Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there are four amendments in this group relating to Clauses 22 and 23 on notices to quit, so I wish to move Amendment 171 and speak to Amendments 172, 174, and 175.

The background to these amendments has been raised by front-line advisors of Citizens Advice. I thank them for their contribution to our consideration of this Bill, and I hope the Minister will be able to allay the concerns that they have expressed when she responds. These concerns relate to how tenants serve, withdraw or reduce notice in joint tenancies, and the length of notice that tenants must give to leave before the expiration of an eviction notice that they had been served using the new, no-fault grounds 1 and 1A.

It may come as a surprise to some to realise that, in joint tenancies, one tenant can serve a notice to quit to the landlord, ending the tenancy for all tenants without the other joint tenants knowing that this has happened. Tenants remaining in the property might not know that a notice has been served until the landlord expresses an intention to issue a claim for possession on the basis that the tenancy has been ended by a notice to quit. This would put the remaining tenants in a very vulnerable position, at risk of homelessness and liable for court costs. This is the status quo with periodic tenancies, but it could become a more common problem when all tenancies become periodic. It is important for one joint tenant to be able to end a joint tenancy unilaterally—I accept that—but a mechanism is essential to ensure that all joint tenants are notified.

Similarly, while it is welcome that the Bill provides for reduced notice by agreement between landlord and tenant, it should be stipulated that this is only where all joint tenants agree in writing. Otherwise, there is a risk that a departing joint tenant and their landlord will agree to bring a tenancy to an end very quickly, potentially without the remaining joint tenant being aware. In terms of the withdrawal of notice, there is a similar problem. In theory, one joint tenant could issue a notice to quit, and the other joint tenant and the landlord could agree that it will be withdrawn. The solution is to require that the agreement of all joint tenants is needed for the withdrawal of a notice.

There is a further issue when a tenant serves notice, but when the other tenant would have sought to transfer the tenancy solely to them if they had known notice was being served. This happens most often when joint tenants go through a relationship breakdown and the tenant who leaves serves a notice to quit, sometimes with the intention of harming the remaining tenant. Yet the remaining tenant could have gone to court to get an injunction to prevent the departing tenant from serving the notice to quit, allowing time for the tenancy to be transferred to them under family law. The remaining joint tenant would then retain the security of tenure and not be made homeless. It is important to note that many of these cases involve children.

When a tenant receives an eviction notice based on the new no-fault grounds 1 and 1A, they must still give two months’ notice, even if they need to leave the property before the expiration of the eviction notice. Yet in a fast-moving rental market, tenants often have to move quickly to secure an appropriate new home before their eviction notice expires; tenants may therefore face having to start a new tenancy before their current one has ended in order to avoid homelessness. There would be a new deposit, a first month’s rent, and often household bill costs on the new property, while also paying rent and household bills on their current home. This creates a very high-cost burden for tenants and can push those on a lower income into significant debt or put them at risk of homelessness if they cannot cover these costs or find a property with an aligning tenancy start date. This issue will be amplified with the Bill’s increase in tenant notice from one month to two.

This group of amendments would, first, require joint tenants to be notified by both the landlord and any tenant giving notice, that a notice to quit has been submitted and the tenancy will come to an end on a specified date. We should note that this amendment reflects the notification requirements of Section 130 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016.

Secondly, the amendments would ensure that a tenant’s notice to quit can be reduced or withdrawn, through agreement with a landlord, only if all joint tenants agree to it in writing.

Thirdly, they would allow withdrawal of a tenant notice in circumstances where a transfer or assignment of the tenancy to a remaining tenant is a viable option, which would remove the need to anticipate and pre-empt a notice to quit with an injunction.

Finally, they would reduce the notice a tenant must give to one month when notice has been served to them on grounds 1 and 1A, which would give much-needed flexibility to tenants and help them manage the high cost of moving, which is unaffordable to many low-income renters.

I hope the Minister will give due consideration to those issues, which I think are very important. I have learned a little about joint tenancies that I did not know before Citizens Advice got in touch. I hope that the Minister will be willing to give further consideration and detail to this so that, on Report, we can produce the amendments that are necessary to solve the problems that have been identified.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was intrigued by the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, today and it is interesting to hear that they have come from Citizens Advice. I am conscious that things have evolved over time, and he mentioned relationship breakdown. As somebody who used to rent with other people, I know there was always a certain risk when you took on a tenancy that somebody could walk out and you would be left liable.

I guess I am trying to understand—perhaps I was not listening quite closely enough—whether we will get to a point where, instead of people coming together, this will drive more accommodation into houses of multiple occupation.

