Renters’ Rights Bill

Report (2nd Day)

15:23:00

My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group of amendments, I repeat the reminders from last week on declaring interests. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that, in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches on Report, so if noble Lords made a declaration last week, they do not need to do it again. As my noble friend the Chief Whip reminded the House last week, it is no longer sufficient to say that one’s interests are as set out in the register. Clause 11: Right to request permission to keep a pet Amendment 47

Moved by

47: Clause 11, page 18, line 9, at end insert— “(5A) The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include, but are not limited to, the following—(a) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of a tenant;(b) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of pets or specific species;(c) a generalised fear of damage to the property;(d) a pre-emptive fear of complaints from neighbours relating to noise, fouling or anti-social behaviour caused by the animal;(e) a superior landlord’s experience with a previous tenant about pets;(f) generalised or unsubstantiated animal welfare concerns.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment sets out examples of when it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent, providing clearer guidance and limiting arbitrary or prejudiced refusals.

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I own a dog that is subject to approval by a superior landlord of the flat in which we live. It has that approval. In Committee, the Minister laid out the Government’s commitment to enabling many more tenants to have pets in rented properties, which is, of course, very welcome. However, in her reply to my Committee stage amendment, which was similar to this amendment, she made the point that the Government did not want to include superior landlords among landlords who could unreasonably refuse the right to keep a pet. The superior landlord owns the head lease under which another landlord may come. She gave two main reasons: first, that there are practical challenges involved in engaging with superior landlords, and secondly, that in many cases the superior landlord is not based in the UK or is a complex ownership structure and requiring the superior landlord to give reasons for refusal for a pet might involve the tenant and/or the landlord in lengthy and costly processes that might make the obligation difficult to realise in practice. The fact is that most superior landlords are very quick to contact tenants when there is something they do not want to happen or there is an issue about money, so I do not accept how difficult it is to engage with them. The Minister may give me some examples. The fact that they are based overseas or have a complex ownership structure is simply not a good reason. The Minister kindly said she would come back to me after she had looked at the quantum involved, and I wonder whether she has found that out now as I have not heard anything. The Minister went on to say that my amendment was “not proportionate or necessary”. In fact, it is necessary, given that there are about 24,000 property management companies and the average size of portfolio is about 193 units. That would equal about 4.5 million units altogether, and the bigger superior landlords often manage about 144,000 properties. That is an awful lot of tenants to whom this very good clause of the Bill would not apply. On whether it is proportionate given the size of the tenant base who, without my amendment, will not benefit from Clause 12, I believe it is necessary and desirable that, when we legislate, we are as fair and equitable as possible. Since Committee, I have noticed warnings going out from people who represent superior landlords. I shall quote a couple. Nockolds writes: “One proposal introduced by the Bill is that Landlords must not unreasonably refuse pets at a rental property. In assessing what is ‘reasonable’ in these circumstances, it is likely to be justified for the Landlord to refuse a pet if the superior lease does not allow pets. If you do not want pets to be kept in your buildings, this may be a sensible clause to introduce”. That is what is going to happen. Superior landlords will all just introduce clauses, even if they do not have them now, to preclude pets, so there could be an unintended consequence without my amendment. John D Wood & Co goes into the matter: “Under What Grounds Can a Landlord Reject a Pet?...acceptable reasons may include … Superior Landlord Refusal”. There is a real issue here that, without including superior landlords in the Bill, the Minister will find that Clause 12 was a nice idea that does not work in practice. In Committee, the Minister rightly said that the Government want tenants to have the right to own a pet. We do not give superior landlords a free pass to discriminate in any other way, and we should not do so in this case. I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.

15:30:00

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48, which stands in my name. I declare my interests both as a landlord for my own part, to a small extent—all for properties in Scotland—and as trustee, in particular for the Blair Charitable Trust, all properties of which are also in Scotland. At the earlier stages of the Bill, it was reflected by a number of noble Lords that pets promoted well-being among tenants; that is something with which I very much agree. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who made a very good speech on this point at an earlier stage. The thrust of this Bill is that there is a presumption that pets should be allowed in rented property. There are two protections for landlords. First, they can say no if it is reasonable to do so; we have just been hearing about some things that might not be so reasonable. Secondly, there is a protection for landlords, at least currently in the Bill, of deposits and insurance. However, social housing is not included in the Bill; indeed, it is specifically excluded. That seems to me very unfair. I am grateful to the Minister and her Bill team, some members of which I can see sitting in the Box. They have been very generous with their time; we have been over this topic a number of times in the Minister’s meeting room upstairs. It seems to me that people in social housing are in many ways the people who most need the sense of well-being that a pet brings. I would be very keen that we make that change. In the meeting—I do not want to steal any of the Minister’s thunder—a number of points were made to me about this area, and I must say that I have been brought along with those. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell the House everything that she told me. I think that would be helpful to everyone on this amendment.

I rise to support Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord de Clifford. It is a short amendment but, hopefully, could have a long impact. It would allow tenants in social housing some of the benefits with regard to keeping a pet that this Bill will provide for tenants in private properties. Tenants seeking social housing may not be in a position to buy their own property; if they did, they would have no problem with keeping a pet and they would have all the positives to which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull alluded in relation to well-being and health benefits. Instead, the Bill denies them those rights, which are enjoyed by tenants in the private rental market. I am curious to understand the Government’s explanation for this.

My Lords, I too am anxious to have a better explanation. To me, the Bill seems very unfair, as it introduces two classes of people, one of whom will be disadvantaged at the same time as others are advantaged. It is one step forward and another one or two steps back. I hope that the Minister will be able to give sufficiently strong reasons why this should not happen to make me content, but I am not holding my breath.

My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife is the landlord of a number of rented properties. My reason for rising is to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when she comes to reply, to clarify something that puzzles me about her Amendment 47. It says: “The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include … a superior landlord’s personal opinion of … specific species”. I ask her whether this means that the superior landlord would be prohibited from saying that he or she does not think it is reasonable or appropriate for the tenant to keep as pets rats, skunks or tigers.

My Lords, I speak today in support of Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I declare my interest with regards to pets, as I own a share of a veterinary practice that cares for pets and I have my own dog. We welcome the Government’s support of a tenant’s right to request to keep pets. Although social housing is not the main focus of this Bill, surely it is fair and reasonable for all tenants to have the same rights to request to keep a pet, regardless of the type of landlord that they rent from, whether it is a private company or a social landlord. As I have said previously on this amendment, it also makes it fair to all landlords. Surely private landlords should not be the only landlords to have to accept pets in their property. I hope that the Minister can find a positive solution today to this issue and that all tenants have the opportunity to keep pets in their homes.

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Miller. I speak as a landlord of rental properties in Norwich, as declared in the register. Naturally, we should consider the rights of people who own companion animals, but that must go hand in hand with the rights of a landlord who may be concerned about damage to his property and the rights of neighbouring residents who may have to deal with the consequence of noise, mess, smell, and so forth. Once again, there is a balance to be struck, but this amendment strikes the wrong balance. It is obvious that keeping a pet elevates the risk of damage, especially in the case of furnished accommodation. This Bill contemplates that all tenancies are the same, but there are different sorts of properties and in furnished accommodation the consequences of damage are greater. It fails to recognise the reality of different types of accommodation, whether they be period or listed or of some historic or archaeological merit making the building incompatible with pets. There are often circumstances, particularly in blocks of flats, where there are communal amenities—for example, common courtyards or gardens, often where children play. All these are different to the detached rented home in the countryside where there is much more space. This Bill contemplates a one-size-fits-all approach, regardless of all the different types of properties one may wish to tenant, whether they be furnished, unfurnished, in the countryside, or flats. It is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to allow a large dog in a small flat where there is no outside space. Confined animals do not just chew, although they do. They bark and upset the neighbours, and the needs of neighbours must be considered. This Bill is all about the tenant, and I can understand that that is important, but it is to the exclusion of any other stakeholder, and that cannot be right. The landlord must make the judgment and take into account whether the applicant, perhaps a night-shift worker with a large dog, is suitable for his property. I will concede that there is a world of difference between the different types of pets: goldfish, spiders, dogs, cats and ferrets—may I be the first to introduce a Second Reading having just heard the First Reading of that particular Bill? Let us make those distinctions with the chewing variety. By just calling them pets, we are denying the obvious distinction between two legs, four legs, 100 legs, no legs, fishy ones with scales and so forth. There are different types of animal contained within this catch-all. That cannot make sense. The one point where I agree with Amendment 47 is in proposed new paragraph (a), where it says that the landlord should not form predisposed opinions of the tenant. I agree with that, but not in the way you might think. I once had the chief executive of a county council as a tenant. Her cat ate my sofa. The white polyester fluff was everywhere. I did not know where the cat ended and the sofa began. These things happen, but my point is: however well-heeled or fragrant that tenant might have been, she had no control over the pet whatever. It is important that we consider that it is the pet which potentially does the damage, and not the tenant, because that lady worked long hours and travelled widely. She was not there. The chewing cat was incompatible with her lifestyle, and my furnished apartment took the consequences. Let us move on. The Bill contemplates that the tenant with a pet has that pet at the outset, but neither the Bill nor the amendment adequately takes into account the possibility of a tenant who may acquire a pet during the tenancy or somehow mendaciously mislead as to the nature of an existing pet or even hide it away altogether. When we are considering pets—this is probably a bit too late because that is in Clause 4, which was done last week—we have to contemplate that wilful misdescription amounts to a breach of contract. I have no intent to be overbearing or heavy-handed, but these are examples where the rights of the tenant must coexist with their neighbours. At the moment I have a case of a tenant who repeatedly allows his small dog to urinate against the wall in the communal courtyard. That is damaging the brickwork, which is for my account, and is really unpleasant for the kids because it is the only place for them to securely play away from the traffic that passes outside, and that is really not fair on everybody. I have mentioned the distinction between the goldfish and the Staffordshire terrier and between the spider and the snake. While I am not scared of spiders or snakes, some are. One of the clauses in the Bill is about predispositions towards certain sorts of animals. Scaredness is a different sort of cat completely, the scaredy-cat. It is right and proper that people with a predisposition against those sorts of animals are protected. I regret to say that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well meaning but does not live in the real world between the differences of location, different properties, different furnishings, different types of animal—fur or feather—and the neighbours. These examples are not grounded in prejudice; they are grounded in the balanced welfare of all residents, and the landlord has a role to arbitrate to everyone’s benefit. I am afraid I cannot support Amendment 47. I make no comment on Amendment 48.

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, not because he is the Convenor of the Cross Benches, although that could be a bonus point, but for three reasons. First, my family have never kept a pet, but why should I be part of a legislature that would deny somebody seeking consent to keep a pet simply because they live in social housing? To me, that is clear discrimination. It cannot be right that you would say, “Because you’re in social housing, you cannot request the consent of the landlord”. It is their right to ask for consent. That is not to say that it would give an automatic right to the social housing person to keep a pet. Secondly, we are constantly told that this wonderful nation and the other three are nations of pet lovers. Do we want to say that somebody in social housing cannot be a pet lover? Who would want to say that? The third reason is our beloved Majesty, the late Queen Elizabeth II. Do your Lordships remember when there was somebody who was going through a lot of trauma and she invited that gentleman to come and spend time with one of her corgis? Noble Lords will remember that the person said, “This has put my trauma in perspective”. Those who want to keep pets because they live in social housing, and because they are animal lovers, should be given the same right as others to request consent.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his thoughtful and balanced Amendment 48. This Bill must work for renters, but it must also work for landlords. We have discussed pets at length throughout the stages of the Bill and there is no denying that pets provide vital companionship, comfort and emotional support for many. It is therefore no surprise that this issue has attracted considerable interest across the House. However, we recognise that this is not a Bill about social housing; it is focused rightly on the private rented sector. The frameworks, obligations and operational realities governing social housing are distinct, and we believe they are better addressed through the appropriate legislative and regulatory channels. That said, we fully support the principle behind the noble Earl’s amendment and hope the Minister will take this issue forward. There is a clear opportunity to work with housing associations and local authorities to ensure that fair, proportionate and compassionate policies can be delivered in this space.

15:45:00

Turning to Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, we understand the intention to provide clearer guidance on what might constitute an unreasonable refusal by a superior landlord. With all legislation, clarity is of the utmost importance. However, we have some reservations about the breadth and subjectivity of the language proposed. Terms such as “generalised fear” and “personal opinion” may prove difficult to define or enforce in practice. We are not unsympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, but we believe that further refinement would be required to ensure legal certainty and maintain a workable balance of interests.

As we take the Bill forward, we must not lose sight of its core objective: to deliver a rental market that is fair, functional and fit for the future. Tenants deserve security and dignity in their homes, but landlords also deserve clarity and confidence in the law.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for their amendments on pets and for their continued engagement on these issues, which has been incredibly helpful. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Pannick, Lord de Clifford and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I have heard the passion of noble Lords on the issue of keeping pets. I hope there is overall support for the aim of the Bill to make it easier for tenants to keep pets but to get the balance right between tenants and landlords. Amendment 47 seeks to set out a list of circumstances in which it would be considered unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet. These include personal opinions, general fears of damage or complaints and previous negative experiences with other tenants. While I completely understand the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to provide clarity and guard against unfair refusals, I must respectfully say that I do not believe the amendment is needed. Our letter in response to the noble Baroness’s questions in Committee was sent on 15 May. I am really sorry if she has not had that letter, but I will make sure it gets sent out to her again today. We do not believe it is appropriate or practical to draw superior landlords into the day-to-day running of the tenancy. Requiring them to engage directly in case-by-case decisions about pets risks creating serious administrative burdens. We believe it could also lead to complex and costly delays in decision-making, particularly where superior landlords are difficult to identify and contact or are located overseas. The noble Baroness cited experiences where they have responded quickly, but I know from personal experience of having tenants trying to contact superior landlords that it can be a very complex business. That said, we intend to publish guidance alongside the Bill to assist landlords in understanding what might constitute a reasonable refusal by an individual’s immediate landlord. This will help ensure clarity, without locking specific examples into primary legislation. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will consider withdrawing the amendment and not pressing for a Division. My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling Amendment 48 and discussing this important issue further following Committee. Like the noble Earl, this issue is very close to my heart, and I absolutely would not want to see a two-tier approach. It is right that requests from tenants across all sectors to keep pets be considered fairly, especially given the valuable role pets play in people’s lives. Whether they be corgis, or the veritable zoo quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, pets can provide a great deal of comfort and company to those who wish to keep them. Following Committee, my officials have explored the issue further. I can confirm that many social landlords already set out and publish their policies on pets in their tenancy agreements, allowing tenants to keep pets where appropriate. We have not been able to find any significant evidence that social tenants requesting a pet are not having their requests considered fairly. Although tenants in social housing do not generally experience the same barriers to keeping a pet as those in the private rented sector, I recognise that it is important to have clarity and consistency across sectors. Therefore, I intend to write to social landlords to ensure that they are fairly considering tenants’ rights to request a pet, and to share existing best practice in this area. However, for the reasons I have set out, I do not I believe it is proportionate or necessary to add further provisions to the Bill regarding a social housing tenant’s right to request a pet. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, pointed out, even if legislation were required, this Bill is not the right vehicle for it as it would create inconsistent rules within the social rented sector. That is because the provisions in the Bill would apply only to tenants of registered providers who grant assured tenancies and not to the majority of local authority tenants, who are granted secure tenancies. Given the current approaches taken by landlords in the social rented sector, the lack of evidence of issues warranting further regulation, the additional engagement by my officials and my undertaking to continue to monitor this—and if there does seem to be a need, we will look at that if we bring forward future legislation—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will consider withdrawing his amendment.

