After four long years, the draft Renters Reform Bill has finally been published and presented to Parliament.
You can read the current version here. The bill’s page on the Parliament website showing where we are in the process is here.
You will find lots of articles and blogs explaining what the bill says – for example, on the Nearly Legal Blog and on the Independent Landlord site.
So rather than do yet another information post, I thought I would set out some of my thoughts and comments on the proposals.
Starting with pets. So far as I can see, there is
No real change in the law on pets
Contrary to what many people think, tenants are already, by default, able to keep a pet. The reason most of them can’t is because of a clause in their tenancy agreement prohibiting them. Virtually all tenancy agreements by default will prohibit pets.
The current situation (where there is a prohibition clause) allows tenants two possible windows of opportunity to keep a pet:
- If the clause is not compliant with the unfair terms rules – which require that landlords consider tenants’ requests to keep a pet and state that landlords should not refuse permission ‘unreasonably’. If the clause does not include this, then it will be invalid and unenforceable.
- The other ‘window’ is if tenants request permission. Here the landlord can either grant permission or can refuse on reasonable grounds. So if the reason for refusal is unreasonable – the tenant can keep the pet!
This is more or less what the Renters Reform Bill is saying.
The only new thing is the requirement for insurance against pet damage. However, effectively, landlords were already able to cover the cost of pet insurance by increasing the rent as a condition of agreeing to the pet.
The incompatibility of security of tenure and the need to deal with anti-social behaviour quickly
The problem with giving tenants strong security of tenure is that it means that it is very difficult for landlords to deal with the appalling problems caused by anti-social behaviour. Which really need a swift removal of the relevant tenant so other tenants and neighbours can get on with their lives in peace.
But if it is made easy to evict anti-social tenants, this will drive a coach and horses through the security of tenure rules. And bad landlords could misuse them.
Likewise, if it is made easy for landlords to evict if they want the property back to sell, or to use for a relative, this can also provide a loophole for landlords to evict tenants they don’t like.
Who is going to check (after the tenants have been evicted) that the landlord is really selling the property? Or that their relative is actually living there?
Some problems can only be solved by money
One of the problems I see is that the government is trying to solve by new legislation problems where we already have legal solutions, but they are not being used effectively due to lack of funding.
For example, there are already regulations relating to the condition of the property and services. However, these need to be properly enforced by Local Authorities to be effective. And Local Authorities are unable to do this as they do not have the funds to employ and train staff to do the work.
For Local Authorities to effectively enforce the law, they need to be properly resourced.
The other problem is that we don’t have enough housing. What we really need is a massive housebuilding program for social housing. Many of those in the private rented sector would be far better off in social housing. Except that we do not have enough of it! Most of the best social housing has already been sold off.
So Local Authorities and Housing Associations need to be adequately resourced so new housing can be built.
If tenants had a wide choice of housing, then bad landlords would find it difficult to find tenants. Whereas now, sometimes the bad landlords are the only ones offering any rented property at all.
We need to be careful about going back to the past
I can remember the old days, pre-1989, when the Rent Act 1977 was the governing legislation. It was so anti-landlord that very few property owners were willing to rent to tenants. Which resulted in fewer and fewer properties available to rent.
Not good news for people who were unable to buy or who did not want to buy (for example, if they were just working somewhere for a few months or years).
The reason section 21 was brought in, in the first place, was to encourage property owners to rent to tenants. As the lack of a private rented sector was causing problems for the economy. Find out more about this in my post here.
We need to be very careful indeed to ensure that property owners are willing to rent out property to tenants. Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s there was far more social housing available and property prices were lower.
We already have a shortage of rented property – caused largely by landlords selling up due to increased taxation and bureaucracy. If many more landlords sell up and their properties are withdrawn from the rental market, the current housing and homelessness problems could get significantly worse.
Do the government have a plan for this?
And finally
What do YOU think about it all? Let me have your comments below.
As landlords of houses let to university students, we are dismayed by what will effectively be the abolition of student tenancies. We shall be unable to sign up tenants for the following academic year without full confidence that the properties will have been vacated.
We had been lulled by the repeated assurances, including from the then housing minister, Felicity Buchan, at last year’s conference that this problem had been taken on board and a solution would be offered.
It is alarming that no changes to the proposed legislation have been made regarding the impact on student housing (despite lobbying by Universities UK and NRLA). Student landlords will struggle to find a workable business model if the bill goes through in its current form but it will surely be students who suffer the worst disruption. It is not a matter of politics but common sense. Student housing in the private sector is fundamentally different because it must work based on the academic year. Security of tenure is not of prime importance to student tenants. What students do consider important is to be able to book good quality accommodation for a group of friends many months in advance.
Felicity Buchan is no longer a housing minister! The ever-revolving door for housing ministers continues …
I have done a new post specifically on the student issue here: https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2023/05/23/are-there-solutions-to-the-student-issue-with-the-renters-reform-bill/
At what point will the freeze on the Local Housing Allowance be lifted? Rents have soared way beyond LHA rates & tenants entitled to Housing benefit are suffering.
My concerns would be:
Proving anti-social behaviour. Are other tenants who are affected going to feel confident giving evidence when they are potentially terrified?
Many tenants have a chaotic lifestyle, if a flat is crammed floor to ceiling with belongings and never cleaned it encourages rodents and accessing the gas boiler and electrical appliances may be difficult. They may be paying the rent, but the smell can be terrible and unfair on other residents.
Sometimes a property just needs updating. It is easy to renovate an empty property. A property may need the flooring taken up or the water and other utilities switched off to install a shower or kitchen.
When attempting to renovate, maybe to improve the EPC, the tenant can make life difficult by restricting hours of work or limiting access.
Renovation should somehow be included in the right to evict tenants, perhaps by showing that £1000 or over has been spent on improvements or producing a work schedule or using a surveyor.
Average “Pet Rent” currently charged by landlords is £25 per month, per pet – existing pet damage insurance policy premiums are typically less than this and cover the address rather than the animal.
In other words, a tenant with 2 cats would currently be paying around £600 extra rent annually, but if they had a pet damage insurance policy, they’d be paying less than £300, AND the landlord would get several thousand pounds worth of cover straight away, rather than accumulating anything like that figure over the years.
This is why our Heads for Tails! campaign proposed adding insurance to the list of permitted payments, and we’re really pleased DLUHC have included this in the bill.
I agree, it’s a much better solution all round. It’s a pity it was not included in the Tenant Fees legislation.
The problem with buying insurance cover for damage caused by ‘pets’ is that insurers are keen to take the money but in my experience, very reluctant to pay out.