I will give your Lordships my personal experience. I was working for a very large company when I moved to another city, which reflected the job situation that I needed. There is no doubt that I deliberately sought out situations that were not exactly HMOs but where individual contracts and tenancies were allowed with the landlord, so that it would not fall on my shoulders to think about these issues.

I suppose I am trying to understand how this amendment would address the situation of making sure that there are enough tenancies and enough accommodation available, without putting more risk on to the landlord. We are already seeing quite a substantial change. I understand why the Government set this out in their manifesto and similar. I appreciate that there may be some differences on some of the impact but, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, follows up—I am happy to discuss this outside—it would be useful to discuss how much of a genuine, as opposed to theoretical, problem this really is.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing these amendments to the Committee. As we on this side have consistently said throughout, we support the Bill’s overarching aim to create a fairer and more secure private rental sector. However, if it is to deliver on that promise, it must engage with the way that people rent in reality, not in theory. Joint tenancies are a common and practical arrangement, as we have heard, whether between couples, friends or flatmates. However, as currently drafted, the Bill leaves considerable uncertainty as to how these tenancies will be treated, particularly when one party wishes to leave.

Amendments 171 and 175 rightly seek to bring joint tenancies fully and clearly within the scope of the Bill. Without this clarity, both tenants and landlords could be left navigating ambiguity, with little guidance in law and potentially significant consequences in practice.

Similarly, Amendments 172 and 174 focus on the mechanisms for ending a joint tenancy. This is a matter not just of legal process but of fairness and practicality. Tenants must be afforded flexibility, particularly in cases of relationship breakdown or changes in household arrangements, while landlords should not be left in legal or financial limbo.

In that context, it is right to raise the issue of subletting, which is closely tied to how joint tenancies evolve and adapt over time. When a tenant is not using all or even part of their space, subletting enables the more efficient use of underoccupied homes. This is particularly important in areas facing acute housing shortages, where every single room matters. Subletting arrangements can offer a pragmatic solution for tenants trying to manage their finances, respond to personal changes or simply avoid exiting a tenancy altogether. It can help maintain housing stability where one joint tenant moves out, by allowing a new occupier to contribute to rent without formalising a new tenancy agreement from scratch. Moreover, subletting can play a role in addressing the chronic supply issues affecting the rental sector. It offers access to more affordable rents, supports tenants’ incomes and introduces much-needed flexibility into an often rigid system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 176 and speak also to Amendment 177, in my name. Before I begin, I refer the Committee to my interests as set out in the register, as a farmer, landowner and residential landlord. In particular, I have a number of houses occupied by employees under assured agricultural occupancies.

These two amendments are probing amendments, intended to allow the Committee to understand better how the Government sees these provisions of the Bill operating and also to probe whether the impact of the Bill in this area may have unintended consequences that need to be resolved. Before moving on to the detail of the discussion, I shall follow my noble friend Lady Scott, who on an earlier group underlined the importance of being able to offer on-site accommodation to agricultural employees.

I have three herdspeople, and one relief herdswoman, who rise daily at around 3.30 in the morning to milk. Being a short walk from the herd and the parlour is critical to their employment conditions. Those herdspeople also take primary responsibility for animal health within the herds, as well as the linked young stock. Again, being on site is vital to allow frequent inspections of the animals to ensure that they are doing well. There is also an important security consideration in having employees on site and able to deal with any malicious trespass, animal escapes and so on.

In short, this may not be a matter of huge general interest, but it is critical to farming in general, and to livestock farming in particular, that accommodation is available on site for these employees. When they leave, it needs to be available for their successors. However, we must also recognise that farm workers may have lived for many years, and even decades, in a community, and that options for them to stay in the area even when employment ends are desirable.

Beginning with Amendment 176, my Explanatory Notes indicate that leaving out this paragraph is intended to probe why the Government have sought to remove Section 25(1) of the 1988 Act completely. Since the 1988 Act, it appears that agricultural occupiers with an assured agricultural occupancy are entitled to remain in that occupation, even if they leave the employment of the landlord, as long as they remain in agricultural employment.

Omitting this subsection could mean that agricultural occupiers retain protection even after their qualifying employment ends. I ask the Minister whether that is the intention. The subsection may be being removed because it refers to fixed-term tenancies, which the Government are seeking to abolish in the Bill. However, in this case, it is linked to fixed-term employment. It appears that the Government may not have considered the importance of this link and the necessity for landlords to be able to recover agricultural accommodation linked to employment. I also ask what impact this will have on assured agricultural occupants in tied agricultural dwellings where, if they are no longer employed in agriculture, it may well be a breach of planning regulations.