I am very grateful for what the Minister has said all round. Before she sits down, I wonder if I could push her just a little more. I think she is saying that there will inevitably be a suitable Bill on social housing at some point, and that it will be the Government’s policy to bring forward at that stage an amendment similar to this, so that there will be a legal necessity for social housing to offer availability of pets on the same basis as this Bill.

We need to continue to look at the evidence, and to look at the response to the letter that I will write to social landlords. We will then take further action, as necessary and if it is needed, in future legislation.

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate and thank the Minister for her reply. I found very helpful her response to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—which we do support—saying that she will write to ensure clarity and consistency. I had a slight dread when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, got to his feet, because I thought it would be something really tricky, which of course it was. On the circumstances in which superior landlords can have an opinion on specific pets, I am trying to include superior landlords in the same way as the Bill already includes landlords. I understand the issues the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised, but they are for direct landlords, not superior landlords, and we debated those very fully in Committee. It is people with portfolios of hundreds of flats having a blanket refusal—or not—I am concerned about. The noble Lord talked about a simple detached home in the countryside.

We can bandy around the distinction regarding the superior landlord with the offshore pension fund and hundreds of thousands of dwellings, but what about the small charity that owns a listed building held in trust for possibly hundreds of years? It surely must be entitled to its head leaseholder laying down certain provisions. It is not just about a common or garden large house in the countryside versus a flat; there have to be guardrails. Does the noble Baroness not understand that, as well-meaning as her amendment is, she has failed, I regret to say, to consider some of those narrow points and therefore it is incomplete? I find myself having huge sympathy for the Minister on this one; the amendment is incomplete.

I am still struggling to understand why the noble Lord is referring to something that is much more about direct landlords. It is not bandying terms around; there is a specific legal definition of a superior landlord, and that is the only group my amendment is talking about. It is not talking about individual landlords. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her comments, which were indeed more welcoming. I hope the Minister will consider some guidance to superior landlords too to address this situation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 49

Moved by

49: Clause 11, page 18, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 19 Member’s explanatory statement This removes provision inserted into the Housing Act 1988 making it an implied term of an assured tenancy (other than a tenancy of social housing) that a tenant will comply with conditions relating to pet insurance where the landlord has consented to the tenant keeping a pet and given written notice of the condition.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their rigorous, detailed and good-natured engagement on the matter of pet damage insurance. In particular, the extensive knowledge of the insurance industry of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has been of great assistance in ensuring that we get this policy right. Following much debate in Committee and further discussions with sector stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, we have reflected on our position and I will now speak to government Amendments 49, 54, 55, 57 and 73. I have listened carefully and recognised that, while the insurance market adapts to public policy, there is a risk that relevant insurance will not come on to the market sufficiently following implementation of the Bill. To avoid a situation in which landlords could essentially veto a tenant’s reasonable request to keep a pet, we are withdrawing the pet insurance provisions from the Bill. Tenants will still be able to request to have a pet in their home, but landlords will no longer be able to require insurance to cover property damage caused by a pet. Although our view was that a new market will develop for insurance products, following further engagement with the sector we now accept that this may not happen at the scale necessary. We are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector and we do not want to leave tenants in a position where they are unable to comply with impractical conditions that a landlord may place on the tenant as part of their pet consent. Noble Lords will rightly want to know what this means for landlords with concerns about potential property damage. I reassure the House that we are also now satisfied that landlords will be suitably protected from damage caused by pets, particularly after noble Lords shared evidence in Committee—for example, the University of Huddersfield report showing that three-quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in no claim against the deposit. As such, I am content that the existing five-week deposit for typical tenancies will cover any increased damages caused by pet ownership. We will, however, continue to monitor this closely after the implementation of the Bill. If tenants with pets are regularly causing more damage than deposits can cover, we have existing delegated powers to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. I hope the House recognises that we have listened and responded to the debate with pragmatism. Private renters should be treated fairly if they have reasonable requests for pets, and our legislative framework should support that. I am grateful to all colleagues who have helped us to get to the best position possible, and I beg to move government Amendment 49.

My Lords, before putting Amendment 49, I must advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 50 to 53 due to pre-emption.

My Lords, I first wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the Government for adding Amendment 49 to this Bill with regard to pet insurance. I know that the Minister and the Bill team, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have spent a lot of time on this matter, and the Minister listened and considered the noble Earl’s expert views and spoke to the insurance market before bringing this welcome change to the Bill. I have submitted Amendment 53A. I originally supported Amendment 51 in the noble Earl’s name, with regards to the pet damage deposit, but it no longer worked within the Bill. As mentioned previously, I welcome the changes in this Bill regarding pets. The Government have acknowledged that pets can potentially cause damage or wear and tear to the property, so there was a need for a pet insurance product to cover potential costs, but that is now not part of the Bill. The amendment seeks to provide an alternative protection to landlords and tenants from the possible additional costs that may be incurred by keeping a pet, to maintain the condition of a property. The additional three weeks’ rent as a deposit would provide an amount towards those costs. Some would say that the first five weeks would cover all forms of wear and tear; that amount is set aside for human wear and tear and damage.

16:00:00

Pets create different types of damage, which is why so many landlords do not allow pets into their rented properties. I note the Minister’s comments on the University of Huddersfield’s report, but a significant proportion cause damage. Pets are not humans and have their own minds, so we do not have as much control over them as we would like. The most significant area of the house that takes a battering will be the carpets and flooring. Human beings spend most of their time walking on these, where dogs and cats sleep, live, play, scratch and do other things, increasing their wear and tear.

Cleaning of the carpets professionally is a condition of most tenancies today where pets are allowed in a property. If that is not done by a tenant, it is what the additional deposit would cover. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has kindly supported this amendment; his knowledge of pet fleas is vastly greater than mine, and he has spoken before in Committee on this matter. My own personal experience of dogs is that they tend to find a spot in the home that is safe for them and spend time lying and sleeping there, which tends to increase the wear and tear in that place. This results in them leaving their hairs and dirt, despite regular cleaning.

To continue on the carpet theme, animals have accidents at times, just the same as human beings do, and they need cleaning up. It is possible that a tenant with a sick or badly trained pet will find that it has urinated or left faeces on the carpet. If this happens regularly, the carpet will need replacing, which will cost either the landlord or the tenant, and that is what a deposit is for. Certain dogs and cats also enjoy the space of a garden to play in and at times can leave it in a worse state than when the tenant moved in—another cost to be covered by the landlord for replacing plants and doing lawn repairs. As more homes take pets due to the changes in this Bill, more homes will need deep cleaning. Many prospective tenants will have allergies to pets; therefore, deep cleaning is required to try to remove such residues from pets as possible, so that future tenants do not react to the legacy of pets when they move in.

In her summing up in Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister mentioned the affordability of an additional deposit and that five weeks’ deposit would cover the additional cost of these pets being in a house as well as human wear and tear. For many tenants, that would be the case. Tenants who look after properties get their deposits returned, and that would be the case if an eight-week deposit was paid, as a tenant would ensure that their pet was well behaved and cleaned up after them, undertaking necessary additional cleaning, and they would get their deposit back. Unfortunately, not all tenants are the same; they do not all keep their homes clean and well maintained as good tenants do. If these tenants who had a pet had the same outlook on life, it would mean that further damage cleaning and repairs would need to be done at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the five weeks’ deposit would be used to reinstate the property to a good standard, and the additional deposit would be used to cover any pet damage.

The additional deposit for a pet would be a challenge for someone on a low income. Currently, in Scotland landlords can ask for a deposit of up to two months, which appears to be working and not causing major issues. When you take on a pet, you need to be aware that there will be additional costs to you personally or to your family budgets. For example, there are food costs, flea and worming treatment, cat litter and poo bags, as well as equipment such as rabbit hutches and bird cages and unexpected veterinary bills. Therefore, tenants should understand that they may need to pay an extra deposit when renting a house.

The benefit of the deposit in this amendment is that, if they respect the property and maintain it, the deposit is returned to them at the end, whereas the initial proposal for pet insurance was money never to be returned, regardless of whether a claim was made or not. I know this amendment will add a burden to tenants, but it also provides a small amount of protection to landlords, who are now having to accept pets when in many circumstances they currently do not. For some landlords, the right to have a pet is making them reconsider whether to continue to let in the private rented sector or choose to do short-term holiday lets or Airbnbs, where they can charge for pets, or even sell the property. This amendment only helps to support landlords to remain in the private rented sector.

The Bill certainly provides some well-needed protection to the tenant, but it also needs to strike a balance for landlords. I believe these extra three weeks’ worth of deposit provide some protection. It may be a struggle for tenants to find. I thank the Minister for her comments regarding her proposals, but I am not sure they quite meet what this deposit would do. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, as this is an important matter for landlords and pet-owning tenants and would improve the Bill.

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 53A. Getting the balance right between landlords and tenants is something that was stressed by a number of speakers on the previous group of amendments, including the Minister. The Bill really amounts to a presumption that tenants can keep pets, on the one hand, and protection for landlords, on the other hand, in the shape of a deposit and insurance. Insurance is going to fall away because it was not available and would have entailed a high cost. Even if such insurance had been available, the loss ratio would not have represented good value for tenants. Good tenants would have lost all their money, whereas, as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has pointed out, you can get your deposit back with interest at the end. I feel that a deposit is a very good way to go, and that is why I tabled Amendment 51. I was disappointed that the appearance of Amendment 49 was going to kill Amendment 51 by way of pre-emption. That is why Amendment 53A is a very good idea. Pets damage buildings. We heard a lot about this in Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, may say something to remind us of all the unseen things that pets bring into the home. I am afraid that I feel that the survey by the academics at the University of Huddersfield is a rogue thing; it does not accord with my experience at all—and the Blair Charitable Trust is a reasonably sized landlord all round. Pets do damage things, but a deposit is a very fair way of adjusting the balance between the two people. In Scotland, that deposit is set at two months. Here, if the correct level of deposit is five weeks and we add the risk of a pet on top of that, which was going to be taken out by the insurance as originally proposed in the Bill, it seems to me not to be a good balance that there should be no increase in the level of deposit protection. In the original Amendment 51, I had set the additional protection at three weeks because I considered eight weeks very similar to two months and I felt that having some symmetry between Scotland and England on this point was a good idea. I also felt, through experience, that Scotland, with two months of deposit, was okay, and that the balance between tenants and landlords was okay where pets were concerned. I feel that Amendment 53A has a tremendous amount of merit. One of the points made to me is that Amendment 53A would add a lot of expense to tenants in the amount of deposit they would have to put up. I was just totting up how much our own two dogs cost to look after in a year, and it is a lot. Even though they probably eat better than some dogs, the dog food, inevitable visits to the vets—we do not buy insurance but it would amount to roughly the same as insurance is a pooling scheme—and all the various other things one has to do, such as finding someone to look after them if you go away on holiday, cost many hundreds of pounds a year. There is also the initial cost. I am talking about dogs, but it would be same for other pets. The website Pets4Homes has 1,625 dogs on it today, which cost between £400 and £3,000. Many people who have pets are engaging in something that is reasonably costly anyway, so asking them to provide another three weeks of security is perfectly fair and proportionate—especially if, having looked after the property well, they get back not only the interest on it but the money itself at the end. I am very pro Amendment 53A.

My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 53A, but first I thank the Minister and her team for their Amendment 49 and the consequential amendments, which will improve this Bill substantially. I thank her for the helpful letter about assistance dogs, which is a matter I raised in Committee and at Second Reading. I support Amendment 53A. As many have said, it is extremely important that landlords are willing to accept tenants with pets—an objective with which all noble Lords would concur. This amendment would further that objective, and I think it is quite significant. The costs incurred occasionally—it is only very occasionally but it happens—can be substantial. It goes way beyond a gnawed chair leg or a bit of wallpaper off the wall. As has been alluded to, if one has deposition of potential allergens in a property or a flea infestation, a real deep clean can cost hundreds if not almost thousands of pounds. Those costs inevitably fall on the landlord at the minute and are a considerable potential disincentive. We have heard the figures from Huddersfield. Another figure is that 75% of landlords did not have a problem with pets. That means that 25% of landlords accepting pets have had some degree of problem. I note that 40% of landlords do not accept pets at all. The deposit suggested in the amendment is proportionate and extremely important to assure landlords that, if there were to be negative results from a pet, they would get acceptable recompense. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has pointed out, the deposit costs nothing if there has been no problem. It is returned fully, with interest, to the tenant. As he also pointed out, keeping a pet, particularly a dog—we are probably mainly concerned with what dogs can do—is a major financial responsibility and should not be undertaken by people who could not afford to put up a deposit of the size suggested. I support this amendment.

My Lords, I support Amendment 53A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, spoken to so ably by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. While there is considerable improvement in the present five-week deposit limit, there will still be a good number of cases where the damage by pets is more than the cost of the remedial work that needs to be done. For the first time ever, I have just refused a tenancy on the ground that the pets would be inappropriate. The proposed tenants wanted to have three Newfoundland dogs in a two-bedroom property. In Committee, the Minister said that the Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds which are best judged on a case-by-case basis. Would my refusal to have three Newfoundland dogs in a small two-bedroom cottage be reasonable? I doubt that even an eight-week deposit would cover the potential damage, and the present five-week deposit would be nowhere near adequate.

