, meaning that they cannot continue to hold the contract. They should be protected. They cannot live in the house. Perhaps they cannot earn money. The amendment proposes that they could leave the tenancy without that termination payment. At the moment it is at the discretion of the landlord whether to show leniency in those circumstances.

There is another set of circumstances in which it would be good if that situation applied: when somebody suffers domestic violence, for example when two people are joint signatories to a tenancy agreement, often a co-habiting couple, and one is a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the other and has to leave the property for his or her own safety. They might have to go to a refuge and be unable to meet their obligation to pay the rent. The situation has completely changed for that individual. To expect them to continue to be liable for rent when they have had to leave the premises through no fault of their own seems to me to be unreasonable.

To conclude, we have an opportunity through this amendment to protect a small number of exceptionally vulnerable people who have serious problems, whether it is a serious physical health problem, such as a head injury, a mental health problem or being a victim of domestic violence within the home from a co-habitant. They have entered into their contract in good faith. This would be a crisis not of their own making and we have the opportunity to give that small group of vulnerable people protection.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is making some good points. In terms of domestic violence, would a criminal conviction have to be secured to prove that, or would an allegation just have to be made?

[Dr Williams]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking that. I am not making any proposals about the standard of proof. I have suggested in the amendment that,

“the Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying the documentary proof required from the tenant for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.”

It could be that the threshold would have to be a criminal conviction. I believe that there are other circumstances in which a victim of domestic violence might get legal aid. I am not sure what the threshold of proof is for that, but it might perhaps be wise to use a similar one. The amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to set the threshold of proof. I urge the Minister to consider using this amendment to prevent individual crises turning into catastrophes.

Tenant Fees Bill (Fifth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

If supported, the new clause will be warmly welcomed for giving the opportunity to streamline the existing deposit system, to remove excess bureaucracy for landlords and agents, and to solve a needless and costly problem that continues to present barriers to people hoping to rent in the private sector.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

If I may briefly interject, the hon. Lady identifies a problem, which came through in the evidence sessions, that affects landlords as well as tenants. The frustration of having a deposit locked up with the current landlord that cannot be given to the new landlord is a problem. However, now is not the time to address it. Indeed, the hon. Lady said that we should look at ways of solving the problem. Were we to try to do that in this Bill, we could end up delaying the introduction of legislation that everyone agrees will be of great benefit to tenants, because a lot of consultation would need to be done. We would need to look at situations where, for example, the tenant misleads the new landlord that all the deposit will be released when in fact there might be some deductions.

I absolutely sympathise with the feelings expressed, but I hope the Minister will not allow this issue to delay the Bill. Although I sympathise with the hon. Lady, I am sure many on the Conservative Benches will not be able to support the new clause at this time.

[Rishi Sunak]

I am delighted to say that I agree with both the hon. Member for Croydon Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. We fully support and encourage innovation in the tenancy deposit sector. We know that it can often be difficult for tenants to raise funds for a deposit at the outset of a tenancy, especially if they are moving from one property to another; indeed, that is partly the motivation for bringing forward the Bill.

In the Government’s response to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee following the pre-legislative scrutiny, we emphasised our commitment to assess the merits of alternatives to traditional security deposits and promised to report our findings to the Committee. The Government responded only in May, so I hope Members will forgive me when I say that the work is not quite completed, but it is in process.

We have been exploring this issue for a while, including in the 2017 consultation on banning letting fees. It may interest hon. Members to know that my Department, like many others, offers an employer-backed deposit scheme to civil servants living in the private rented sector. That works in the same way as a season ticket loan, allowing employees to borrow from their salary up front to pay for a rental deposit and repay it from salary payments over the course of their career. Many private businesses, such as Starbucks, take the same approach, and we definitely encourage more to do so.

I am pleased to say that in May the Minister for Housing and Homelessness held a roundtable with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has been passionate about this issue, along with the three deposit protection schemes and Shelter, to explore further how existing tenant deposit protection was working and what further innovation was possible. I am pleased to say that, as a result of that preliminary work, the Minister has been working much harder to progress the issue and will convene a formal working group with the deposit schemes and key representatives from tenant and landlord groups to explore it further.

There are still many things that need to be considered, as was highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. For example, the key concern with deposit passporting is ensuring that landlords are still able to recover any damages at the end of a tenancy. There is a great deal of technical complexity that needs to be examined. That would involve understanding the percentage of the deposit that could be passported, and when and how liability for providing a tenant with the relevant prescribed information about where their deposit is protected should be passed from one landlord to another.