Amendment 177 is a similar probing amendment. Ground 16, for recovering possession of an assured agricultural occupancy at the end of employment, was omitted from the Housing Act 1988. This created a headache for agricultural employers, but in practice its implications have been rather limited, as departing employees often leave for other employment with accommodation included, or because the open market rent for quality rural accommodation tends to be unaffordably high for those working in agriculture.

In the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Government have continued to omit the ability to recover accommodation at the end of employment—or at least that is what I thought. On an earlier group, the Minister said that

“we appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, very ably described to us. That is why we have included ground 5A”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 859.]

However, it does not appear that ground 5A is applicable to landlords and assured agricultural occupants to ensure that houses can be recovered at the end of employment, as it is omitted as being a ground. I would be most grateful to the Minister if she could explain how she sees it working in practice for agricultural employers to recover vital accommodation at the end of employment.

These assured agricultural occupiers will also gain greater protection, given that grounds 2ZC and 2ZB are not available for use. I ask the Minister why the Government think this is appropriate. Why are agricultural landlords being treated differently from other landlords and are not able to regain possession of the properties after the landlord changes under Section 18 of the Housing Act 1988 or after taking over a tenancy?

In a previous group, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, argued for making grounds 2ZC and 2ZB discretionary. In our view, this introduction of legal uncertainty would make the complexity even worse. From my limited exposure to this Bill, I am not sure how easily anyone will be able to administer all tenancies captured by it without a law degree. This discretion may elevate that base level of expertise to actually practising at the Bar. Given that it is largely estate agents and land agents who manage tenancies, it is important to make the Bill’s provisions as clear-cut as possible.

I also ask the Minister whether the Government have considered the impact of this Bill on a particular practice that we believe will deliver unintended consequences. Many agricultural employers, when housing employees, have understandably sought to avoid creating assured agricultural occupancies by serving notice before a tenancy begins and classifying that tenancy as an assured shorthold tenancy. This allowed serving a Section 21 notice with certainty that the house could be recovered at the end of employment to ensure it was available for the next employee. As a consequence of this Bill, those employees or tenants will now gain what appears to be greater protection than originally intended. Would the Minister consider adding a provision to allow landlords and employees in this position to change the status of those tenancies, potentially to assured agricultural occupancies, before the Bill takes effect? I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 182. I am a great supporter of the policy of right to buy and right to acquire. I think it is one of the best policies of the past 50 years, making sure that people had investment in their communities and were able to determine exactly how different things in their homes looked. Basically, it made sure that we had a greater proportion of owner-occupiers.

During my time as a Member of Parliament, I had not realised that, in effect, there had been discrimination against people living in the countryside. I discovered this when busily propagating some of the latest policies that my party was putting forward and had it said to me very squarely on a doorstep in a particular housing estate in Rendlesham in Suffolk. I was told that I was doing a load of good, but, frankly, it meant nothing to them because they had already tried to acquire their housing association home and had been told that they could not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for their amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their comments.

I turn first to Amendments 176 and 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. Amendment 176 seeks to reverse the Bill’s removal of Section 25(1) from the Housing Act 1988. The noble Lord stated that he is seeking to probe why we are making this change. The answer, I am sure he will be pleased to learn, is simple and straightforward. After this Bill is implemented, Section 25(1) of the 1988 Act will be a spent provision; that is to say, it will have no effect. That is because it deals with what happens when statutory periodic tenancies arise upon the end of a fixed term of an assured agricultural occupancy. Statutory periodic tenancies will no longer exist after the Bill is implemented, nor will fixed terms. Indeed, all assured tenancies, including assured agricultural occupancies, will be periodic tenancies. The provision in Clause 25 is purely a consequential amendment, tidying up this spent provision from the 1988 Act following our reforms.

Amendment 177 seeks to allow the eviction of tenants with assured agricultural occupancies under ground 2ZC. This would reduce the security that these tenants currently enjoy. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has highlighted that he is seeking to probe why the Bill is expanding the restrictions on when assured agricultural occupancies can be evicted. With respect, this represents a misunderstanding of what the provision is doing. Clause 25 contains technical and consequential amendments to the assured agricultural occupancy regime that aim to maintain the status quo in light of our reforms. It includes preventing landlords from evicting those tenants under the employment ground—now 5C—as well as ground 5A and the new superior landlord grounds. These grounds cover circumstances where tenants under assured agricultural occupancy tenancies cannot currently be evicted. They are being amended or introduced by the Bill, and, as such, may pose a risk to tenants’ security in the new system. Rather than expanding the restrictions on evictions for such tenants, this provision will broadly maintain the status quo. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, not to press his amendments.