16:15:00

I urge the Minister to please accept this modest amendment, which would add an additional three weeks. The present five weeks would, in my experience, cover only about 50% of cases where damage has been done by pets. It would be unreasonable to ask landlords to take on yet more liability on top of those already existing and the ever-increasing burden imposed by government.

I remind the Minister that the majority of landlords are private individuals with just one or two properties. They are already finding it difficult enough to manage their properties, which is why they are a fast-disappearing breed. Driving them to extinction will only accelerate the demise of the rented sector, to the disadvantage of landlords and those seeking a property to rent.

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, brought forward Amendment 53A, because it is enabling us to have this very interesting debate. We are talking about the cost of pets, but actually you could transpose the words “children” or “elderly incontinent”, because those two groups equally have very difficult problems. They can damage carpets—if anyone has had children in a house, they will know that they can inflict an awful lot more damage than pets. Unfortunately, the elderly and the disabled can often be equally as damaging. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned that pets have fleas, which is very true. However, if you let your property to people who travel a lot, there is the risk that they might bring bedbugs back, which are much harder and more costly to get rid of than fleas. Although I understand the reason for the noble Lord’s amendment, we do not support it. We think the Government have struck the right balance with their Amendment 49, which we will support.

My Lords, I support Amendment 53A. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to deal with one point when he replies. There appears to be no requirement in the amendment that the landlord must be acting reasonably in demanding a deposit. It is easy to understand and entirely reasonable that the landlord may require a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep dogs, but it would not be reasonable to demand a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep a goldfish. It is easy to understand the idea that there is no harm done because the deposit will be returned at the end of the tenancy, but the requirement of the deposit may well inhibit the tenant from being able to have the goldfish and the companionship that it gives.

My Lords, once again I declare my interest, in that I am a landlord. I support Amendment 53A most strongly, but I wonder if I might dwell on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Looking around this Chamber, I see that most of us travel a lot as part of our duties in this House if we live outside of London. I am sure my wife would be the first to complain if I brought bedbugs back to our family home. Drawing on my experience as both a landlord and a managing agent, I know the cost of the Bill will be that the additional costs of damage, wear and tear, fluff, cleanliness, pest control and all those other little things—as enumerated most ably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—will, particularly in blocks of flats, be borne by those tenants who do not keep pets. I do not think that is right. Quite simply, keeping a pet is an add-on to a tenancy and the additional cost should be borne by those who bring the pets with them. There are lots of examples of where things can go wrong and I will give an example, from my own lived experience, of a tenant who declared that he did not own any pets at all. In due course, he brought his two large dogs to the property, where he left them while he went to work. By and by, it became clear that my house was being used as a kennel. Not only were the neighbours disturbed by the barking all day and all night but, by the time the tenant had stopped paying rent and I had taken proceedings, £15,000-worth of damage had been caused. When he finally left, I discovered the most foul-smelling and revolting scene: one bedroom had been used as a doggy lavatory for weeks. It would have been even worse had the proposals to stop repossession action been extended from eight to 13 weeks. This was a gross case, in every respect, although I was lucky to get an insurance claim because the sum of money was so large. But that is not what we are talking about generally in this Bill. We are not concerned about granny who may be infirm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, implied, chewing the table leg or eating the carpet. We are thinking of the middling bit, where it is above and beyond the three weeks. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard that the additional three weeks is not enough, but I accept that we have to fight the battles we can win. If that is as good as we can get, it is a proportionate compromise that I am prepared to accept. Several noble Lords mentioned—and I agree—that if the pet does not cause any damage, the tenant gets the deposit back in full, with interest. I place on the record that in the statutory deposit protection schemes, interest is not normally paid. The deposit goes in and the costs of interest are retained by the deposit scheme, presumably to defray their costs of operating the system and its administration. I would not want those watching this outside the Chamber to think that we are now going to introduce the requirement to pay interest if the landlord does not accept that. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s ability to increase the deposit through the Tenant Fees Act 2019, but I think we should accept here and now—and Amendment 53 implies this—that there are additional costs and risks to keeping pets, and it is obvious that we should not necessarily wait. Let us have those provisions within the Tenant Fees Act 2019 introduced immediately, but proportionately, so the goldfish is not charged at the same rate as the Newfie—that would not be sensible—particularly in cases where there is furnished accommodation. Then we can have a good compromise that everybody can live with. Finally, I do not want to repeat this at length, but I believe that if we can come to that arrangement, having that deposit benefits the tenant because at least they get it back, whereas in the case of buying an insurance policy—not that these policies exist, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—that would be an absolute cost because they would pay whether there was damage or not. I strongly support Amendment 53 and if the noble Earl is minded to test the opinion of the House, I will follow him through the Lobby.

My Lords, the issue of pet-related damage is understandably a source of concern for landlords. This group of amendments raises important questions about how we balance—that word balance again—the increased rights granted to tenants to keep pets with the responsibilities and protections that landlords need. It is simply not reasonable to argue that the existing tenancy deposit, which is designed to cover damage under current arrangements, is also sufficient to cover the additional risks introduced by granting tenants a new right to keep pets. The Government have already accepted that pets pose a greater risk by including pet insurance measures in the Bill. That was a clear recognition that pets are likely to cause additional damage. However, as we consider these provisions, it is crucial to reflect on the experience already gained in Scotland, where tenants’ rights legislation has evolved to allow pets in rented properties, while seeking to balance landlord protections. In Scotland, the introduction of pet-friendly tenancy provisions and related insurance requirements has offered valuable lessons. While these measures have expanded tenant freedoms and encouraged pet ownership, they have also revealed challenges, particularly in ensuring that landlords are adequately protected against damage and in making sure that any additional costs or deposits are fair and transparent. Either pets cause additional damage or they do not. If the Government now claim that they do not, they must provide clear and compelling evidence to justify overturning their original assessment. Without such evidence, it logically and fairly follows that the landlord should be permitted to take a separate pet damage deposit. We believe it is inevitable that some damage will result from pets. That is why we support Amendment 53A, which would introduce the option of a dedicated pet damage deposit. This would provide landlords with an essential route to recoup costs, while also protecting tenants from unfair charges by clearly defining that this is a separate and transparent element of a tenancy agreement and that, as we have already heard, if no damage is done, they get this charge back. We recognise that some landlords may choose to welcome pets without requiring additional deposits—or, in the future, insurance—and they should be free to do so. But where landlords require further protections, there must be a fair and transparent mechanism for tenants to provide it at the outset of the tenancy. Finally, the experience in Scotland reminds us that implementing pet-friendly rental policies is a delicate balance that must be tailored to the practical realities that landlords and tenants face. As the Bill moves forward, it is essential that it draws on such lessons to achieve frameworks that work fairly across the whole United Kingdom. If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 53A, we will support him.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I know it is a hugely emotive and important issue for so many people, and we have had a good debate on it today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing his amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Howard, Lord Pannick and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott. I turn now to the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As we have discussed, Amendment 50 is not required as our government amendments remove the insurance requirements altogether. I understand fully the intention of Amendments 51 and 53A, with the aim to ensure that landlords are protected from potential damages caused by pets. However, we are content that existing deposits, which are capped at five weeks’ rent for typical tenancies where the annual rent is less than £50,000, or six weeks’ rent for tenancies over £50,000 per annum, are enough to cover typical pet damages. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, illustrated very clearly some of the complexities of this issue. Allowing a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900. This is unaffordable for many tenants, who will have worked very hard to save for their deposit for their property, and greatly exceeds the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300 reported in the study we have already spoken about. That study found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. Where there was damage, it was an average of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage. The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering those longer and more stable tenancies. In the very rare cases where the deposit does not cover the cost of damage caused by a pet, a landlord can of course take the tenant to the small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. In relation to the issues mentioned about Scotland, housing is of course a devolved matter in Scotland, and it is for the Scottish Government to set deposit limits for private rented properties. I note that the right to request a pet does not yet exist in Scotland. In England, we believe that the five weeks’ deposit will be sufficient to cover damages. We also have concerns that in some cases it will be impossible to distinguish between damage caused by pets and that caused by tenants themselves. This could leave pet owners with more exposure to large, unreasonable deposit deductions compared with other renters. As I said, we have an existing power under the Tenant Fees Act, which we could use to allow landlords to require a larger deposit where they have consented to the tenant having a pet. We want to closely monitor how the pet provisions work in practice following implementation, and will consider using the power in the Tenant Fees Act if we see that the cost of pet damage is frequently exceeding the value of deposits.

16:30:00

A similar amendment to Amendment 52 was discussed in Committee. I explained that I do not believe that this is the right approach, as it may actively serve to discourage insurers from offering insurance products, rather than encourage them. However, as noble Lords are aware, the Government’s position on insurance has now changed. The Government are firm in the view that tenants are not second-class citizens and deserve to be able to keep pets when this is reasonable.

My Lords, the Minister just said that the situation has changed. I have listened very carefully to the debate. The Government thought it was necessary to have insurance; they now say it is not necessary. Therefore, the Government have already admitted that there needs to be something additional to protect the landlord in the case of somebody having a pet. Frankly, the argument does not stand up to say that that is not so. I hope that the Minister will accept that she really has to go back and say that if there is no insurance, there has to be a greater degree of protection for the landlord.

I hear what the noble Lord says, and I have listened to other noble Lords, but the evidence in the study that I cited is that three-quarters of landlords of those tenants who have pets do not report any damage. Where there is damage, the cost is around £300, which is perfectly within the scope of the normal deposit. We are content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits. Finally, I turn to Amendment 53. As I stated in Committee, “premium” is already commonly understood to include any insurance premium tax, so this amendment is not strictly required, in our view. However, following the Government’s amendments, which remove the ability of landlords to require tenants to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet, the noble Lord will, I am sure, recognise that this amendment is no longer required. I therefore request that these amendments not be pressed.

Amendment 49 agreed.

My Lords, as previously advised, Amendment 49 having been agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 50 to 53 due to pre-emption. Amendment 53A

Moved by

53A: Clause 11, page 19, line 28, at end insert— “16D Pet damage deposit(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which section 16A applies that if, at the time of consenting to the tenant keeping a pet, the landlord informs the tenant in writing that the payment of an additional pet damage deposit by the tenant is a condition of the consent, then the tenant must comply with that condition.(2) The additional pet damage deposit under subsection (1)—(a) can be used to make good pet damage,(b) must be of equivalent value to three weeks of rent,(c) cannot be subject to the limits for deposits in tenancy agreements, and(d) is subject to the rules governing deposits in tenancy agreements, for purposes of monies handled.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to introduce a new option of a landlord pet damage deposit.

I thank your Lordships very much for their contributions on my amendment. I will answer just a few of the questions posed. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that children and, potentially, elderly people can cause extra damage, but pets have their own minds and are uncontrollable. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has pointed out a possible slight fault in the amendment, but landlords do not have to make that a condition. If it was just goldfish, I think there could be some negotiation with the tenant. I have listened to the Minister and her suggestion of a way of reviewing this in time, but that will take time. It could be many years before we see a change. Therefore, I think landlords need a little more protection when it comes to pets—they do cause additional damage—so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

1|16:34|206|198|Division on Amendment 53A|Amendment 53A agreed.||0|0

16:45:00

Amendment 54

Moved by

54: Clause 11, page 19, leave out lines 35 to 40 Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would remove the provision to be inserted into the Housing Act 1988 relating to indemnity and insurance for pets.

Amendment 54 agreed.

Clause 12: Pet insurance

Amendment 55

Moved by

55: Leave out Clause 12 Member’s explanatory statement The amendment removes the provisions to be inserted into the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to allow tenants to make payments relating to pet insurance in consequence of the amendment in my name which would remove the provision to be inserted into the Housing Act 1988 relating to indemnity and insurance for pets.

Amendment 55 agreed.

Amendment 56

Moved by

56: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause— “Permission for home adaptations(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) After section 16 insert—“16A Home adaptations(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy that a landlord must give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.(2) A tenant may appeal a landlord’s refusal to give permission for such adaptations.””Member’s explanatory statement This new clause would ensure that landlords of private and social tenancies provide permission for home adaptations for people who have disabilities where a Home Assessment has been carried out.