We certainly need to consult the sector and get its input before implementation. We are also keen to explore other alternatives, aside from passporting, such as payment of deposits by instalment. I hope hon. Members can see that the Government are taking this issue very seriously. My hon. Friend the Minister has already convened groups and is continuing to convene working groups to examine this issue and figure out a way forward. With that in mind, rather than delay this legislation, I call on the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.

Tenant Fees Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I entirely agree. The Bill is not about driving letting agents out of business, but about levelling the playing field so that the small minority of bad actors in the industry are not able to continue to the disadvantage of the vast majority of agents who do a terrific and valuable job, which we want to see continue.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

It is precisely the sort of case that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) raises that gives all landlords a bad name. Most landlords are actually trying to do their best to provide a service to their tenants and hope to have long-standing tenants.

Under the current legislation, for a deposit to be retained by the landlord, there has to be agreement on both sides, otherwise there is an arbitration process. If it is just a case of someone not emptying the bins, there is no way that the landlord would be able to keep all the deposit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend spoke passionately on Second Reading about renters in her constituency and the work she has done with them to ensure that they are treated fairly. I commend her for that, and for raising a very good point. I am pleased to tell her that the Government are funding enforcement activity with half a million pounds of fresh funding in the first year after the Bill is enacted. Subsequent to that, the fines that the legislation will enable local authorities to levy—potentially up to £30,000 for a repeat incidence—will help to fund ongoing activity. I am confident that we will be able to deal with the issue that she raises.

[Mr Goodwill]

Is the Minister confident that local authorities will have the resources and expertise to do what is set out in the Bill? We in the Bill Committee were concerned that 93% of local authorities had failed to issue even one penalty, and that the level of activity in this area was very poor.

[Rishi Sunak]

As the Minister with responsibility for local government, I am full of admiration for local authorities and their ability to do many things. The pace of the creation of new legislation over the past year or two means that many of the local authorities’ powers in this area are relatively new, so local authorities are getting to grips with them bit by bit. I am pleased to say that there are very positive examples on the ground of local authorities taking action to enforce housing legislation and reinvesting in enforcement the fines that they generate.

A brilliant example of that is Torbay Council, which has used the fines from civil penalties to employ an extra enforcement officer to help with exactly the activities that we are discussing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clear example of an activity that is already happening that enables redress to be found. He is absolutely right to highlight the potential extension of membership of redress schemes from agents to landlords, which would further improve tenants’ ability to seek redress when they need it and would more generally act as an incentive for good behaviour in the first place. He will know that the Government are conducting a broader conversation about the regulation of estate agents, about ensuring that the industry is properly regulated and that standards are high and about ensuring that the actions of a small minority do not jeopardise the health of the great majority of the sector. That is an ongoing piece of work, and I am sure that we will discuss it in the House in due course.

As we discussed in Committee, when a tenant has paid an unlawful fee, it is only fair that they should be given a say in how those fees are reimbursed, and the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), whom I am pleased to see the in their places on the Front Bench, tabled an amendment to that specific effect. As I said I would in Committee, I have considered their amendment and agree that such a provision would be a worthwhile addition to the legislation. As such, amendments 9, 10, 12, 18, 19 and 43 will place a requirement on landlords and agents to seek consent if they wish to offset such a fee against a tenancy deposit or rent payment. I hope that those hon. Members will be happy with that incorporation.

I am pleased to say that our amendments go slightly further than the one proposed by the Opposition Front-Bench team, by also requiring agents and landlords to seek the tenant’s consent if they wish to offset the holding deposit from the tenancy deposit or a future rent payment. If the landlord or agent does not seek consent from the tenant or relevant person about how the prohibited payment or holding deposit should be refunded, they will be judged not to have fulfilled their obligation to repay the fee. That will leave the landlord or agent liable for a financial penalty and give the tenant the right to recover their fee through the relevant enforcement authority. It will also restrict the landlord’s ability to serve a section 21 eviction notice.

I have already explained why we do not support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on the default fee provision and why our proposed alternative is fairer and more workable. I wish briefly to address amendment 1, which she also tabled and which would increase the financial penalty for a breach of the ban from £5,000 to £30,000, and explain why we do not support it. We want the fine to act as a serious deterrent to non-compliance. We have listened to feedback from across the sector, and we firmly believe that financial penalties provided in the Bill are the right ones. I think that most people would agree that a £30,000 fine for an initial breach of the ban, as proposed in the amendment, would be excessive. We do not want unfairly to penalise landlords and agents who may inadvertently breach the ban on fees. In particular, that might seriously financially hurt individual landlords who, for context, collect on average rent of around £8,000 from a single properly. A £30,000 fine is almost four multiples of that.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the Minister agree that a £30,000 fine might well precipitate the sale of the property and the eviction of the tenant—the very person whom the Bill is meant to protect?