Amendment 182, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent any secondary legislation laid under the power in paragraph 65 of Schedule 2 exempting the rural sector from the right to acquire—and, more widely, seeks to ensure that residents in properties in rural areas have the right to acquire. The provisions in paragraph 65 of Schedule 2 allow the Secretary of State to lay regulations specifying types of assured tenancies to which the right to acquire would not apply. This consequential amendment allows the government to consider whether any of the existing right-to-acquire exemptions that apply to assured shorthold tenancies should be transferred across to the new regime. The amendment from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent this power being used to exempt the rural sector from the right to acquire. Rural properties are currently exempt in designated rural areas, which are generally settlements with fewer than 3,000 people—the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the Devon Housing Commission, which he has ably chaired, and he has made me aware of the conclusions of that commission.

This is designed to protect affordable housing in areas, both rural and urban, where replacement is often not viable due to its high costs, planning restrictions or land constraints, for example, and it is necessary to ensure the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government have no plans to change this, although it may be helpful if I comment briefly on the right to acquire. To qualify for that, tenants must have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant and occupy an eligible property. That applies whether they are in a rural or an urban area. However, there are important exemptions, such as those for the rural sector and for properties built or acquired by housing associations using their own funds. These restrictions aim to strike a balance between promoting home ownership and protecting social housing in areas or situations where it is most needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, reflected some of the reasons that might be the case.

The Government recently consulted on reforms to right to buy, seeking views on eligibility criteria, the minimum and maximum percentage discounts, further protections for new-build properties and replacement of the homes sold. That consultation closed on 15 January and we are considering the responses received. We will provide more information on the next steps in due course. Importantly, the right to acquire was not included in that consultation; the Government will consider whether any changes should be made to the right to acquire in the light of future changes to the right to buy.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Could the Minister address the situation where housing associations are selling off rural housing on the open market to the highest bidder, rather than to the tenants?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We hope to provide more financial sustainability to housing associations through our funding mechanisms, which I hope will prevent them having to do that. The Government have no current plans to change the right to acquire. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and want to add a very brief footnote to the two speeches that have already been made.

It is at times like this that we miss the contribution of the late Baroness Gardner of Parkes, who many of us will remember intervening forcefully whenever short-term lettings were mentioned, reminding us of the erosion of rented property in London, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned, some of the problems in large blocks of flats when short-term tenants cannot conform to the normal rules.

What we need here is a balance. There is a role for short-term lettings and Airbnb to play as part of a portfolio of opportunities in a coastal resort or, indeed, in a capital city. But what we have at the moment is a one-way street of erosion of long-term property for rent into short-term lettings. If we are to have a balance and get it right, it should be the local authority which should be in a position to strike that balance. I am sure the Minister, as a distinguished leader of a local authority, would agree that local authorities are best placed to do this.

I think I am right in saying that, until fairly recently, you actually needed planning permission to move from long-term to short-term letting, but, in a move to deregulate and make it easier to move from one use class to another, that requirement to get planning consent to move from one use to another was waived in the 2010 or 2015 Parliament, apart from in London.

It was retained in London, and only in London, where, if you want to short-term rent a property, you can only do so for 90 days—a rule that is ineffective unless it is enforced, and many local authorities find it difficult to enforce . What this amendment seeks to establish is whether the Government are minded to extend from London to other parts of the country that type of restriction to stop what is, at the moment, a one-way street.

I just add a rider to what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has suggested. If you need planning consent to go from long-term to short-term, I do not think you ought to need planning consent to go back the other way. In other words, it should be a hurdle to get over, but if you want to revert to long-term renting, you should not have to go through the process again. If one looks at various parts of the country, in some coastal areas, one in 10 homes are now short-term lets or second homes. Roughly 24 homes a day are being lost through this process, so I hope the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to the thrust of this Bill, and say that there are plans to give local authorities the powers that I think they need to get the right balance in the tenures in their area.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I live not far from Aldeburgh, not too far from Southwold, so I am very conscious of the issues that have arisen from people acquiring homes and then turning them into short-term rentals. It is a really important part of the coastal economy, but I would suggest in a different way that, in fact, the changes made to the tax situation, where it was possible to offset mortgages and all sorts of expenses, led to a significant increase in the price that people were prepared to pay for houses. I saw this in Southwold, where I got a lot of angry letters—admittedly from people who had done just this thing. What happened was that neighbouring houses that had been priced only a few years earlier at something like £300,000 to £400,000, were now selling for over £1 million. This was done on the basis of the short-term property rental that was possible.