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 56 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tope, who, regrettably, is unable to be with us today. This amendment would require landlords to grant permission for home adaptations that qualify as reasonable adjustments, provided that a local authority assessment has been completed. The challenges faced by disabled tenants are many and their needs are often complex. Without clear provisions allowing disabled tenants to make the necessary adaptations following a proper assessment, they risk being unable to remain in their homes long term. Far too often, disabled tenants are forced to move frequently, encountering unpredictable and inadequate modifications that undermine their ability to live independently. This is not a marginal issue. The 2023-24 English Housing Survey found that 37% of households included someone with a long-term illness or disability, with that figure rising to a striking 59% in the socially rented sector. According to a 2024 report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, one in three people living with disability in the private rented sector lives in unsuitable accommodation—the highest rate of any tenure type. Meanwhile, a survey by Generation Rent found that more than eight in 10—86%—of disabled private renters reported that their disability or mental health condition had been negatively impacted by renting privately. Following the Committee debate, I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the additional funding for the disabled facilities grant and for her comments on the review of the allocation formula, which is a welcome step. I also appreciate the Minister’s remarks regarding the ongoing review of the upper limit for the disabled facilities grant. However, I highlight that this upper limit has not been revised since 2008, meaning that it has not kept pace with rising costs and the increasing complexity of adaptations needed. While I agree that any review must be thorough, to ensure fairness and sustainability, it is equally important that it is carried out with a sense of urgency. Delays in updating the upper limit risk leaving many disabled people without the full support they need to make their home safe and accessible. A timely review and adjustment are essential to reflect the current realities and provide adequate assistance for those who rely on this vital funding. I also gently urge the Government to prioritise timely and efficient local authority home assessments. For many disabled people, delays in these assessments mean living for months or even longer in unsuitable or unsafe conditions. The challenges facing disabled people in the housing sector were highlighted in deeply concerning evidence from, again, the local government Select Committee. Some individuals waited 22 weeks to complete just the first stage of their disabled facilities grant application, leaving them without access to an adapted kitchen or bathroom during that time. While I understand the concerns about creating a two-tier system, the central aim of this amendment is to ensure that, once a professional assessment has confirmed a need, there is a clear pathway to delivering those adaptations. I hope that Ministers will continue to engage with the spirit of this proposal and explore practical ways to reduce unnecessary barriers to independent living. I also express my support for Amendments 72 and 86, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Amendment 72 proposes a new clause to establish a right to minor home adaptations for accommodating a disability. This is an important and practical step that would enable disabled tenants to live more independently, without unnecessary delays or obstacles. Amendment 86 seeks to prevent discrimination against prospective tenants who may require adaptations for accessibility. This is a vital protection to ensure that disabled people are not unfairly excluded from the rental market because of their needs. Both amendments reflect a fair and proportionate approach to improving accessibility and inclusion in the private rented sector. I hope the Government will give them serious consideration. While I do not intend to divide the House at present, I hope that the Government will listen carefully and reflect on the proposals contained in these amendments. The aim is not to impose undue burdens but to support disabled people in living independently and with dignity in homes that meet their needs. I urge the Government to continue engaging constructively on this issue and to consider how we can work together to improve the system so that it is more responsive, more equitable and more attuned to the realities faced by disabled tenants across the country. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 72 and 86. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for giving such a good explanation of them. I wish I had lobbied the Minister more, as all three amendments in this group are very good and very sensible. Turning first to Amendment 72, I was talking last night to a friend who has very severe disabilities. He said he had noticed that, while landlords are very slow at making improvements or adaptations and allowing their tenants to do so, business, retail business in particular, is moving ahead. He talked about a new retail development in Yeovil where everything is accessible. It is roll-in, roll-out, and people with disabilities in wheelchairs, for example, have full access. It seems that businesses are taking this seriously, so why are the Government and landlords not doing so? Renters of all ages face challenges—it is not only the older ones among us—but older renters are particularly vulnerable, for several reasons. They are more likely to have health issues or disabilities, which means they are more at risk of becoming ill because of poor housing. They are also more likely to live in poor quality homes. In view of our ageing population, this is not just a good thing to do but entirely necessary. I welcome the support of the LGA for Amendment 86, as promoting equitable housing access and preventing discrimination is fundamental to our society. It is essential that tenants are protected from unfair discrimination when seeking housing. I do hope that Labour listens. We have seen with its welfare reforms what happens when Labour does not listen to the needs of disabled people. These are simple changes, but they are important. They would change the lives of our ageing population for the better, now and in the future—and that is what a progressive Government should do.

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for speaking in this debate. It is a sensitive issue. It concerns adaptations for some of the most vulnerable in our society and touches on those who require the greatest compassion and care. We do need to support people to live independently in their own home. As a council leader, I was proud that we built a number of fully accessible, affordable homes for the disabled. However, I must express some concerns about Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This Bill is focused on the private rented sector, yet the amendment introduces provisions relating to social tenancies. As my noble friend Lady Scott alluded to earlier today, social housing providers have not been widely consulted in the lead-up to this Bill. Imposing new requirements on them without proper consultation and discussion would be inappropriate. Any such change rightly belongs in a dedicated social housing Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said earlier that she would seek to write to social landlords and perhaps this is another opportunity for her to do so. Furthermore, the amendment is riddled with gaps. It lacks clarity on important matters such as what happens when a tenant leaves, who is responsible for reinstatement, its cost and the loss of rent while work is carried out. There is also the issue of ensuring work is carried out to a high standard and that structural integrity is maintained. These issues are vital to maintaining the value and usability of the property, and the amendment fails to address them adequately. Turning to Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I note that it defines “minor changes” as including structural alterations. Structural alterations hardly seem minor. While I fully appreciate the noble Baroness’s intentions and her compassionate approach, which we all share, this is a complex issue. I strongly believe that we must strike a careful balance between compassion, cost and deliverability, and we must do so in a thorough and considered manner. I hope that your Lordships’ House agrees.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for moving it so ably, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. He may remember that I visited some of the housing that he developed when he was a council leader to pinch some ideas for my own local authority. It was indeed very accessible. Amendment 56, from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would require landlords to allow disability adaptations when a local authority has carried out a home assessment and recommended changes to be made. While the Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled renters, I completely accept that they are not always as well understood as they should be. It is right that we consider how to address barriers preventing disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need. However, as I stated in Committee, I do not consider that this amendment is the right way to do this. A new requirement linked to local authority home assessments would create a confusing two-tier system. As a consequence, even these well-intentioned measures might make it harder for people who are not eligible for disabled facilities grants to access adaptations. As I previously set out, the Government have committed to take steps to clarify matters further to support disabled renters. We all recognise what a vital issue this is and the difference it can make to someone’s life to have adequate access to their property. We will look to ensure that the written statement of terms that landlords will have to provide to new tenants includes the duty on landlords not to unreasonably refuse tenant requests for disability adaptations. We also intend to work closely with the sector to deliver a communications and engagement programme to raise awareness of disability-related rights and obligations among tenants and landlords, and we will explore enhancing guidance to help landlords and tenants better understand the current system. This is in addition to existing provisions in the Bill that empower disabled tenants to request the home adaptations they need. For example, by abolishing Section 21 evictions, we will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction, and the creation of the new ombudsman will give tenants a new route of redress when their adaptations are refused. The Government have also increased funding for the disabled facilities grant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned. We have increased the grant by £86 million, bringing the total amount to £711 million. On the role of local authorities, they must provide a decision on the disabled facilities grant application within six months of receipt and the works must usually be completed within 12 months of the approval date. I appreciate that that can feel like a long time when you are waiting for an adaptation, but the Government have published guidance for local authorities in England to help to support the efficient local delivery of the disabled facilities grant, including speed of delivery. I appreciate that in some areas the availability of occupational therapists to do the assessments has proved an issue. Many local authorities are looking carefully at this issue, and I know we will be taking steps to address it.

17:00:00

We also continue to fund an organisation, currently Foundations, to act as a national body for disabled facilities grants and home improvement agencies, providing expertise and support to local authorities around their disabled facilities grant and home adaptations delivery. So there is a lot going on to support the work being done in relation to disabled facilities grants. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on behalf of the noble Lord, will agree that the new measures I have outlined, together with the existing provisions in the Bill and the increase in funding, are meaningful ones that will improve the lives of disabled renters, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

On Amendment 72 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I was delighted to hear about the accessibility of the commercial development in Yeovil; that is great news—the Government recognise that it is not always as easy as it should be for disabled tenants to get their home adaptations, but the approach taken by the amendment, in defining “minor” in relation to cost alone, does not account for other key factors relevant to whether disability adaptations can be made. As I mentioned in Committee, these important factors include the need to obtain consent from relevant third parties, building regulation requirements and consideration of how the property might be returned to its original condition, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and such issues will generally depend on the features of an individual property. These fundamental challenges to defining minor adaptations will inevitably lead to ambiguity and confusion that could risk making things worse for both tenants and landlords.

The amendment would also add an extra layer of complexity by creating a new right in addition to the existing Equality Act 2010 obligations on landlords not to refuse consent for disability-related improvements. I therefore do not consider the amendment to be the right way to address the barriers preventing disabled renters from getting the home adaptations they need.

As I outlined in Committee, the Government have promised already to take action that will improve matters for disabled tenants. We intend to use the new written statement of terms to set out the duty on landlords not to unreasonably refuse disability adaptation requests from tenants. We have pledged to work with the disability sector to raise awareness of disabled tenants’ rights and to explore the updating of guidance. I feel that these combined measures will be a simpler and more practical solution to the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raises.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 86 would extend the rental discrimination measures to those who require home adaptations. Although we recognise the important issue she raises and believe that disabled people should absolutely not face discrimination when accessing the PRS, we still consider that the amendment is not the right way to meet its aim, although we understand the aim that she intends. Disabled people are already afforded full protections from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010, under which landlords are forbidden from discriminating against a person based on disability. Adding this cohort to our measures in the Bill would unnecessarily increase complexity and cause confusion, for little benefit, and would muddle the responsibilities of local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the rental discrimination protections, and the courts, which have jurisdiction for Equality Act measures. For that reason, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short but sweet debate on a very important issue. I particularly welcome the reiteration of the application of the Equality Act, particularly for people with disabilities who simply wish to have reasonable adjustments to live their lives with independence and dignity. That is the most important point that we are trying to achieve with this amendment. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Tope would wish me to say that he would love to continue to work with the Minister on this issue to try to ensure that we can achieve some of the changes that are required. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

Clause 13: Duty of landlord and contractor to give statement of terms etc

Amendment 57

Moved by

57: Clause 13, page 20, line 15, leave out “16C” and insert “16B” Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would remove the provision to be inserted into the Housing Act 1988 relating to indemnity and insurance for pets.

Amendment 57 agreed.

Clause 14: Other duties

Amendment 58

Moved by

58: Clause 14, page 23, line 22, at end insert “, or (iii) the dwelling house has been demonstrably available for purchase on the open market at a fair price for not less than six months and the landlord has not had any suitable offers to purchase the dwelling house.(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(iii), the previous tenant or local authority retain the right for the courts to require evidence and to decide whether genuine attempts have been made to market and sell the property at a reasonable price and no offers at or above that price have been refused.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment proposes a 6, rather than a 12, month prohibition on renting out an unsold property to make it impossible for a landlord to benefit financially by falsely claiming to be selling a property in order to require a tenant to vacate. The amendment includes evidential safeguards to ensure sale attempts are genuine and to support greater availability of property for rent.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cromwell has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf, as he is unable to be here today. Amendment 58, tabled in his name, was debated last Tuesday. I remind the House that the Bill says that, if a landlord asks a tenant to leave on the grounds that the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell, which happens in about one-third of cases, the landlord will then, in all such cases, be prohibited from renting out the property for another 12 months. Amendment 58 seeks to reduce that period to six months, which would mitigate what is an unjustifiably penal provision of the Bill, which damages both landlords and prospective tenants. With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

2|17:07|213|209|Division on Amendment 58|Amendment 58 agreed.||0|0

17:17:00

Amendment 59

Moved by

59: Clause 14, page 24, line 28, at end insert— “16GA Exemption for shared ownership leaseholders(1) Sections 16E and 16F do not apply to any relevant person who gives notice under Ground 1A in Schedule 2 if on the date such notice is given that person is a tenant under a shared ownership lease.(2) For the purposes of this section “shared ownership lease” has the same meaning as in section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and “tenant” shall be construed accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to protect shared leaseholders whose sales fall through, as is common. The current drafting of clause 14 would leave the shared ownership leaseholder with an empty property if notice is given and the sale falls through.

My Lords, when I spoke to this amendment last Tuesday, I said I was minded to test the opinion of the House if the Government could neither accept the amendment nor give an assurance that shared owners letting flats in blocks affected by the cladding scandal could sell the flats back to the housing association they bought it from when a sale falls through to save them from the financial problems that will confront them with the proposed 12-month ban on re-letting. Although I was grateful to the Minister for the meeting she held with me, and for her sympathetic remarks at the end of that debate, and read with interest the letter that she sent me this morning, I am afraid that it falls well short of the assurances I was looking for, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

3|17:18|274|154|Division on Amendment 59|Amendment 59 agreed.||0|0

17:30:00

Amendment 60

Moved by

60: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause— “Report on financial assistance to local housing authorities(1) Within 12 months of the day on which section 16 (landlords etc: financial penalties and offences) comes into force, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must make a statement of all financial assistance provided to local housing authorities under section 16L of the Housing Act 1988 (financial penalties: supplementary and interpretation).(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement This would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on financial assistance provided to local housing authorities.