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend is right. He made the same points in Committee, and I appreciate his raising them again today.

The Government have listened to concerns that some agents and landlords see the £5,000 initial fines as a cost of business and thus repeatedly refuse to comply. That is why the legislation makes landlords and agents liable for a financial penalty for each individual breach of the ban that they commit. In addition, setting financial penalty at up to £30,000 for a second or further breach of the ban will act as a serious deterrent for prolific offenders. It is worth pointing out that further breaches will leave the landlord or agent liable to prosecution and an unlimited fine and, indeed, qualify as a banning-order offence. The Government believe that, taken together, this set of sanctions forms a serious deterrent to poor behaviour. To accept the Opposition amendment would be disproportionate and excessive in respect of the cases we are discussing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The amendment would serve as an example. I would be happy for it to be adopted and then to be taken on further by the Lords. It sets out examples, rather than being a full definition of the circumstances in which a tenant could be charged.

In principle, putting in place a simple paragraph such as that in amendment 3 would make it far clearer to tenants when a breach had taken place. As it stands, the Bill will still be extremely confusing for any tenant trying to tell whether a breach has taken place. That, in turn, will inhibit the right and opportunity of a tenant to properly challenge a landlord or letting agent at a tribunal. Providing clarity on the face of the Bill would remove the ambiguity. Under amendment 3, it would be easy for a tenant to tell if they had been charged an unfair fee, and they would be better able to self-enforce their rights.

Such self-enforcement may be necessary. The Minister talked about it in very positive terms, but I am not sure it is so positive. It reinforces the point that the Bill does not carry the weight of enforcement behind it to take landlords and letting agents to task properly when they continue to break the law. For the Bill to succeed, it must be backed by sufficient enforcement power.

That is why we propose amendments 1 and 2, the primary aim of which is to allow trading councils the freedom to apply higher fines to those who break the rules. That would improve the enforcement of the Bill twofold. First, it would deter landlords and letting agents from taking the chance of applying prohibited levels of fines towards tenants. Even with strong legislation, we know that tenants can often end up in illegal renting situations owing to a lack of knowledge, a lack of confidence to challenge an unfair decision or the fear that a complaint or relationship breakdown could leave them without a house and on the street. We can see this in the Citizens Advice report “Touch and go”, which highlighted the fact that 44% of tenants did not complain about a category 1 hazard in their house.

Secondly, the Opposition are worried that unscrupulous landlords and letting agents may still be tempted to charge prohibited fees in the belief that they will not be challenged until they have taken well over £5,000 in prohibited fees, and that as a result they will see those fines as a business cost. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) pointed out, it is just the cost of doing business, rather than the real deterrent it should be. I echo his point that some of the people who local authorities have been enforcing against are not genuine, upstanding, licensed and registered, above-board landlords and agents, but criminals and crooks, and the fine of £5,000 will simply not be enough to deter them.

The Minister had concerns about the £30,000 fine, but amendment 2 states only that it “must not exceed” £30,000. That need not necessarily be the first fine—that would be for the enforcement agency to determine, given the circumstances and an understanding of the situation. Still, to provide a full deterrent would certainly increase the odds against those who take the chance and charge prohibited fees.

[Mr Goodwill]

I do not for one second wish to defend the actions of some of these unscrupulous letting agents, but the fine will be £5,000 for each occurrence, so if they are serial offenders, they are likely to get serial penalties. At the same time, of course, some landlords may inadvertently fall foul of the law, and it would be unfair to impose on them fines as big as £30,000. As I said to the Minister, it might result in properties having to be sold and tenants losing their house.

[Melanie Onn]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I thank him for his intervention, but I repeat the point that the fine “must not exceed” £30,000 but need not necessarily be £30,000 in the first instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that there is one hour and one minute left to debate this part of the proceedings and that a great many people wish to speak. I quite understand why those on the Front Benches had a lot to say and took a lot of interventions; this is a very large group of amendments. I appeal to hon. Members that if anybody speaks for much more than five minutes, they will be preventing many of their colleagues from speaking at all. It is not up to me to regulate that; it is up to the honour of each Member of the House to limit their remarks, not necessarily in scope but in time, because brevity is the soul of wit.