However, what concerns me about this particular amendment is that it does not account for those people who are moving into a place to make it their permanent home. At the moment, this amendment suggests that, if it has been used at all for long-term tenancy, it should be excluded or need further planning permission. I suggest that there are plenty of people who are trying—whether in rural or coastal areas—to make their long-term home, but want to take advantage of the times when they themselves choose to go on holiday to be able to get some rental income. It is a perfectly sensible way, at times when people choose to be away potentially at the height of season, to gain that extra income. While I am sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I think that we need to explore what happens when the property transitions from one owner to another so that they can use their new family home in the best way possible, not only to enjoy that home but potentially to make sure that it gets used all year round.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The noble Lord referred to my comments. What I was doing was reading out his amendment where it says:

“Where a property has been let subject to an assured tenancy or assured shorthold tenancy at any time in the preceding three years, it must not be let as a short-term rental property … unless a change of use has been permitted”.


I was trying to understand whether, when there is a change in ownership—not just any old renting out if somebody goes away—that would prevent a new owner-occupier being able to do what is suggested without planning permission. I was just trying to understand his own amendment.

[Lord Best (CB)]

I am grateful for that point, which sounds entirely valid. We may need to refine still further the amendment that we are all working on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad, as always, to support my noble friend Lord Black, whose commitment to animal welfare is well known. His proposed new clause and his amendments in this group represent a further stage of his determined efforts on behalf of beloved pets and their owners. The principle underlying his proposed changes is simple: fairness in the rental market must apply at the first stage of the process, which is when an application is made for a tenancy.

As my noble friend pointed out, the Bill rightly prohibits pre-tenancy discrimination against those with children or in receipt of benefits. Similar protections should be extended to those who own pets, who at the moment face rejection of an application for a tenancy on that one ground alone. The new clause does not compel landlords to accept pets unconditionally; it simply introduces fairness by ensuring that applications cannot be dismissed out of hand just because a pet is involved.

As my noble friend has made clear, we need to bear in mind the terrible position in which the absence of fairness places pet owners at the moment. The heartbreak of being forced to choose between a home and a companion animal is one that no tenant should have to make. I hope the Government will give very careful consideration to my noble friend’s constructive proposals.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to these amendments. I must confess I did not quite understand Amendments 193 and 198, so I did not put my name to them, but I am grateful for the explanation that my noble friend has given. There is no doubt that the availability of private rental in having pets is considerably smaller. I am conscious that when I moved to Suffolk, I think it was back in March 2010, when I was looking for places to rent—not to holiday rent, but to rent properly as a home—had I not had my dog Rizzo at the time, more than 200 properties would have been available, but when it came to any landlord that would even encounter having a dog, the number was reduced to four, and this in an area of 300 square miles.

It gave me a clear insight into the restrictions placed on people who want to move with their family—and pets are considered often part of that family. As has been mentioned elsewhere, there was certainly a premium to pay, as a consequence of what property was available, for the opportunity to have Rizzo come and visit on a regular basis.

I was struck by one issue in the amendments that my noble friends have tabled, to do with mortgaged premises. I have been pretty horrified to learn, in the variety of casework that I have undertaken over the years, about the artificial restrictions placed on mortgages that people have taken up. They have simply told me, “I’m not allowed to do this”. I felt that this was too good an opportunity to miss; that is why I signed my noble friend’s amendment.

As my noble friend Lord Lexden said, this is plain discrimination against people who have not yet been able to secure a home in a particular area. These are sensible additions to the Bill. I am aware that your Lordships have, overall, welcomed the opportunity to try to remove these exclusions on keeping pets in homes that people are renting. I hope the Minister will look kindly on these amendments to make sure that this part of the potential loophole is addressed and filled.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I do hope that the Minister will not agree to this. I have a flat that I live in part-time but sometimes rent, and I am allergic to animals. The idea that I would have to consider and take an application from someone with a pet, when I could not possibly have them living there because of my allergy, seems to me quite unfair. They would come to see the flat and waste their time when there is no chance in the world that I could let it to someone with a pet. I do hope that we will not go the way of forcing somebody like me to waste someone’s time in going to see a property. There is no way that I would be able to have an animal in the flat that I live in at other times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group are intended to probe the Government’s decisions on rental bidding and to better understand the rationale behind this section of the Bill. I begin by drawing your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 199A tabled in my name. I wish to understand why, if a tenant or prospective tenant offers a lower rent than the proposed letting value, the landlord is prevented from accepting it. If a tenant is able to secure the property at a more affordable rate, this seems a fair and beneficial outcome. If the proposed letting value is set unrealistically high, allowing offers below that figure provides an important market correction, one which benefits tenants. This is particularly relevant in weaker rental markets where negotiating powers often lie disproportionately with the landlords. I simply ask the Minister: did she consider this before putting it forward?