My Lords, the Bill brings forward significant changes to the way our housing market functions and to the Government’s role within the private rented sector. It introduces new controls, grants new powers to the Secretary of State, imposes new fines and restricts what landlords and tenants can do. These are not minor or technical adjustments; they are fundamental shifts in how the private rented sector will operate. A Bill of this scale and consequence will require a clear, well-planned implementation strategy. It cannot promise change at some undefined point in the future, with no clear road map for how landlords and tenants will be taken along that journey. Effective communication and timely guidance will be essential to ensure that the sector is not left in a state of uncertainty. Beyond implementation, the Bill will alter the underlying dynamics of the market. The Government’s active involvement will inevitably shift the balance of supply and demand, change price signals, affect future capacity, influence rational expectations and alter incentives for both landlords and tenants. These are not unintended side-effects; they are the direct consequences of the choices made in this legislation. That is why we have to be so passionate about the need for proper accountability and monitoring. It is why we tabled Amendment 118, which would require an impact report on the effects of this Bill as a whole, covering the housing market, rent levels, house prices and availability. It is clear to us that the Bill will not enhance the availability of homes; indeed, it risks diminishing it. It will not ease the pressure of unaffordable rents, but may exacerbate it. Nor will it drive improvements in the quality of rented accommodation; quite the reverse, it threatens to hasten its deterioration. The Government should therefore be required to return to both Houses with a report on the impact of this legislation, not merely a review. A review can be vague, take time and be inconclusive, lacking in accountability and expensive. A report, by contrast, must provide evidence, analysis and a clear assessment of outcomes against the stated aims of the Bill. If we are to legislate with such ambition, we must also commit to transparency about the consequences of this Government’s Bills. Finally, I wish to draw the House’s attention to Amendment 60, which would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report on financial assistance to local housing authorities. This is about transparency and accountability. When public finances are under strain and the fiscal outlook is bleak, taxpayers deserve to know where their hard-earned money is going. I hope the Minister will consider how we can strengthen oversight when significant sums of financial assistance are involved. On the broader principle of scrutinising the Bill’s intentions and implications, I am pleased that we have found common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. The Minister and the Government may find this group frustrating, but the onus is on us to ensure that predictions are tested and instincts are aligned with reality. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 90 and 93 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who, unfortunately, cannot be here. These are thoughtful and constructive proposals that seek to strengthen the effectiveness and accountability of the Bill. Amendment 90 would require a review of the impact of Part 1 within three years, specifically addressing its effect on renter security and stability. Given the significance of the reforms introduced by the Bill, it is entirely reasonable to build in a mechanism to evaluate whether these changes are achieving their intended outcomes and put it before Parliament. I am aware that the department conducts its own review processes for legislation of this kind, but I would welcome assurances from the Minister that these reviews will be thorough and fully account for the various impacts of the Act across the private rented sector. Amendment 93, also tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornhill, proposes a review of how well tenants understand their rights and obligations under the Bill and where they are most likely to seek that information. This speaks to a critical issue. The Bill makes a number of positive reforms, particularly in strengthening the rights of renters to challenge unfair practices such as unlawful rent increases, poor property standards or breaches of their tenancy agreements through accessible routes such as the First-tier Tribunal. However, as we have discussed again and again in Committee and at Second Reading, far too many tenants either are unaware of these rights or lack the practical information and support needed to exercise them. Without clear and accessible communication, even the most well-intentioned reforms risk falling short. This amendment would ensure that the Government are proactive in identifying how renters seek advice and whether current methods of communication are effective at reaching them. It is only through this kind of follow-up that the Bill’s protections can be meaningfully realised in practice. Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on financial assistance provided to local housing authorities. As drafted, in our view, the amendment does not clarify the contents of the review and the information it suggests is already available. We are much more supportive of Amendment 118, which would require a broader review of the impact of the Bill on the housing market. We attempted to introduce this on day 1 of Report; we argued then that, given the scale of the reforms to the private rented sector, a review of this kind would provide a useful opportunity to assess the Bill’s wider consequences. We hope the Minister will take these considerations into account. These amendments do not seek to undermine the Bill but rather to ensure that its implementation is informed, effective and fair. A commitment to review the impact on renters’ stability and to assess how well tenants understand and can access their rights would demonstrate that the Government are serious about delivering lasting change in the private rented sector. It would also offer a valuable opportunity to identify where further support or clarification may be needed, helping ensure that the reforms achieve, as we all hope, their full potential.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for again ably speaking to them. Amendment 60 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the financial assistance provided to local authorities in connection with their powers to impose civil penalties for breaches and offences relating to assured tenancies. The statement would need to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of Clause 16 coming into force, and then annually for an indefinite period. It is clearly important that local authorities are prepared to fulfil the duties placed on them by the Bill. However, requiring the Government to produce an annual statement of the nature outlined in this amendment would create a significant administrative burden for little benefit. We know that the enforcement duties created by the Bill will present an additional net cost for local authorities. That is why we will ensure that the additional burdens created by the new system are funded in line with the new burdens doctrine. We will continue to work closely with local authority stakeholders as the Bill is implemented to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment. Amendment 90 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to prescribe the groups with which the department would be required to consult as part of this process. I know there is a large amount of interest in this House on the impact of this legislation, and I have previously set out to the House the approach we will be taking to monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill. The use of a broad range of data is at the heart of our approach. As well as existing data, we will use data from stakeholders such as local authorities, and data generated from the reforms themselves. I agree that it is important that our evaluation makes use of interviews, surveys and focus groups, and we have committed to conduct these with a range of stakeholders. This amendment would require the Government to speak to renters, landlords and local authorities as part of our evaluation. We have already committed to speaking to these groups. In fact, we plan to go further and draw on the experience of letting agents, third-sector organisations, delivery partners, the courts and tribunals service and government officials. The information we collect from speaking to these stakeholders will be used as a key part of our evaluation of the programme. I also recognise that this amendment places a particular focus on the impact of the Bill on levels of homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation. We already collect robust data through the Homelessness Case Level Collection. Local authorities provide quarterly data returns on their actions under the homelessness legislation. This allows us to effectively monitor homelessness, including temporary accommodation breakdowns. No approach to tackling homelessness can rely on a single action. Instead, we are determined to address the homelessness crisis we inherited and deliver long-term solutions. That is why we have already made a £1 billion investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services this year—2025/26—a £233 million increase on the previous year. In addition, we are developing a cross-government strategy to get us back on track to ending homelessness. We are committed to moving away from a system focused on crisis response, taking a holistic approach to preventing homelessness in the first place and driving better-value-for-money interventions. Amendment 93—also from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—would introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the extent to which tenants in the private rented sector understand their rights and obligations. I know the House will share my view that the successful implementation of the Renters’ Rights Bill is firmly rooted in how widely its provisions are known and understood, and I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in that respect. I therefore want to reassure the House that the Government are committed to raising awareness of the full range of Renters’ Rights Bill reforms across the private rented sector. This will be done through robust and extensive stakeholder engagement, providing the sector with a full suite of guidance on the reforms and an overarching communications campaign, along with partnership marketing. This extensive and targeted work will ensure each part of the sector fully understands its new rights and obligations. The Government have already committed to a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme of the reforms, drawing on a wide range of data sources and stakeholder input. Including a requirement for a review of tenants’ understanding of the rights and responsibilities in the Bill therefore represents an unnecessary step. On the basis of these arguments and our clear commitments, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, not to press her amendments. Finally, I turn to Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I appreciate the concern that underpins Amendment 118, namely the potential impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill on the housing market in England and whether it might discourage landlords from remaining in the sector. As we consider this issue today, it is important to reflect on the evidence already available. The 2023-24 English Housing Survey shows that the size of the private rented sector has remained broadly stable since 2013-14. This suggests that, despite ongoing discussions about reform since 2019, landlords have not exited the market in significant numbers. The Government remain confident that the measures in the Bill will not destabilise the rental market. On the contrary, our proposals make sure that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest and operate in the sector. I will not repeat the details I set out in Committee of this Government’s commitment to thoroughly monitoring and evaluating the private rented sector reform programme using a wide range of data sources and stakeholder input. However, for the benefit of the House, I will briefly set out our plans for publishing the findings from this evaluation, which I believe is what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was asking me. In accordance with the policy set out in our evaluation strategy, the department will publish its assessments of the Renters’ Rights Bill on GOV.UK at two key intervals: two years and five years after implementation. To ensure the reports are publicly accessible, copies will be formally lodged in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament at the time of publication. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are committed to carrying out a robust evaluation of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We will disseminate its findings widely so that parliamentarians, tenants, landlords, local authorities and wider stakeholders will be able to see and scrutinise the impact of the reforms in a timely way. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

17:45:00

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this group, which have allowed us further to explore the real impacts of the Bill and what it entails. It is clear from today’s discussions in the lead up to the report that there is probably not sufficient support in the House for Amendment 60, so I will not be pressing it today. However, it has been clear from the outset that this, to us, is a poor Bill. We believe it will have serious consequences for both landlords and tenants. A reduction in rental supply is not good for tenants; it pushes up costs for those already just about managing and, in many cases, removes the entirely reasonable option of renting a home altogether. We therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 118 when the opportunity to do so arises, on the next day of Report. If the Government are confident in this Bill, we believe they should have nothing to hide. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Amendment 61

Moved by

61: After Clause 20, insert the following new Clause— “Restriction on landlord’s ability to require tenant to provide guarantor(1) A relevant person must not, in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3), require a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor in relation to the observance or performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.(2) For the purposes of this section, requiring a person to provide a guarantor includes accepting an offer by that person to provide a guarantor.(3) The circumstances are—(a) that the person has paid a tenancy deposit or has been assisted under a deposit scheme,(b) that the person is required to pay rent in advance of one month’s rent or more,(c) that on a reasonable assessment of their means the person’s income (including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income) is sufficient to enable them to pay the full rent due under the tenancy,(d) that arrangements will be made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly in respect of rent to a relevant person,(e) that the relevant person has entered into a contract of insurance under which they are insured against non-payment of rent, or(f) such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.(4) In any other case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum for which the guarantor may become liable under the relevant guarantee may not exceed a sum equal to six months’ rent.(5) In any case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant joint tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum claimed under the guarantee may not exceed such proportion of the loss as is attributable to the act or default of the individual tenant on whose behalf the guarantee was given; and if such proportion cannot be proved, may not exceed the sum obtained by dividing the total loss by the number of tenants.(6) In this section—“guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee in relation to a relevant tenancy; a “guarantee” is a contractual promise to be responsible for the performance of an obligation owed by the tenant to a relevant person under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform the obligation;“deposit scheme” includes a scheme whereby a sum payable by way of deposit or a bond or guarantee is provided by a local authority, registered charity or voluntary organisation for the purpose of providing security to a landlord for the performance of a tenant’s obligations under a tenancy;“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004;“relevant person” has the meaning given by section 16M(1) of the 1988 Act.”Member's explanatory statement This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation. Amendment 61 seeks to address a growing and deeply concerning issue in the private rented sector: the overuse, and often misuse, of guarantor requests. This amendment was expertly moved by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett in Committee, and I thank her for her support today along with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—all of whom have given continued support to addressing the issue of the overuse of guarantors. I am sure that noble Lords across the House will accept that landlords should retain ways to manage financial risk. However, the increasing use of guarantor requests is creating a new form of exclusion, particularly for vulnerable renters. This is what Amendment 61 is about: it is not about banning guarantors altogether but restoring proportionality and fairness in their use. Guarantors have become a significant barrier to housing for many. Recent data from Generation Rent shows that almost 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 were asked to provide a guarantor. A further survey by Shelter and YouGov showed that over 100,000 private renters per year are blocked from renting a home in the private rented sector due to a guarantor request they cannot fulfil. Meanwhile, only 2.9% of landlords attempted to claim unpaid rent from a guarantor in the last two years, despite an estimated 1.85 million tenants being asked to provide one. Guarantors are therefore becoming commonplace, yet they are rarely needed in practice and often never pursued when payment issues arise. Noble Lords may be asking why. A YouGov survey by Shelter asked the same question. When questioned, 25% of private rental landlords said that they asked for a guarantor because “My letting agent advised me to”. Another 16% said, “I thought it was standard practice”, while 12% said, “I’d heard from other landlords it was a good idea”. Simply put, guarantors are over-requested, largely unused and, worst of all, increasingly serve as a proxy for discrimination. When a tenant can show that they can afford the rent through a standard affordability assessment, the additional requirement of a guarantor becomes both unnecessary and unfair. It many cases, it adds to an already substantial financial burden, alongside the five-week deposit and the first month’s rent in advance. The evidence shows that this practice disproportionately affects people on lower incomes, those without access to financial support networks and groups already at greater risk of housing discrimination: women, single parents, renters with disabilities and black and Bangladeshi households are all significantly more likely to be asked for a guarantor. A renter with a disability is 20 % more likely to face such a request, and a black renter is 66% more likely. These figures cannot be anomalies; they are a pattern. In Committee, we heard from my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett about older renters securing their pensions, being asked intrusive questions and then being required to provide a guarantor. From the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, we heard of a self-employed single mother being asked for a guarantor even though she was earning £45,000 a year—well above the UK median income. Too many renters simply do not have someone in their network who can act as a guarantor. Unless this issue is addressed, we risk entrenching a two-tier system in the rental market: one for those with access to wealth and another for those without. The justification for these requirements often rests on an overstated fear of rent arrears, yet government figures show that only 2% of private renters were in arrears in 2023-24, and the English Housing Survey puts it at 5%. Of course, that is not negligible, but it does not warrant such widespread and disproportionate use of guarantors. There is an eviction ground for rent arrears, which is the primary backstop for when tenants fail to pay their rent. Moreover, Amendment 61 aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own guidance that guarantors should be requested only when a tenant cannot fully demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This amendment strikes a balance, allowing landlords to use guarantors when genuinely necessary, while protecting tenants from unjust exclusion. It is supported by a wide range of voices: Shelter, Independent Age, UNISON, Renters’ Reform Coalition, the Mayor of London and others. It is also worth noting that this amendment not only calls for legislative clarity but invites the Government to go a little further by introducing national guidance on fair and proportionate tenant referencing. Such a move would help standardise best practice and prevent local variation from undermining equality in the rental market. In summary, this amendment is proportionate and reasonable and would not remove a landlord’s right to safeguard their interest, but it would ensure the right is exercised in a way that is just, consistent and in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage is minded to accept this amendment, but if that is not the case, I ask my noble friend four final critical questions. With guarantor requests increasingly becoming standard process, rather than when they are needed, will the Government issue guidance to landlords on when to request a guarantor? Will the Government look at what support they can provide for people who are at risk of homelessness because they cannot find a guarantor? Will the issue of guarantors be examined in detail as part of the post-Bill implementation work? Will my noble friend commit to working on these issues with Shelter, the Renters’ Reform Coalition, noble Lords in this House and many others on these issues, to find other ways to support the growing number of renters being locked out of the PRS because of the overuse of guarantors? Without this amendment or government action to address the issue of guarantors, the Bill’s measures to tackle discrimination risk being undermined by the very practices it seeks to reform. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak briefly against Amendment 61. It is well-meaning, but I am afraid it is a blunt instrument full of unintended consequences. I do not deny that to require a guarantor for most tenancies is disproportionate and unnecessary, and the Bill makes welcome provisions to regularise what has become standard practice for the most part. However, I want to alert your Lordships’ House to some perverse consequences for three particular types of potential tenant who are among the quietest voices: the foreign student; the groups of students; and those with impaired reputation or difficult personal circumstances. Guarantees make the unrentable into rentable, in some cases. It makes opportunities exist when refusal would otherwise be the only other choice. Let us dwell for a moment on the case of the foreign student. The foreign students come from far away; they have no reputation, there is no covenant strength and they may not even have arrived in the United Kingdom. They certainly do not have a UK bank account at this point and they probably do not have a UK mobile phone either. In many cases, the only way in which they can secure a property to live in before they arrive is to have the support of a guarantor; a guarantor allows them to have a roof over their head. Then we have the groups of students. I refer to the case of my daughter, when she went off to Newcastle. There were seven students who were friends, although none of them really knew each other that well; they certainly were not related to each other, and there were no family bonds to tie them, whereas the Bill contemplates that the tenant is a single tenant. It is quite reasonable for a landlord renting to students, if they cannot have payment in advance—I will not talk about that because we discussed that on day one of Committee—to require some sort of guarantor so that the downside risks can be compensated. Not all students want to live in expensive halls of residence; they are disadvantaged at an early part of their lives. Let us think also about those with an impaired reputation—people who may have left prison or are suffering from domestic abuse or family breakdown. I have been a guarantor for hundreds of families in these sorts of situations, but the Government seek to make my well-meaning interventions unlawful. Let me explain. Sitting in your Lordships’ House, I see the Minister and my noble friend Lord Jamieson who, like me, have been leaders of councils. We know that councils, in certain circumstances, have to step in to avoid homelessness. We know there are not enough registered social landlords and that the private sector landlords are our friends—they are part of the solution, not the problem. However, we cannot expect the private sector landlord to be the only one who takes a chance to get that person, who may have become homeless, a roof over their head. In common with many other councils, my council—and I am proud that we pushed this hard—went for guarantees. We stood as guarantor for somebody in difficult circumstances so that the private sector landlord, who was prepared to take a chance with us, could provide a home. This is an essential part of managing a housing market. It is all about supporting the most vulnerable. It works; it is a success. If you have been a council leader—I am sorry that I failed to identify the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who has also been a council leader in these circumstances—this is about helping families get back on their feet. In considering Amendment 61, I ask noble Lords: in what universe can this misdirected, misguided and counterproductive amendment help those with the quietest voices get a roof over their heads? Providing a guarantor is the way in which the unrentable can rent, and there is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfasts if they could, via a guarantor, be housed. I cannot support this amendment.

