The Renters’ Rights Bill moves steadily through the House of Lords in pursuit of royal assent very soon. As a result, the lords have begun their detailed examination of the bill throughout committee stage, we are interested in this bill has it affects the social housing sector, despite its focus on the private rented sector. The next committee hearings are on the 6^th,  12^th and 14^th of May. We will of course, keep you update as the committee moves swiftly on.

We will at first, highlight the amendments moved to the house of lords. The amendments are numerous, and a large amount concern amending provisions that deal with notice periods, fixed term tenancies, the use of Section 21 and financial penalties. They can be found below:

Amendments 8 and 9 - Amendment 8 would allow landlords who have fewer than five properties to continue to be able to issue Section 21 notices. Amendment 9 would allow fixed term tenancies to continue if both the landlord and the tenant agree.

Amendment 13 - This amendment removes Clause 1, the abolition of fixed term tenancies, from the bill.

Amendments 146 and 147 - These amendments lower maximum penalties councils can impose on landlords for non-compliance.

Amendments 72, 73 & 74 - These amendments question the Government’s decision to increase the minimum notice period for rent increases from one to two months.

Amendment 75 - This amendment would allow rents agreed by landlords and tenants to exceed the tribunal-set maximum.

Amendment 71 - This amendment seeks to ensure that when a tenant is being evicted through no fault of their own, they will have a one-month period of not paying rent in order to help cover their moving and related costs while they find new accommodation.

Amendment 191 - This new clause would prevent discrimination against prospective tenants who may require home adaptations for accessibility.

Amendment 206 - Provides mediated rent pauses where housing conditions fail standards.

Amendment 253 - This amendment would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.

Amendment 254 - This amendment would increase the maximum duration of additional HMO licensing schemes and selective licensing schemes from five to ten years.

Amendment 31:

This amendment makes all grounds for repossession discretionary.

Amendment 60:

Under the Bill, the threshold for rent arrears would increase from two to three months before a landlord could mandate repossession by serving notice. This amendment would maintain the existing two months mandatory possession ground for rent arrears.

Amendment 173:

This amendment seeks to provide for tenants to give notice to quit not earlier than four months after agreeing to the assured tenancy, meaning a minimum tenancy of six months, rather than two months.

Amendment 203:

This new clause allows the Secretary of State to set by regulations requirements for property agents to take part in training and achieve qualifications.

Amendment 226:

This amendment would include rent repayments orders for non-registration of the database created under this Act.

Amendment 249,:

This amendment would make the Decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996.

Amendment 251:

This amendment would extend the Decent Homes Standard to accommodation provided to people in asylum accommodation.

What does the Bill do?

The Bill contains a number of provisions aimed at fixing the housing crisis, mainly within the private sector. This includes:

• Abolishing section 21 evictions 
• Ensuring possession grounds are fair to both parties
• Providing stronger protections against backdoor eviction 
• Introducing a new Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman 
• Creating a Private Rented Sector Database 
• Giving tenants strengthened rights to request a pet in the property
• Applying the Decent Homes Standard to the private rented sector 
• Applying ‘Awaab’s Law’ to the sector,
• Making it illegal for landlords and agents to discriminate against prospective tenants in receipt of benefits or with children 
• Ending the practice of rental bidding by prohibiting landlords and agents from asking for or accepting offers above the advertised rent.
• Strengthening local authority enforcement 
• Strengthening rent repayment orders ^[1]

Committee Stage Debate in Focus: Fixed Term Tenancies

The abolishing of fixed term tenancies, and the removal of section 21, continue to be fierce debate across the committee, and prove to be the one of the main contentions with the government’s Bill. In pursuit of a perceived remedy to what many, particularly Conservative peers, view as a step too far, peers such as Lord Cromwell, have attempted to invoke measures such as amendments 3 and 12, that in practice, attempt to work together.

The amendment principally proposed the following, as stated by the government: This amendment and another in the name of Lord Cromwell seeks to ensure on the face of the Bill that the tenant is able to request (after four months of occupancy) a voluntary extension agreement with a specified term. The tenant would retain the ability to leave on two months’ notice, and the landlord would voluntarily limit rights of recovery to the anti-social behaviour and not paying rent grounds, thereby incentivising an uninterrupted occupancy.

This voluntary extension agreement aims to seek to ensure that the tenants are able to request, after four months of occupancy, a voluntary extension agreement with a specified term. It was stated that the tenant would retain the ability to leave on two months’ notice, and the landlord would voluntarily limit rights of recovery to the anti-social behaviour, and not paying rent grounds, thereby incentivising an uninterrupted occupancy.