On these Benches, we recognise the difficult balance the Government are attempting to strike between preventing unfair and unaffordable rent increases and ensuring that the proposed letting value reflects proposed market conditions. Market conditions are, of course, determined by the supply of homes and the market rent must still incentivise landlords to remain in the sector to provide the housing capacity that we urgently need. This brings me to our intention to oppose the question that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill. The rent-setting process must be transparent, and must be free to function. We should not pretend that we can fix prices without distorting the market signals that allow for an efficient and well-resourced housing market. We must be careful not to introduce policies that mask the simple fact that we need more homes of all types. We on these Benches are committed to working with the Minister to that end, but I first ask her: has she considered whether these measures may in fact obscure the true demand within the rental sector? Understanding that demand is key to delivering the right supply and the right homes built in the right places.

Further, has the Minister considered the impact on labour mobility? Tenants in rent control units may be discouraged from relocating for jobs or education, thus reducing workforce mobility. With over 800,000 vacancies, we should not be inadvertently curtailing the movement of our workers. Finally, I wish to probe whether the Government have fully considered the potential impact on new renters compared with existing tenants. No one on these Benches doubts the Minister’s intentions; we simply fear that the department has not paused to fully reflect on these key issues.

I turn to Amendment 199B, also in my name. I will cheekily anticipate that the Minister may say, in response to this probing question: “Yes”. The Bill attempts to define the term “relevant person” in Clause 58(6) but, before the Minister reaches that definition, I wish to question its adequacy and its clarity. Is there any formal process to designate someone as a relevant person or is this determined on a case-by-case basis? Further, how is the term “acting indirectly” to be interpreted? Does this include property agents or other advisory parties? Crucially, what is meant by “purporting to act”? I am sure that those with legal expertise in this House will argue that this is a loaded term that depends heavily on interpretation. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer her understanding of it and, importantly, explain how consistency in interpretation will be ensured.

Clause 58 represents a significant shift. With that must come clear answers. I hope the Minister will help your Lordships’ House to understand the Government’s thinking more fully. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in these amendments. Two different things are going on here, one of which is not allowing the market to work. I am trying to understand what evidence there is to suggest that this is a real issue.

I will give a personal story. When at university, a group of us wanted to rent a house. Under the rules of the university, you could live only at a certain distance, and so on. Not wanting to take a 12-month tenancy, we were particularly attracted by and sought out houses that would require only a nine-month tenancy. The landlady we were involved with used to make considerably more rent in the summer through tourists and short-term lets, but also gave students the opportunity not to take on the liability of the year. That helped keep rents relatively low. I am sure that your Lordships can imagine that such a scenario, while it may seem niche, was still very important to students at that time, and so was the availability of houses reflecting that opportunity. In effect—this is nothing to be embarrassed about—we gazumped by being prepared to sacrifice a living room and turn it into an extra bedroom. It also gave a little more rent to the landlady, which was a factor when, I was led to believe, 46 groups went to see that house wanting to secure the tenancy.

While I completely understand some of the intentions of this clause about not getting into ridiculous bidding wars, I am surprised, given the real scarcity in certain parts of the country of private sector rentals, as to why we would want to unnecessarily put such handcuffs on the landlord to accept only the rent they advertise and not be creative about the situation in which prospective tenants may find themselves.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling her amendments relating to rental bidding. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for contributing. I will respond to the two probing amendments in a moment. First, however, I will set out to the Committee why I consider her fundamental objection to Clause 58 —which will end the unfair practice of renters being pitted against each other in bidding wars—to be misplaced.

The measures in Clause 58 will require landlords and persons acting for them, for example letting agents, to state a proposed rent in any written advertisement for the property. Landlords and those acting for them will then be prohibited from asking for, encouraging or accepting bids above this price. To respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, these are not rent controls—the landlord may advertise the property at the rent they wish to achieve, but they cannot then increase that rent as other bidders come along. Currently, too many tenants suffer from a lack of transparency in the lettings process. I cannot imagine the heartbreak of thinking that you have found a property at a rent that you can afford only to discover that the landlord or letting agent has pushed other tenants to offer more. Their experience is not that of a viewing but of a kerbside auction. The impact on renters of the practice is clear and our measures will end it for good.

This is a specific problem that we are trying to target, and the majority of landlords do not engage in rental bidding. However, we are trying to stamp out the egregious practice of a minority of landlords who exploit the fact that, particularly in hot rental markets, there is a lack of supply relative to demand. Tenants can be pitted against each other in ways that ensure the rent of a tenancy escalates to a point beyond what many of them can afford, or which, if they can afford it, puts an incredible financial strain on them.

I visited a housing site in Greenwich this week and I heard that, in some parts of London, a house in the private rented sector will cost a public sector worker 94% of their salary just to pay the rent. These measures will improve the experiences of prospective tenants across England and provide clarity to all those involved in the lettings process.