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and I am grateful to her for taking over the amendment. She is much better placed than I am to speak to it, and has done so very persuasively. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, called it a blunt instrument and was hyperbolic in his description of the amendment. According to Shelter, the Bill and this amendment would restrict the scenarios in which a landlord can legitimately request a guarantor to those in which a prospective tenant cannot prove that the rent is affordable to them. So it does not seem to me that the amendment excludes the groups that the noble Lord described. If it does so, then perhaps we can have a refined version of it, but the fact is that there are problems without an amendment of this kind. My central argument in Committee—

The noble Baroness talks about the burden of proof. In the three examples I gave, proof is not available. I can understand the intent and the well-meaning behind Amendment 61, but if it is to form part of the Bill, noble Lords need to ask themselves how those people in difficult circumstances are going to demonstrate the proof. They cannot, so a guarantor is the only way forward.

This amendment does not preclude the use of guarantors; it just limits their use. I will leave it at that. As I said in Committee, if there is a better way of doing it, then fine—perhaps the Government could bring forward an amendment that ruled out any unintended consequences. I am not convinced that there are any—but anyway.

18:00:00

My central argument in Committee took as its starting point the very welcome provision in the Bill that will prevent landlords demanding multiple months’ rent in advance, which, as my noble friend the Minister explained, can be used to discriminate against certain marginalised groups. I then warned that the requirement of a guarantor could easily become an alternative tool of discrimination, as my noble friend said.

As has already been explained—but I will repeat—the amendment would not prohibit guarantors but would limit their use, so as to reduce their potentially discriminatory impact. I am afraid that my noble friend the Minister did not really address this argument in her response in Committee. Does she not accept the evidence that I and my noble friend have presented that requiring a high-earning or home-earning guarantor is all too often used in a discriminatory way? I am thinking in particular, as my noble friend said, of social security recipients, disabled tenants and members of racialised minorities, who are disproportionately likely to be asked for a guarantor.

Given the Bill’s strong anti-discrimination stance, which I am of course very supportive of, I am at a loss as to why my noble friend the Minister did not take this argument more seriously. Perhaps she could address it today and, ideally, accept the case made by my noble friend or commit to bring forward her own amendment to achieve the same end at Third Reading that will perhaps address the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised. At the very least, I hope she will be able to answer the questions my noble friend posed as a kind of fallback option.

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and am absolutely delighted to support it. We spoke about this in Committee, but I still feel that there is an opportunity here. This is not about banning all guarantors—if that needs clarifying—and that is made very clear in the wording of the amendment. This is about trying to stop the blanket use of guarantors, which, I am afraid, is occurring and is highly discriminatory. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, referenced student groups. But I am a little bit confused, because my understanding is that the student groups that have been in touch with me over the last few days about this amendment are in support of it—unless the noble Lord has any examples of student groups that have been in touch with him that are against this amendment, then I am happy to sit down to allow him to tell me.

I have not canvassed student groups, but I know the example of my own family—my daughters went to Oxford and Newcastle—and the strictures that were placed on them. So I am talking from my personal experience rather than that of the representatives of other organisations.

It is my understanding that student groups are happy with this amendment and against the blanket use of guarantors. The current use of guarantors is, I am afraid, a proxy for discrimination against vulnerable groups. There is evidence that black renters are 66% more likely to be asked for a guarantor—I know that has already been said, but it is so profoundly shocking that it bears repetition. If you are on benefits, you are 60% more likely to be asked; if you have a disability, it is 20%. The great Equality Act 2010 is being driven over with the use of guarantors and I am delighted to support this amendment. I read with a lot of care the Front-Bench speeches in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested that guarantors can be a lifeline for those with poor credit or no rental history, but on these Benches we genuinely believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The harsh and stark reality is that 550,000 private renters were unable to secure a desired home in the last five years because they lacked a guarantor. There is not a single organisation that I am aware of that campaigns and advocates on behalf of people who could be described as those who need that kind of lifeline, who are on no or a low income, which opposes this amendment. That includes working-class, international, estranged and care-experienced students who struggle to find suitable guarantors because they do not know anyone in those highest quartiles, which are the only guarantors that many landlords will accept. They just do not have those contacts or connections. The noble Lord further suggested that tenants have market discretion or choice if a landlord is imposing a blanket guarantor policy. That defies the logic of the current marketplace, where the low-income tenant is never in the luxury position of shopping around. Again, that choice rests only with those whose income is in the higher quartiles. On the Minister’s point in the same discussion about guarantors providing confidence, we must ask: at what cost to fairness? Landlords already have really robust tools: a five-week deposit, the first month’s rent up front, and affordability checks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, guarantors are rarely invoked in practice. Like the noble Lord, I am currently a guarantor for my son, who is a student, so I completely understand that this is what we currently do. But in the past two years less than 3% of landlords have ever attempted to claim lost rent from a guarantor. When they did, it was 16 times more likely to be difficult than easy. Landlords have other, much more appropriate business risk management tools, such as rent guarantee insurance, rather than relying on a tenant’s family member, and so many of these tenants do not have a family member who is earning way above the median income, which is what is demanded. Even before this legislation has come into effect, there is a worrying rise. A 2024 Generation Rent survey of its supporters found that 30% of private renters who had moved in 2023-24 had been asked for a guarantor—up from 22% of people who had moved in 2019. Always in this context, I fear that the debate is held on a presumption that renters lack responsibility somehow, unlike other tenures. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, only 2% of tenants were reported as in arrears in 2023-24. The vast majority of tenants are responsible individuals, who, by the way, often forgo other things, such as heating and eating, in order to pay rent, because they understand the severe consequences of not doing so and because the market is so limited for them. This amendment is not a radical proposal. As Generation Rent and Shelter argue, it simply ensures that guarantors are used sparingly, appropriately and only when absolutely necessary, when a prospective tenant genuinely cannot demonstrate that they can afford the rent. This entirely aligns with the National Residential Landlords Association’s own current guidance. When the Minister responds, if the Government are unable to stop this loophole for discriminatory practice, will she at least make it clear, either today or perhaps in a letter to follow, that guarantors should be used only as a last resort, that the Equality Act should be used if there is further evidence of discrimination, and that landlords already have the means to ensure that tenants pay through other mechanisms? I hope that her words today will ensure that the widespread use of guarantors is not the next version of no-fault evictions.

My Lords, I thank the many who have spoken in this debate, particularly the three noble Baronesses who have spoken very passionately to say that we need to support some of the most vulnerable in our society. I agree that we need to support them. As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, many councils use the fact that they can act as a guarantor to enable many of the most vulnerable to access a home which they would, in other circumstances, not be able to. There is clearly an appropriate role for the guarantee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, just mentioned, there is a shortage of rental accommodation—I think the figure is something like 12 people chasing every available rented home. We need to think about this when we are discussing this Bill. How do we encourage more people to rent their home so that we have a more dynamic market, with more availability there? It is widely recognised that we need more rental homes, as is the importance of small landlords, particularly in rural areas. We also need to recognise that many of these small landlords have only one or two homes. For many of them, it is a substitute pension, and many of them have mortgages on these homes. If that is the case, they need security that they will get the rental income; otherwise, it is just too high a risk. Some noble Lords have said that the risk is small, but if it is your only asset and you have got a mortgage on it, you may not feel able to take that risk. As we have discussed before, without this, many would have no choice but to exit the market, meaning fewer rental homes and fewer people able to access a home—more people on the street. That is a particular issue in rural areas with small landlords. Guarantors play a crucial role in the rental market. They provide an essential layer of security, offering landlords the reassurance that the rent will be paid, even if the tenant experiences financial difficulties. As we have mentioned earlier, for tenants, particularly students and young people or those without a strong credit history, a guarantor can be key to securing a home which might otherwise be out of reach. This is partly why we are so passionate about enabling rent in advance. That provision is especially helpful for individuals facing barriers, such as overseas students without UK credit records, or those who simply have no one to act as a guarantor. With that context, I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, has brought forward this amendment. However, I regret to say that, on this side of the House, we cannot support it. First, it is overly prescriptive and would constrain landlords from making what is, in many cases, a reasonable response to financial risk. Secondly, preventing landlords requiring a guarantor in such circumstances could have the unintended consequence of discouraging them from renting to high-risk tenants altogether. Thirdly, it would undermine a market-led approach to risk mitigation. Finally, the amendment would afford a broad and, we believe, inappropriate delegation of power. Combined, this would, as I said earlier, reduce the supply of available homes, increase the cost to a tenant and mean fewer people are able to get their own home. For these reasons, we cannot support this amendment.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley for her Amendment 61 and for bringing her expertise and experience to both today’s debate and discussions we have had previously on this issue—as did my noble friend Lady Lister when she moved a similar amendment in Committee. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for speaking. The use of guarantors within the private rented sector is an issue which I know is of great interest to the House. Let me start by saying that the Government recognise that obtaining a guarantor can be a difficult task for some prospective tenants, and I understand concerns that it can be used as a further barrier to tenancy in some cases. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, indicated, where it is being used to discriminate, equalities law may apply. I will consider, for our information-sharing exercise on the Bill, whether there is more we can do to inform people in this regard.

18:15:00

However, it would be irresponsible for this or any Government to legislate to tackle one issue without considering the impact of such action on the system as a whole. This amendment would make it unlawful for a landlord to accept an offer from a prospective tenant to provide a guarantor in a very broad set of circumstances, including in the case of any tenant who has paid a tenancy deposit. We must not underestimate the risk that such action would pose to those who rely on guarantors to access the private rented sector. Without the option of providing a guarantor, many prospective renters, including those moving out of home for the first time, the self-employed and those with historic debts, would find it difficult to secure a private tenancy, and some would find it impossible.

While the scope of the prohibition contained in the amendment is broad, I recognise that there is an interest in the House in a more targeted restriction on the use of guarantors. Why should, for example, a tenant who can demonstrate an income of three or four times the annual rent be required to provide a guarantor? In answering this question, I must stress to the House that landlords generally take account of several factors in addition to income when determining whether a potential tenancy is likely to be sustainable. This includes the prospective renters’ form of employment, rental history and broader financial circumstances. If we were to say that renters with a certain level of income can no longer provide a guarantor, we would restrict those whose circumstances may be perceived as risky from putting themselves on an equal footing with other prospective tenants. Without the ability to offer a guarantor, and all else being equal, it is likely that, to give one example, a self-employed renter in a hot rental market would find it challenging to secure a property if facing competition from a renter on a permanent contract with the same income.

All this being said, I recognise that there is interest in this House in cases where a person is unable to find a guarantor, particularly where such a person is at risk of homelessness. I hope the House will therefore allow me to set out briefly the support and options which may be available where this is the case. First, it is worth noting that the measures we are introducing, which restrict payments of rent in advance at the start of a tenancy, do not apply to local authorities. This means that local authorities will continue to be able to pay upfront rent to help people on low incomes or at risk of homelessness to secure a property. Local authorities may also offer guarantee schemes to help people on low incomes or at risk of homelessness, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, commented. These local authority guarantors can be particularly important, for example, for care leavers who may not have a guarantor otherwise, or for a domestic abuse victim who has fled and has necessarily to avoid contact with people who may be guarantors. In some cases, professional guarantor services can help prospective tenants acquire a tenancy guarantor in circumstances where they would not otherwise have been able to do so.

My noble friend asked whether the Government would issue guidance to landlords as to when a guarantor request would be appropriate. While I recognise the concerns which underlie this question, we currently have no plans to publish guidance on the use of guarantors—although, as I said, I will consider whether we need to give further guidance on when that may be discriminatory. This is because there is no one-size-fits-all approach to determining whether a tenancy will be sustainable. Landlords must be able to make informed decisions when selecting tenants. Good landlords assess tenant suitability in line with each individual’s circumstances and do not apply blanket policies to their tenant assessment process.

I am happy to confirm to the House that our evaluation of the Bill’s impact—the approach that I set out when we debated the previous group of amendments—will include an assessment of any changes in the use of guarantors. In addition, we will continue to speak to stakeholders across the sector about the use of guarantors as a way of supporting renters into homes. To respond to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, I am always happy to meet her, Shelter, the Renters’ Reform Coalition and others if it will help us to debate that issue.

There is a supply and demand imbalance in this country, which the Government are seeking to tackle through our ambitious milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes over this Parliament. However, while we are in this situation where there is such strong competition for privately rented housing in some parts of the country, I do not think it would be helpful to support a measure which would risk doing more harm than good to renters seeking to access the private rented sector. I hope that on that basis, my noble friend will consider not pressing her new clause to a vote.