However, these amendments faced some pushback during the debate on the 22^nd, with Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat), noting that this is in fact, ‘just a new ground for repossession’, remarking that the message that rolling tenancies are instable, is in fact not accurate.

Ultimately, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, thanked the Lord for the amendments, however the form of agreement that these amendments would allow is not conducive to the system the government is proposing, as reintroducing fixed terms adds complexity into the system; it was proposed that having simple, single system of periodic tenancies will make it easier for both parties to better understand their rights and responsibilities. Ultimately therefore, this amendment was withdrawn.

Committee Debate in Focus: Court Delays

As is expected, the impact of the court delays found itself at the forefront of political debate. Various amendments were proposed to the house which intends to remedy this; this includes Amendment 69 from Baroness Scott of Bybrook.

Amendment 69 intends to require the Lord Chancellor to assess the operation of the possession process to ensure that the courts service has the capacity to deal with the increased demand expected because of this Bill. Speaking on this amendment, the Baroness said, “This groups addresses a critical issue that will determine the success or failure of the Bill: the capacity of our courts to deliver it.”

Various amendments compounded on each other in order to forward this belief that the courts are at critical capacity, and that further legislation can impact this. Such as Amendment 283, which would, in her own words, “would ensure that Section 21 cannot be abolished until the assessment outlined in Amendment 69 has been published and, crucially, that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the courts have the capacity to manage the increased demand”.

Other Lords also underscored this scope, such as Lord Etherton, who proposed Amendment 279 which stipulates: “None of the provisions of this Act, other than this subsection, come into force until the Secretary of State certifies that the average time for the court’s disposal of landlords possession actions in respect of residential property is as timely as in the year ending 23 March 2020”.

Rhetoric surrounding court delays continued, and persisted in non-legal capacities, such as The Earl of Kinnoull, who argues that IT systems need to be considered in this wider debate.

Ultimately, the Parliamentary under-secretary, rebuked the amendments, stating that the ‘proposed assessment will provide no new insight or benefit interested parties’, adding “compelling the courts and tribunals to undertake such an assessment would detract from their vital work to make sure the courts are ready for our reforms”.

Amendment 69 was therefore withdrawn.

Some concerns were raised over the removal of section 21; debate was focused on the perceived lack of efficacy under a struggling civil justice system. The government’s own figures, as of the quarter 4 of 2024, show that seven months is the average time taken to process and enforce a Section 8 possession case—especially around the thorny issue of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The Local Government Association and the Law Society have raised this pertinent issue.

The Law Society in particular notes the potential “increase in contested hearings in the short term, as landlords that would previously have used” Section 21, because it was less costly and less onerous, will now “have to show good reason for eviction”.

It was also established that tenants themselves do not have much faith in the court system as it currently stands. Figures provided in 2023 by Citizens Advice show that only “23% of tenants feel confident applying to court. 99% of tenants whose landlord has taken an unreasonably long time to complete repairs did not bring a claim for disrepair to court … 54% … said they did not … because of the complexity of the process … 45% … said they were put off by the length of time involved”.

This speech was finished by putting questions to the minister, and explicitly mentions the case for anti-social behaviour in his final dialogue:

“If the Government choose to reject this amendment on Report, or further along, is she committed, with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, to a suggestion of end-to-end digitisation in the court system? If so, when, and how? Will more court staff be recruited? Will numbers increase as they have in Scotland? Will cases of, for instance, serious anti-social behaviour be prioritised? Will the justice impact test be continued in the same way that the previous Government was committed to? Will it be monetised? Will it be delivered in a timely way and be properly evaluated?”

It is significant court delays in particular are being raised, echoing many of the difficulties that is being experienced for anti-social behaviour practitioners using tools and powers to prevent and deter anti-social behaviour. While many of the provisions for the private sector are welcomed, we of course, fear the ramifications across the legal sector and how this will therefore impact social housing. For the Bill to be effective, we must ensure agencies are effectively resourced, the Local Government Association (LGA), notes that the Bill places significant ‘new regulatory and enforcement responsibilities on councils’ as just one example. Indeed, research from the Department of Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC), identified the problems that many local enforcement teams do not currently have the resources and capacity to tackle inadequate standards in the private rented sector.^[2] It is clear the government are resolute in the fundamentals of the Bill, including the abolishing of fixed term tenancies, and the removal of section 21. We will have to wait and see the true impact that this will have on the wider housing sector.

For any questions or further information on this issue, please contact:

Harrison Box, Policy Officer

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

^[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-the-renters-rights-bill/guide-to-the-renters-rights-bill

^[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-authority-enforcement-in-the-private-rented-sector-headline-report/local-authority-enforcement-in-the-private-rented-sector-headline-report#local-authority-knowledge-and-understanding-of-the-private-rented-sector