Amendment 199A would remove the prohibition on landlords inviting or encouraging a tenant to offer to pay an amount of rent that exceeds the stated rent. If this amendment were taken forward, landlords would fall foul of the rental bidding provisions only if they accepted rent at a level above the stated rent, not if they invited or encouraged its payment. While I welcome the scrutiny—and I genuinely do—of our rental bidding measures, I am concerned that this amendment would risk allowing a form of rental bidding to continue to be practised. Under this—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 203 and 204, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others. I declare my interest as a leaseholder, as well as a landlord and former PRS tenant. Noble Lords supporting these amendments have already made a cast-iron case for requiring property-management agents to have relevant training and qualifications, and for these requirements to be legally enforced.

I have dealt with a number of property management agents. Some have been excellent and others have been appalling. It seems extraordinary to me that property agents who may deal with millions of pounds of property and revenue are currently not required to have any professional qualifications or training whatever. Some agents I have dealt with in the past have no property qualifications and had little or no understanding of property law or lease enforcement. There is no other sector that I am aware of where individuals dealing with such large amounts of money and such valuable assets can be wholly unqualified and virtually unregulated.

Anyone can set themselves up as a property agent, with little or no knowledge of the sector. Many property agents are, of course, very professional, but the rogues and amateurs undermine the reputation of the whole property sector. This must end, as we have heard. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support these two amendments and urge the Minister to accept them.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose this amendment. It is rare that I am out of step with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, but I am concerned that overregulation of aspects of employment is—how can I put it?—a solution waiting for an extensive problem. One of the things that these amendments do is to yet again give considerable powers to others to set all sorts of training expectations. Candidly, and certainly in the private market, there are simply too many sectors in which government and Parliament seek to rip away control instead of the individual having that engagement and relationship.

We already have the property redress scheme in place, of which letting agents and people who manage properties have to be a part. Do not get me wrong: there are plenty of landlords who are not necessarily doing what they should, at the moment, but there are already mechanisms to put this in place. I do not believe that qualifications, training schemes or similar will make a particular difference.

I am also conscious of what happened with social housing, particularly some of the significant failures that we sadly saw in aspects of local government and housing associations. There was a feeling that something must be done. I am conscious, however, that that does not mean that we need to paint every letting agent or property manager with the same brush. For me, this is overreach on behalf of Parliament and, again, I would like to see the evidence for why we need to go to this extent and why yet another profession that has minimal regulation today now needs to be heavily regulated.

It is again a barrier that would put up agencies’ costs. This is the reality of having to deal with this sort of regulation: the person who pays is the renter, not the landlord. We have to bear in mind that, with the cost of living challenge that we are facing—still the number one issue for the electorate in this country—we are here tonight considering an amendment that will continue to put costs on people who are trying to pay their rent. This is the sort of economic situation that we need to consider for every regulation where we are adding extra barriers to entry to make sure that we keep in mind the people who want to just get on with their lives and have good relationships. They can change in the private sector; that is much harder for people in the social rented sector but, even then, we may have gone slightly too far. We must continue to consider the economic impact on people in this country with every regulation that we pass in this House.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I declare an interest, which I recently gave up, as the chair of the Property Ombudsman board. Perhaps I can provide some of the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, wanted because, in 30 years of dealing with complaints about property agents, the Property Ombudsman has seen many disputes that probably would not have occurred had those agents undertaken formal training and qualifications.

In 2023—the latest statistics we have—the ombudsman resolved over 2,200 letting disputes. Of these, over half concerned the management of tenancies where the main issues were the agents’ performance in organising and communicating repair and maintenance issues. For the majority, dissatisfaction in these disputes concerned simple and consistent communication around timescales and, in general, managing expectations. Training for agents on how to manage tenant and landlord expectations would have stopped many disputes arising in the first instance.

In addition, there were more than 500 disputes that related to complaint handling. Again, agents currently do not take a consistent approach to complaint handling, which often leaves both tenants and landlords frustrated. It became very clear to me in my time at the Property Ombudsman that to provide a professional and consistent level of service to tenants and landlords, many letting agents would benefit from formal training. It would not only help agents to provide a better service but set consistent expectations for consumers, meaning that relationships between agents, tenants and landlords would improve.

In my brief intervention, I reinforce the RoPA report recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Best, indeed reinforced by the work of my noble friend Lady Hayter, that the elements required to implement a training and qualifications regime are already in place. I hope it would not be too significant a leap for the Government to make training and qualifications a mandatory requirement for all letting agents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, all the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Members of the House who are still here at 12.47 am will note that I am not the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. My noble friend is the Green lark, and I am the Green owl, so you get me after midnight.