[Mr Goodwill]

I was very pleased to serve on the Bill Committee and to hear the very good reasons why the Bill came forward. I am pleased that the Minister has responded to some of the points made in Committee with the Government amendments, which I am very pleased to support.

The picture painted by colleagues from the south of England, particularly from London, does not represent the position in places such as Scarborough in the north of England, where there is a very vibrant rented sector, with adequate supply and demand and where the sort of fees that some have been talking about are not extracted from tenants. However, it is obvious from what we have heard that the current system is not working to protect tenants. Ninety-three per cent. of local authorities have failed to impose a penalty, and with many letting agents not publicising their fees it is difficult for prospective tenants to know what they would actually have to pay and almost impossible to make comparisons. I have also spoken to local estate agents, who have told me about some of the charges they have to take on board. A credit check, for example, can cost as little as £15, but a rogue agent could be charging as much as £625, which is taking advantage.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in places such as Shropshire and Yorkshire the market is in the main regulating itself rather well and these changes might be perceived to be slightly excessive?

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes. As a landlord myself I am aware of how that operates. We have talked about private landlords and social landlords. I like to see myself as a social landlord: I do not see what I provide to my tenants as being any different from what is provided by a housing association or a local authority—indeed, I like to think I give a better service. Still, it is right that this legislation has been introduced, particularly as double-charging could take place, with both tenant and landlord paying fees to the letting agent and the letting agent doing very well out of that.

I do not agree with the Labour shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), about the fines in amendment 1 and 2. A £5,000 fine for a landlord is already equivalent to a year’s rent for many properties in my part of the world. As I said, having much larger fines could jeopardise the business of such landlords. I also do not support amendment 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). We must do everything we can to help people to get into housing—I would prefer that they were able to buy their houses, but if not, we must help them to get into the rented market. A problem people often face when moving house is that the deposit put on the previous house is not made available at the same time as the new tenancy takes effect. Therefore, having to find, for example, six weeks’ rent at £100 a week plus another six weeks’ rent at £100 a week, plus maybe a £300 fee, as the amendment suggests, means a person looking to rent a two-bedroom flat in Scarborough or Whitby would need to find £1,500 of cash just to make that house move.

I was appalled to hear the nightmare stories mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made clear, the tenants’ redress scheme introduced in 2014 means that the landlord can no longer see that money as their own money that they can snaffle when the tenant moves; instead, they need to demonstrate that real damage has been done or there are real problems that require that money to be used. In the past, I am afraid, I have heard horror stories where reasonable wear and tear was put down as damage or a slight scratch on the wall was taken to indicate that a whole room had to be decorated. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that he is looking at the possibility of a passporting scheme for these deposits. That is desperately needed because it is so frustrating for a tenant wishing to move that their deposit, which they will get in due course, is frozen and cannot be used to pay the next deposit.

To return to amendment 4, it is not reasonable to introduce these fees of £200 or £300. That would become the norm and, to be fair, it is the landlord who is getting this service: it is the landlord who is interested in the creditworthiness of the tenant and who wants to see the legalities and the administration done correctly, and therefore it is not unreasonable for the landlord to pick up the bill. Indeed, many landlords will do much of this work themselves, and tenancy agreements are available to download which makes doing that much easier.

In supporting the Government amendments, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will not press his amendment. We certainly would not want the Opposition amendments to be pressed.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, having spoken on Second Reading in May. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and other Members.

In Reading East we have seen increasing numbers of young people and families entering the rental market, and it is in the vital interests of these residents and all my constituents that the rental market in our area is affordable, transparent and accessible. However, as with many other constituencies, rising rents, large deposits and high letting fees are increasingly causing difficulties for those seeking to access rented accommodation.

Along with my Labour colleagues, I welcome the Bill as a first step towards establishing a fair and reliable rental market for tenants in my constituency and across the country. However, I remain concerned that the Bill does not go far enough in its protection for tenants. In particular, I am concerned that it does not go far enough to protect tenants against default fees. As we have heard, these are the fees that are chargeable if a letting agent or landlord incurs costs due to a tenant’s actions, such as replacing a lost key or making a late payment. These fees are set at the discretion of the landlord or the agent, and have been described by agents themselves as a back door to reclaiming income lost through this Bill. I share the concern expressed by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and by other respected organisations such as Shelter and Citizens Advice that the lack of clarity regarding default fees creates a major loophole that could expose tenants to unreasonable fines from unscrupulous landlords or letting agents.