My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has spoken on this group. I reassure my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, that the intention behind this amendment is clear: it is not about banning guarantors. On this side of the House—and, I am sure, on all sides of the House—we appreciate that landlords need to manage their financial risk. They have a number of ways to do this. The amendment would not ban guarantors; it simply seeks a way to end discrimination and ensure that guarantors are not overused and commonplace, and that they are used when they are genuinely needed. It is about restoring proportionality and fairness to the use of guarantors. I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage for her reply, and her engagement and understanding on this issue, and for continually meeting me and other stakeholders. Of course, we are disappointed that the Government will not accept the amendment, and I am particularly disappointed about the guidance not being issued. However, I appreciate the issues around the guidance, about discrimination and the discriminatory nature of the overuse of guarantors, and her commitment that guarantors will be included in the evaluation of the impact of the Bill. Of course, I am always very happy that she will meet me and other stakeholders. I am firmly of the belief, as I am sure other noble Lords are, including my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that the overuse of guarantors seriously undermines the anti-discrimination intentions of the Bill. We welcome the guidance from my noble friend the Minister. Having said that, I will not be pressing it to a vote, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

Clause 21: Notices to quit by tenants under assured tenancies: timing

Amendment 62

Moved by

62: Clause 21, page 38, line 34, leave out “has” and insert “and any joint tenants have” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley aim to ensure that the provisions contained in section 21 apply to joint tenancies as well.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 62, I will speak also to Amendments 63, 65 and 66. In Committee, I raised some problems with the way the Bill was drafted for joint tenants in respect of notices to quit under assured tenancies defined in Clauses 21 and 22. It was anticipated in Committee that the issues raised would be examined further, and I thank for the Minister for having done this. The problem was that where joint tenants had a breakdown in their relationship, there could be unforeseen consequences for one joint tenant, who might be unaware, for example, that a notice to quit had been served by the other joint tenant. I am grateful for the assistance provided by Citizens Advice, whose front-line staff identified this problem and proposed solutions, and for the work done by the Minister and her department in drafting Amendments 64 and 67, which I welcome. I look forward to the Minister’s explanations of Amendments 64 and 67 in the expectation that I will then seek to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to joint tenancies and the procedural requirements for serving and responding to notices to quit. These amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to ensure that the provisions in Clauses 21 and 22 apply expressly and fairly to all assured tenancies. The spirit of these amendments is to promote transparency and fairness, ensuring that no tenant is left unaware of or disadvantaged by unilateral actions. As we have discussed in this debate and in Committee, joint tenancies are an important and increasingly common form of tenancy arrangement, particularly among families, couples and shared households. Given that multiple tenants hold equal rights and responsibilities, it is only right and fair that the Bill reflects this reality by requiring all parties to be kept informed of significant developments affecting their tenancy. These amendments propose sensible procedural safeguards. The requirement that any notice to quit served by one joint tenant be communicated in writing to all other joint tenants is fair. Similarly, where a landlord serves notice, all joint tenants should be notified promptly. It is also noteworthy that some amendments specify that certain agreements, such as those shortening notice periods or withdrawing notices to quit, must involve the consent of all joint tenants rather than just one. This is a balanced recognition of the collective nature of joint tenancies and the importance of mutual consent in such decisions. As the Bill continues to evolve, it is our shared goal to ensure a rental market that is fair and workable for all parties involved. Although we fully understand and respect the intentions behind these amendments and welcome the constructive debate they have sparked, it is important to consider the practical implications. Requiring unanimous consent or detailed notice procedures could, in some circumstances, add complexity or delay, especially in situations where tenants’ circumstances change rapidly. Therefore, although we support the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in joint tenancies, we urge careful consideration of the balance between protecting tenants’ rights and maintaining workable, efficient processes for landlords and tenants alike.

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments on joint tenancies; Citizens Advice, which has provided the benefit of its significant expertise in this area throughout the Bill’s passage; and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution. Turning first to Amendments 62 and 66, the Government’s intention is not that tenants on a joint tenancy can unilaterally end that tenancy sooner than expected, nor should a tenant be able to trap another in a tenancy indefinitely by withdrawing a notice to quit. As such, I am pleased to confirm that the Government have tabled Amendments 64 and 67, which achieve the same effect as those laid by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Government Amendment 64 will apply where a tenant who wants to serve a notice to quit in a joint tenancy seeks to agree a shorter notice period with the landlord. All other joint tenants will need to agree the shorter notice period as well for the notice to quit to be valid. This will ensure that tenants will not be able to agree short notice periods for a notice to quit without their other joint tenants being aware, preventing tenants finding out at potentially very short notice that their tenancy is ending. This was not the Government’s intention, and I am pleased to be able to clarify this issue beyond doubt in the Bill. Government Amendment 67 will clarify that all joint tenants must agree, alongside the landlord, for a notice to quit to be withdrawn. This will ensure that it is clear that tenants must all agree to sustain a tenancy and make absolutely clear that one tenant cannot trap another in a tenancy indefinitely. These changes will ensure that joint tenancies can continue to operate effectively in the future tenancy regime and ensure maximum clarity for all parties. As such, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments and will instead support the government amendments. Turning now to the noble Lord’s other amendments, Amendment 63 would require a tenant to inform all other joint tenants of their serving a notice to quit, and the landlord to do the same. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord’s intent. We all agree that tenants and landlords should communicate transparently with one another and take action to ensure that all parties are aware that a tenancy is coming to an end. With regret, however, I am unable to support codifying a requirement for this in law. The Government are concerned that, in certain circumstances, this may place individuals at risk. This is particularly true for victims of domestic abuse, who may not be able to safely inform a perpetrator that a notice to quit has been served. Indeed, some victims may choose not to serve a notice to quit at all. I also have practical concerns about the amendment. It might give rise to frustrating and counterproductive disputes between tenants. It might also cause tenants to question whether a tenancy has been validly ended if the requirement is not complied with. Amendment 65 would allow a tenant to serve one month’s notice to end a tenancy if a landlord has served a possession notice on grounds 1 and 1A. That would be a reduction from the usual two months’ notice required by the Bill. Although I appreciate that the intent is to offer tenants greater flexibility to find a new property, we think the Bill strikes the right balance. Landlords must now give four months’ notice when using these grounds, and we think it is reasonable that the property be occupied for at least two months of this period, unless there is specific agreement to a shorter period. I note that allowing a shorter notice period automatically might place other joint tenants in a difficult situation—for example, if they have not been able to find alternative accommodation as quickly as their housemates. This is recognised in the noble Lord’s other amendments. In many cases, the landlord will be supportive of a tenant moving out sooner than would otherwise be permitted. In those cases, there is nothing to stop all joint tenants and landlords agreeing a shorter notice period. I hope that the noble Lord recognises that we have given very careful consideration to these amendments and have accepted those where we think the Bill could be strengthened, although I fully appreciate the intent behind his other amendments. I therefore ask him not to press those amendments for the reasons I have set out.

18:30:00

I thank the Minister for her clarifications and for the Government’s amendments, which strike an appropriate balance, given the explanations from the Minister. As a consequence, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

Amendment 63 not moved.

Amendment 64

Moved by

64: Clause 21, page 39, line 2, at end insert— “(1ZB) In the case of a joint assured tenancy, an agreement under subsection (1ZA)(a)(i) is not valid unless it is made between the landlord and all of the tenants.(1ZC) That does not affect the validity of any notice to quit premises let under a joint assured tenancy that is given by only one or some of the tenants.(1ZD) In this section “joint assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy where two or more persons are tenants under the tenancy.”Member’s explanatory statement The new subsection (1ZA)(a)(ii) inserted into section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 enables the landlord and tenant to agree that notice to quit of less than two months can be given. This amendment would ensure that, where there are joint tenants, all of them must make such an agreement with the landlord.

Amendment 64 agreed.

Amendments 65 not moved.

Clause 22: Notices to quit by tenants under assured tenancies: other

Amendment 66 not moved.

Amendment 67

Moved by

67: Clause 22, page 39, line 14, at end insert— “(4) In the case of a joint assured tenancy, an agreement under subsection (3) is not valid unless it is made between the landlord and all of the tenants.(5) That does not affect the validity of any notice to quit premises let under a joint assured tenancy that is given by only one or some of the tenants.(6) In this section “joint assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy where two or more persons are tenants under the tenancy.”Member's explanatory statement The new section 5A(3) inserted into the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 enables the landlord and tenant to agree that notice to quit can be withdrawn. This amendment would ensure that, where there are joint tenants, all of them must make such an agreement with the landlord.

Amendment 67 agreed.

Clause 27: Tenancy deposit requirements

Amendment 68

Moved by

68: Clause 27, page 42, line 31, leave out from “tenancy,” to “being” in line 33 and insert “no notice of proceedings for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (notice of proceedings for possession) may be given at a time when the deposit is not” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment and others in the name of Lord Shipley seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will speak to Amendments 69 to 71. This issue was not raised in Committee but it is sufficiently important—again I thank Citizens Advice for raising it—to be discussed on Report. I assure the Minister that I do not wish to press these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister might be willing to take away the questions raised in this group to assess whether further amendments are needed at Third Reading. The amendments in this group “seek to prevent a landlord from serving a notice (under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988) to seek possession of a property where a tenancy deposit has not been properly protected or the relevant statutory requirements in relation to the deposit have not been complied with”. Citizens Advice has advised me that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice, and that this would be a departure from the current position. Reverting to the requirement that a landlord must be compliant at the point that notice is served would give far greater certainty and avoid wasted court time in cases where a tenant may not have known up until the last minute whether a valid defence existed. The tenant may believe that they have a defence, because the deposit has been taken and not protected, but then find that the landlord protects or returns the deposit to them at the very last minute, potentially on the morning of the court hearing. That makes it very difficult for tenants to make informed decisions about defending a claim. The Bill says: “Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy, the court may make an order for possession of the dwelling-house let on the assured tenancy only if the tenancy deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme”. My Amendment 68 would amend this to say that where a deposit has been paid in connection with an assured tenancy, “no notice of proceedings for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (notice of proceedings for possession) may be given at a time when the deposit is not” being held. Over 600 clients every month ask Citizens Advice for help with tenancy deposit return issues of various kinds, and things will only worsen if the protections are weakened. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that deposit protection will be strengthened during the passage of the Bill and that no notice of proceedings for possession may be given at a time when the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing this group of amendments to the attention of the House. However, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. Tenants already have clear rights and remedies when it comes to deposit protection. A tenant can easily check online whether their deposit has been lodged in a government-approved protection scheme. If it has not been properly protected and the issue remains unresolved, the tenant has the right to take the landlord to court. In such cases, the court may order the landlord to return or protect the deposit, and may even award the tenant three times the value of that deposit as compensation. These are significant penalties and they serve as a strong incentive for landlords to comply with the law. Given that eviction proceedings are already subject to considerable safeguards and restrictions, we are not convinced that removing Section 8 grounds in these circumstances is either proportionate or necessary. In particular, we must ensure that where a genuine error has been made and later rectified, especially where there is no actual harm or financial loss to the tenant, landlords are not barred from recovering possession of their property. To do so would seem unjust. A more flexible and proportionate approach would promote better compliance while avoiding unnecessary hardship or deterrence to good-faith landlords. Although we fully understand the intentions behind these amendments, having heard the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we believe that existing protections for tenants are robust and that further restrictions of this kind risk being disproportionate.

My Lords, I am once again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising these points, as well as to Citizens Advice for discussing them directly with our department, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. Although I have great sympathy with the intention of Amendments 68 to 71, Clause 27 already ensures that deposits will be protected at the time of the possession hearing, which we think is a more proportionate approach. Landlords have until the court hearing to comply with deposit protection rules. This ensures that landlords can still gain possession when it is reasonable, while ensuring that the tenant’s deposit is protected before the tenancy ends. I also note that this approach is far stronger than current restrictions, which prevent only the use of Section 21, and not Section 8, if the deposit is not protected. However, I believe the noble Lord’s approach goes too far. Most notably, if a landlord had failed to protect a deposit within 30 days of receiving it, they would be permanently prevented from serving notice for possession on any ground except anti-social behaviour. Let me be clear: such a landlord should have complied with the law—of course they should—but there are other, more proportionate, mechanisms available to enforce that compliance, including an ability for a court to award tenants up to three times the amount of the deposit if it was not protected properly. In conclusion, the Bill balances tenant protection with the need for legitimate possession cases to proceed. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply but it has extended the doubts that I have had about this, because it is still not clear to me why the Bill is weakening the current safeguards. It is not clear why a valid defence cannot be assured for a tenant who has to go to court when the court case may not be necessary—in other words, they do not know whether the landlord has managed a tenancy deposit scheme correctly on their behalf. Citizens Advice has produced a strong case here, and it is not clear why the current safeguards are not being continued. I am advised that the tenancy deposit protection scheme will be significantly weakened if it remains the case in the Bill that landlords will not need to protect tenants’ deposits prior to serving notice. That is a departure from the current position. If that is required to happen in future, it will simply encourage wasted court time. I shall withdraw the amendment and not move the other three, but I hope that the Minister and the Government will look very carefully at this issue because otherwise, I fear that tenants will not be properly protected by the tenancy deposit scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Amendments 69 to 71 not moved.

Amendment 72 not moved.

Schedule 2: Amendments relating to Chapter 1 of Part 1

Amendment 73

Moved by

73: Schedule 2, page 201, line 24, leave out “16C” and insert “16B” Member’s explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would remove the provision to be inserted into the Housing Act 1988 relating to indemnity and insurance for pets.

Amendment 73 agreed.

Amendment 74

Moved by

74: Schedule 2, page 207, line 13, at end insert— “Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 69A In Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (enactments specified for the purposes of Part 1), in the appropriate place, insert—“Tenant Fees Act 2019 (c.4)””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment integrates the Tenant Fees Act 2019 into Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It enables a Primary Authority to support local authorities to give assured advice to lettings agents on achieving compliance under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. It is intended that providing this advice will support lettings businesses and reduce pressure on local authorities' enforcement teams.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 74, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and, to my delight, the Minister, have added their names. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. Trading standards officers are going to be important in the enforcement of key provisions in this Bill, and Amendment 74 is intended to support their work. I brought forward this amendment in Committee, and it is intended to extend the matters covered by the special primary authority scheme. This scheme enables certain local authorities to provide assured advice that property agents can rely on in seeking to fulfil their obligations. With this amendment, letting agents and those that advise them, such as Propertymark and the Property Ombudsman, would be able to obtain clear guidance on their responsibilities in meeting regulatory requirements under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, an important piece of legislation that has been left out of this advisory scheme to date. This amendment will help trading standards officers ensure compliance and is beneficial to all property agents wanting to do the right thing. The amendment was promoted by the senior manager of the National Trading Standards estate agency team, James Munro, to whom I offer many thanks. I also thank noble Lords on the Opposition Benches for supporting this amendment in Committee. I am very pleased that the Government have also decided to back it, and I am grateful to the Minister for adding her name to it. It may not be the most exciting measure before us, but it represents a most welcome addition to the Bill and will reduce pressure on overburdened local authority enforcement teams. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, noting that it is signed by my noble friend Lady Thornhill. This is a characteristic amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has become the technical amendment expert when it comes to housing, capable of spotting small but significant changes that can genuinely make a difference. We are delighted that the Minister has also signed the amendment. We have long supported efforts to raise standards and professionalism among managing and property agents. We fully agree with the findings and recommendations of the 2019 report, Regulation of Property Agents, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Is it really six years since its publication on the 18th of this month? How many of its recommendations have been implemented? Perhaps the Minister can tell us or the noble Lord in his summating. The noble Lord’s amendment goes some way to helping local authority trading standards officers work more effectively with good agents who want to raise standards for all and weed out the bad guys, knowing that the assured advice they receive will be clear and comprehensive in ensuring compliance in meeting their obligations under the Tenant Fees Act. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

18:45:00

My Lords, on this amendment, I think we are unanimous. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for this amendment. I approve of his technical knowledge on this and can agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender—just occasionally.