I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. The hashtag I often use is #Nowaytorunacountry. I take the systematic approach to this and suggest that your Lordships’ House urgently needs to think about a reset of our sitting hours.

I rise to move Amendment 206 in the name of my noble friend. This is a very straightforward, positive, friendly amendment aiming to assist the Government to ensure that this legislation can be enforced and can make a real difference. We know that so many renters are trapped in mouldy homes with leaking roofs and heating and hot water systems that are not working. When renters find themselves in those kinds of situations, this amendment would give them the right to pay the rent to a third-party body. My noble friend Lady Jones has suggested the new ombudsman, but we are very open to other suggestions as well. There are other ways of doing it. The amendment is written in a neutral way.

This is to deal with the situation where a landlord refuses to carry out essential repairs, yet the tenant is in a situation where they still have to keep paying for this utterly inadequate accommodation. The arrangements under this amendment would be that, if a landlord carries out the works and ameliorates the problems, the independent third-party would send them the full amount of rent due. If not, the tenant could get a full or partial refund, which they might well otherwise have to go to court to try to recover.

This is both a fair and an effective provision. It punishes the bad landlords and does not impact on the good ones. From the Government’s point of view, this is a constructive suggestion to help make sure that this legislation delivers on its stated aims. With those brief remarks, I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this in effect creates a formal escrow process. One of my proudest achievements was to organise a student rent strike, admittedly some time ago, as noble Lords may recognise. At the time, the university accommodation was due to be dismantled at the end of the year and as a consequence it felt like the university was not taking various matters very seriously.

I happened not to be a paying student at the time; I was a vice-warden in a hall of residence. So I did help them, but I insisted that, if I was to help them, they would have to pay over their rent to avoid being evicted. We did that by handing the money to the student union, to effectively act in escrow. As a consequence, repairs were made and everyone ended up happy—apart from the university, which did not like my role in that at all.

The reason I tell that story is that it matters that tenants should be able to withhold cash going directly to a landlord when the landlord is, frankly, taking the mickey. Awaab’s law has already been mentioned and Clause 63, which we did not specifically address, is already extending that to the private sector, and I welcome that. We need to work out a much easier way for people to effectively deploy this escrow approach. That is why I am supporting the amendment.

It is fair to say that we need to make sure that any such processes are easy to administer. Going a little bit further, there is a regularly read out statistic that something like 15% to 20% of housing benefit—or housing support, whether as direct housing benefit or through universal credit—is thought to go to properties not deemed fit for rent. I went into a reasonable amount of detail on this with officials.

The philosophy explained to me by the Permanent Secretary and other officials was that the state thus far should not determine on behalf of the renter where they are going to live; it is an important right for the renter to make that choice—even though it felt repulsive to me that taxpayers’ money was being spent in, frankly, some pretty ropey places. From my visits to some different housing, I have to say it was quite extraordinary what was going on. Sometimes, I am afraid, the dilapidation was the consequence of the tenant not allowing repairs to be undertaken—but that is a minor aside. The point is that—whether it is private money, your own money or the state’s money going to a private landlord—it matters that we have habitable accommodation. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments have raised the serious and emotive issue of the reality of tenants living in poor housing conditions and the remedies that are available when landlords fail to act. It is an area where frustration and vulnerability can understandably run high.

Amendment 206, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, proposes a system of mediated rent pauses. Under that model, tenants would be entitled to pay rent to an independent individual rather than their landlord when repairs are not carried out within the expected framework. However, we must be clear-eyed about this. How would it operate in practice? Who would this independent individual be in real terms? Would it be the redress scheme ombudsman? If so, is it appropriate or even realistic for them to be holding and distributing rent payments? Would they have the resources, legal authority or financial infrastructure to do so? It is overcomplicated.

There is also the question of safeguards. What mechanisms would ensure that the process was fair to both parties? What happens if a tenant withholds rent on the basis of a dispute that turns out to be unfounded? How long might rent be withheld, and what impact would that have on smaller landlords with limited financial resilience? It is entirely right that landlords should meet their obligations to maintain safe and decent homes, but we should be cautious about creating a system that effectively withholds rent before any formal adjudication. That could introduce significant uncertainty into the private rented sector. Would this approach encourage resolution or would it risk entrenching disputes? Might it push responsible landlords out of the market while rogue landlords simply continue to ignore the rules?

In short, while the amendment is well intentioned, and of course we sympathise with all individuals living in poor conditions and battling with irresponsible and careless landlords, it raises complex questions about implementation and unintended consequences. On balance, we are not persuaded that the provision as drafted would be workable in practice. However, there must be a better, more practical way to ensure that tenants are protected without creating further layers of bureaucracy and pushing good landlords out of the market.