I hope that the next day of Report will go just like that. It will be wonderful. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 74. As he noted, I have added my name to it, and I am delighted to do so. The Government are very pleased to support the amendment, technical as it is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, it will make a positive difference. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing this forward. The amendment is a positive step towards creating a fair and transparent rental market with a more streamlined regulatory process. We want to ensure that letting agent businesses are able to receive reliable and tailored advice on complying with regulations under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The amendment will allow a primary authority scheme to be set up for the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The reliable and tailored assured advice issued by the primary authority is recognised by other local authorities. This helps businesses avoid costs and difficulties caused by different local authorities interpreting and enforcing the same rules inconsistently. The primary authority scheme also promotes great co-operation between businesses and regulators, fostering a collaborative environment that ultimately increases compliance rates while lowering enforcement costs and reducing administrative burdens. The Government strongly support the amendment, recognising its potential significantly to improve the rental market. I hope the whole House will support it.

I am delighted to receive support from all around the House and am deeply grateful. The commonhold and leasehold reform Bill is on its way shortly. That will provide further opportunities to strengthen the regulatory framework around managing agents and the work they do.

Amendment 74 agreed.

Clause 33: Accommodation for homeless people or students

Amendment 75

Moved by

75: Clause 33, page 49, line 3, leave out from beginning to “is” in line 4 and insert— “(a) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) A tenancy which is granted to a person who is pursuing, or intends to pursue, a course of study provided by a specified educational institution if—(a) the tenancy is granted— (i) by that institution,(ii) by another specified educational institution, or(iii) by a specified body of persons, or(b) either of the following is a member of a specified housing management code of practice—(i) a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy;(ii) a person appointed to discharge management functions in respect of the building which comprises the dwelling-house or in which the dwelling-house is situated.(1A) Subsection (1)”.”Member’s explanatory statement The new paragraph (b) of subsection (1) provides that a tenancy of student accommodation is not an assured tenancy if the person appointed to act on behalf of the landlord or to discharge management functions in respect of the building concerned is a member of a “housing management code of practice” (which is a code approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004).

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 76 to 85 and Amendments 123 to 125, to Clause 33 and Schedule 6 respectively. These relate to the mechanism by which private purpose-built student accommodation, or PBSA, will be exempted from the assured tenancy system. They are highly technical in nature and can be broadly divided into two main groups. First, there are technical amendments to the power in the Housing Act 1988. We will use this power to make secondary legislation exempting providers from the assured tenancy framework by reference to their membership of the Unipol code of management practice. This amendment to the power will allow building managers, not just traditional landlords who own the building, to be exempted in the event those managers are members of the housing management code. The amendments are designed to reflect the diversity of commercial arrangements in the PBSA sector. Secondly, there are amendments that aim to smooth over the transition for the sector by providing access to a modified ground 4A for landlords of existing PBSA tenancies after the transition date. I am grateful to stakeholders from the sector for working with the Government to ensure that these clauses work in the way intended. I will now go briefly through the amendments one by one. Amendment 123 is a consequential amendment that updates the numbering in paragraph 13 of Schedule 6. Amendment 124 is not related to PBSA but rather corrects a pre-existing cross-reference error contained in paragraph 13 of Schedule 6. Turning to the first of the substantive amendments, the Government’s intention is to exempt private PBSA from the new assured tenancy system, in recognition of its unique operating model and the need for alignment with the academic calendar. We will do this using a delegated power in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, which we are also amending. However, the power in the Housing Act will allow for new tenancies to be exempt only if they fall within scope. As a result, tenancies entered into prior to the commencement of the Bill will fall outside the scope of the exemption and, therefore, will be subject to the full provisions of the new assured tenancy system. To apply the exemption retrospectively would carry significant risk, as it would turn one of these existing PBSA tenancies into what is known as a “common law” tenancy: that is, a tenancy almost entirely regulated by what is in the tenancy agreement. This could cause unintended consequences, such as those PBSA tenancies containing significantly fewer rights for tenants than the assured shorthold tenancies they will have signed. It could also cause problems for the landlords of those tenancies in the event that the tenancy agreement does not give them adequate forfeiture rights. We do not consider it to be the right approach, therefore, to simply exempt pre-existing PBSA tenancies from assured tenancy status. That said, it is important that PBSA landlords under these existing PBSA tenancies can still access the possession grounds, in particular ground 4A. To ensure that the exemption operates as intended, Amendment 125 modifies ground 4A when applied to pre-existing “qualifying student tenancies”. These are PBSA tenancies, in other words. The amendment ensures that the ground can be used despite those tenancies not usually being HMOs, nor does it require the landlord to serve the Section 8 notice between 1 June and 30 September, reflecting the fact that this restriction does not apply to PBSA tenancies in the old system; nor will it apply to fully exempted tenancies. This will ensure that existing PBSA landlords retain the ability to regain possession at the end of the academic year and therefore end the tenancy. This is consistent with the treatment of new PBSA tenancies established after commencement, where they will not be subject to the assured tenancy framework. I turn now to Amendments 75, 76, 77 and 78. We are seeking to make the existing exemption from assured tenancy status for student tenancies more comprehensive. This exemption is currently set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988. Amendment 75 therefore amends the exemption to ensure that it applies where a landlord has appointed a person to manage the tenancy on their behalf or to manage the building, and that person is a member of a recognised student housing management code of practice. Amendment 77 therefore inserts a new sub-paragraph, (2CA), into paragraph 8. This will allow for regulations to make more tailored provision for particular circumstances by reference to a specified building when combined with the specified person acting on behalf of the landlord. Amendments 76 and 78 are consequential on Amendment 77. They ensure that new sub-paragraph (2CA) is cross-referred to where appropriate in the rest of paragraph 8. I turn to Amendments 80, 81, 82, 83 and 85. There is often a delay between a student tenancy being entered into and the student tenant actually taking possession. In light of this, the exemption in paragraph 8 contains provision to say that a tenancy that meets the exemption at the point at which the tenancy is granted will be exempted permanently, save for particular situations. These situations will include where at the time of grant the tenancy was exempt because the landlord or person acting on their behalf was a member of a housing management code of practice but at the point where the tenant takes possession neither the landlord nor the person managing is a member of a code. It will also include where at the time of grant there were regulations in place under paragraph 8 that did not prevent the tenancy from falling within the exemption, but at the point at which the tenant is entitled to possession, these regulations do prevent the tenancy from being caught by the exemption. This is achieved by Amendments 80, 81, 82, 83 and 85. These amendments are designed not only to ensure that the exemption is granted solely to those PBSA providers who adhere to robust standards but also to guard against any potential for the exemption to be misapplied or exploited. Amendment 79 is consequential on Amendment 75. It ensures that regulations made elsewhere in paragraph 8 can specify classes of buildings that are subject to a housing management code of practice specified for this purpose under new paragraph 8(1)(b). Amendment 84 is consequential on Amendment 125, which provides that a tenancy will be exempt if the person discharging “management functions” in relation to the building is a member of a specified housing management code. Amendment 84 defines “management functions”. It defines these functions to include services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, and insurance of the building. I beg to move.

My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for so clearly setting out the Government’s amendments relating to purpose-built student accommodation—PBSAs. I am also grateful to her for taking the time to meet with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson ahead of Report to discuss this matter in detail. As the Minister is aware, student accommodation is a matter of considerable importance to many of us; indeed, it is an area of particular concern in this Bill. Ensuring that we have sufficient student accommodation, of the right type, available in the right places, and operating in line with the academic calendar, is vital. This is a matter not simply of logistics but of availability and affordability. An adequate supply of accommodation helps to keep rents manageable, which is especially important for students from less advantaged backgrounds. This is why we raised concerns around ground 4A, particularly with regard to the importance of preserving the cyclical nature of student tenancies. The cyclical model is central to the viability of purpose-built student accommodation and, indeed, to maintaining affordability for students. We therefore welcome the Government’s amendments in this area, which rightly acknowledge the unique nature and operation of the PBSAs. In particular, I am very grateful for the clarification offered in sub-paragraph (2C), which states that the tenancy of student accommodation will not be considered an assured tenancy if the person acting on behalf of the landlord is a member of a housing management code of practice. However, I would be grateful for further clarification. Can the Minister confirm whether this provision refers specifically to recognised codes such as the ANUK or the Unipol code, or whether it includes other housing management codes of practice as well? It would be helpful if the Government could set out explicitly which codes are deemed applicable under this provision. Furthermore, in the case of newly established accommodation, how will providers be expected to demonstrate adherence to an accepted code specifically for the purpose of continuing to provide fixed-term tenancies? I am sure the Minister agrees that providers must have, and maintain, an up-to-date understanding of their obligations. With that in mind, when does the Minister intend to update the relevant guidance, particularly regarding the practical steps that PBSAs will need to take to ensure they can continue offering fixed-term tenancies? The relevant codes of practice are, of course, designed around the specific characteristics of student accommodation, covering matters such as health and safety, maintenance and the management of relationships between providers and their tenants. In light of the changes introduced by the Bill, does the Minister have any plans to review or amend the codes? If so, how will such changes be communicated to those operating in the sector? Finally, does the Minister agree that one of the key benefits of code membership is the ability to provide student accommodation outside the assured tenancy framework—a flexibility that underpins the viability of the sector? I hope the Minister will continue to keep under review the impact of this Bill on students and to consider carefully any future changes that could make it harder for students to secure suitable accommodation. Students must be at the forefront of our considerations, not only in policies but also in practice.

19:00:00

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for those comments. I will attempt to answer her questions; I may have to come back in writing on the point about amending the codes. Pre-existing PBSA tenancies will continue to benefit from the protections provided by the Bill. For newly signed PBSA tenancies after commencement, protections will be provided through the housing management codes of practice, approved under Section 233 of the Housing Act 2004. These codes set out clear and robust standards, and compliance with the codes is a condition for exemption. In respect of the approved codes, the ANUK and Unipol codes have clear oversight mechanisms in place, including regular audits, complaint processes and suspension or exclusion for non-compliance. That is why they are the important codes that we have focused on. Landlords must maintain membership and demonstrate adherence to the code standards. If they fail to do so, they will lose their exemption, so that is very important. If they lose their code membership mid-tenancy, they will no longer be entitled to rely on the exemption for any new tenancies. However, existing tenancies will continue under the terms; otherwise, that would not be fair to the students concerned. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s questions. I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate. We debated other student accommodation issues extensively on the previous day of Report. I hope the whole House will agree that these amendments will ensure that this PBSA exemption works effectively and as intended, and I hope the whole House will support them.

Amendment 75 agreed.

Amendments 76 to 85

Moved by

76: Clause 33, page 49, line 4, after “(2C)” insert “, (2CA)” Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (2CA).

77: Clause 33, page 49, line 39, insert— “(2CA) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the building or a class of such persons,(b) specify a class of building in relation to the specified person or specified class of persons, and(c) provide that a tenancy—(i) does not fall within this paragraph if the dwelling-house is in the specified class of building and there is a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the building who is specified or is in the specified class of such persons, or(ii) falls within this paragraph only if the dwelling-house is in the specified class of building and there is a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the building who is specified or is in the specified class of such persons.”Member's explanatory statement This makes provision which corresponds to the new sub-paragraph (2C) but which operates in relation to the case where a tenancy of student accommodation is not an assured tenancy because the person appointed to act on behalf of the landlord or to discharge management functions in respect of the building concerned is a member of a “housing management code of practice”.

78: Clause 33, page 49, line 40, after “(2C)(b)” insert “or (2CA)(b)” Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (2CA).

79: Clause 33, page 50, line 3, after “sub-paragraph” insert “(1)(b),” Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (1)(b).

80: Clause 33, page 50, line 37, leave out from “was” to “solely” in line 39 and insert “exempt” Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (1)(b).

81: Clause 33, page 50, line 41, leave out from “the” in the second place it occurs to end of line 43 and insert “landlord’s interest under the lease does not attract the exemption under this paragraph”. Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on paragraph (b) in the amendment in my name which inserts the new sub-paragraph (1).

82: Clause 33, page 51, line 3, after “(2C)” insert “or (2CA)” Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (2CA).

83: Clause 33, page 51, line 9, after “(2C)” insert “or (2CA)” Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (2CA).

84: Clause 33, page 51, line 16, at end insert— “(za) “management functions” in respect of a building includes functions relating to—(i) the provision of services, or(ii) the repair, maintenance, improvement or insurance of the building;”Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on paragraph (b) in the amendment in my name which inserts the new sub-paragraph (1).

85: Clause 33, page 51, line 36, insert— “(da) a tenancy is “exempt solely by reference to a code of practice” if—(i) the tenancy was granted by a body of persons who were, at the time of the grant, a specified landlord solely by reference to a code of practice, or(ii) at the time of the grant, sub-paragraph (1)(b) applied to the tenancy but sub-paragraph (1)(a) did not apply to the tenancy;(db) a reference to the landlord’s interest under the lease not attracting the exemption under this paragraph is a reference to—(i) a case where the landlord is not a student landlord and there is no person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the relevant building; or(ii) a case where the landlord is not a student landlord and there is a person appointed to act on the landlord’s behalf in respect of the tenancy or to discharge management functions in respect of the relevant building, but that person is not a member of a specified housing management code of practice;and for that purpose the “relevant building” is the building which the dwelling-house comprises or in which the dwelling-house is situated;”Member's explanatory statement This is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting the new sub-paragraph (1)(b).

Amendments 76 to 85 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned.