I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 11, page 14, line 24, leave out

“16E (inserted by section 10” and insert

“16G (inserted by section (Landlords acting through others)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 20 to 25.

Amendment 163, in clause 11, page 15, line 14, leave out “£5,000” and insert “£30,000”.

This amendment would increase the maximum financial penalty that local authorities could levy against a landlord or former landlord that they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt has contravened provisions contained in clauses 9 (inserted section 16D of the Housing Act 1988) or 10 (inserted section 16E).

Government amendments 26 to 41.

Amendment 164, in clause 11, page 17, line 22, leave out “£30,000” and insert “£60,000”.

Government amendments 42 to 49.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 51 to 54.

Clause 12 stand part.

Government amendments 55 to 59.

Clause 13 stand part.

As I made clear when I spoke on clause 10, the Government will not tolerate any abuse of the new system. Clauses 11 and 12 give local housing authorities the power to fine the minority of landlords who break the rules, as well as introducing new financial penalties and criminal offences for repeated wrongdoing. Clause 13 provides that those criminal offences do not bind the Crown, although it will be possible for councils to issue fines to private landlords. Under that new provision, local housing authorities will be able to fine landlords and former landlords up to a maximum of £5,000 for less serious and initial breaches of the new tenancy system, including failing to follow process when evicting a tenant and trying to offer a fixed-term tenancy. To be clear, £5,000 is the maximum that a landlord can be fined, rather than the norm.

We expect local authorities to be reasonable, and we are issuing guidance that they must have regard to when issuing fines. We are exploring a national framework for setting fines to ensure a consistent approach. This will ensure that penalties are proportionate to the severity of the breach of conduct, and that local authorities impose them accordingly. If landlords deliberately and seriously flout the new rules, local housing authorities will be able to fine them up to £30,000, or choose to prosecute them, including for re-letting or re-marketing a property within three months of using possession grounds for sale and occupation, or knowingly or recklessly misusing a ground for eviction. Repeated breaches will also be met with those higher fines.

Amendments 163 and 164, tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, would increase the maximum fine for initial or less serious breaches from £5,000 to £30,000, and the potential fine for repeated breaches and serious offences from £30,000 to £60,000. I would like to reassure him that multiple fines can be issued where a landlord has committed more than one breach. We will issue guidance to support councillors in making enforcement decisions, but we think that the maximum fines that the amendments would introduce are disproportionate to the severity of the breach or offence. The fines proposed by the hon. Member are out of step with other housing enforcement, such as the existing measures for breaches and offences under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and the Housing Act 2004. Given the substantial fines that can already be levied repeatedly under the legislation, I ask him not to press his amendments to a Division.

The Government amendments extend the prohibited activities to those acting on a landlord’s behalf. That means that local housing authorities can impose penalties on all relevant persons who breach the rules, not just landlords. That includes those with formal relationships, such as letting agents, and more informal relationships. The amendments apply the penalties to those people.

The Government amendments also further strengthen rules against landlords and agents. Instead of demonstrating that a tenant left a property as a result of receiving an improper notice, local authorities will simply have to prove that a tenant left within three months after receiving the notice. That will make it easier for local authorities to take action against the minority of landlords who break the law.

I commend the Government amendments to the Committee and ask the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to withdraw his amendments.

I rise to speak to amendments 163 and 164. As the Minister has just set out, clause 11 inserts four new sections into the Housing Act 1988, setting out the financial penalties and offences he has referred to for breaches of the prohibitions in clause 10, including those relating to mandatory grounds 1 and 1A, which we have just discussed, and for not providing for a written statement of terms, as required by clause 9.

Clause 11 raises for the first time the crucial issue of enforcement, which arises in relation to a number of the prohibitions and requirements in the Bill, including those I just mentioned. It is obviously preferable to ensure that there are sufficient incentives in place to encourage landlords to comply with the various requirements in the Bill, and that abuse of possession grounds is identified before eviction takes place. It is, however, inevitable that some landlords will fail to comply with the requirements in the Bill, including the requirement to provide a written statement of terms and conditions to the tenant on or before the first day of a tenancy, and that there will be misuse of possession grounds 1 and 1A that are identified after an eviction has taken place.

The Government are currently proposing two means by which redress might be secured in those circumstances. First, they are proposing to enable the new ombudsman to award compensation to the wronged tenant. Secondly, as the Minister made clear, they are giving local authorities the power to impose financial penalties if the relevant authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a landlord or former landlord has contravened provisions contained in clauses 9 or 10, or if a landlord or former landlord is guilty of an offence but is not prosecuted.

I note and welcome the Minister’s comments, in terms of the Government’s intention to look at developing a national framework that might ensure that those fines are properly co-ordinated across the country. We will come on to consider whether those two means of redress could be supplemented by others when we address the issue of whether tenants themselves should be allowed to seek compensation for an abuse of possession grounds by means of a rent repayment order, as provided for by our new clause 57.

Amendments 163 and 164 are probing amendments that are designed to facilitate a debate on whether the amounts that the Government have chosen as the maximum financial penalties that a local authority can impose—namely £5,000 for a contravention and £30,000 for an serious offence—are sufficient. Notwithstanding the point that the Minister has just made—and it is useful to have clarification that multiple fines can be levied—we are concerned that the maximum levels are insufficient.

It is our contention that the type of unscrupulous landlord that might seek to abuse ground 1 or 1A to evict a tenant who has made a legitimate complaint—the rectification of which, if it is a serious hazard, may cost them tens of thousands of pounds—is unlikely to be deterred by the prospect of a fine of £5,000 or less. That is assuming that the local authority has the capacity and capability to investigate and enforce it. The Minister was also very clear that £5,000 is the maximum; the Government do not wish for it to be the norm. Similarly, a fine of £30,000—or less—for an offence strikes us as far too low to act as a serious deterrent.

Amendments 163 and 164 would raise the maximum financial penalty that local authorities could levy from £5,000 to £30,000 in instances where the provisions contained in clauses 9 or 10 were contravened, and from £30,000 to £60,000 where an offence has been committed. We have proposed those higher figures, very deliberately, on the basis that £30,000 mirrors the current maximum financial penalty for housing offences, and by doubling the maximum financial penalty for an offence to reflect the severity of that outcome. I hope that the Minister might go away and reconsider whether the maximum levels that the Government have chosen are sufficient to act as the deterrent that I think we both absolutely wish to see.

Clause 12, which is grouped with these amendments, requires a local housing authority to issue a notice of intent before imposing a financial penalty on a person under two of the new sections—16F and 16H—inserted into the 1988 Act by clause 11. It requires them to do so within six months of collecting sufficient evidence or, if the conduct is continuing, during the period that it continues within or within six months of it ending.

The clause further specifies that after a landlord has been issued with a notice of intent as required, a landlord will have the opportunity to make representations to the authority, which will then decide whether to issue the fine. What is more, even after an authority has heard representations and has still decided to impose a financial penalty, clause 12 gives the sanctioned party a right to appeal to the tribunal.

I ask the Minister—particularly in the light of the Government’s having resisted our efforts to strengthen the Bill to ensure that the replacement possession regime cannot be so easily abused—why the Government have provided landlords, who, let us remember, a local authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt have contravened provisions contained in clauses 9 or 10, with a series of opportunities to evade a financial penalty.

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I did not quite catch his question, so, if it is fine with him, I will write to him on that point. I apologise, because I did not quite follow it.

It’ll be a very long letter.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Amendments made: 20, in clause 11, page 14, line 26, leave out “16F” and insert “16H”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 21, in clause 11, page 14, leave out line 28.

This amendment is consequential on NC3 and NC4. It removes the reference to landlords, since the replacement clauses will cover other persons too.

Amendment 22, in clause 11, page 14, line 35, leave out “as a result” and insert

“within the period of three months beginning with the date of the contravention”.

This amendment applies where, in breach of new section 16E(2)(d), a possession notice specifies a ground which the landlord is not entitled to rely on, and the tenant surrenders the tenancy within 3 months following this. The amendment allows a financial penalty to be imposed whether or not the surrender is a result of the notice.

Amendment 23, in clause 11, page 14, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) Where a landlord fulfils the requirement in section 16D, a local housing authority may not impose a financial penalty on a person who contravenes section 16D only by virtue of subsection (6) of that section.”.

This amendment is consequential on section 16D(6) inserted by NC3. It prevents another person from being liable to a financial penalty for failure to give a statement of terms to a tenant where the landlord has given the statement instead.

Amendment 24, in clause 11, page 14, line 38, after “imposed” insert “on the same person”.

This amendment is consequential on section 16D(6) inserted by NC3 and allows both a landlord and that landlord’s agent to have penalties imposed on them for the same contravention, by narrowing the provision that restricts penalties being imposed for the same conduct.

Amendment 25, in clause 11, page 15, line 14, at end insert—

“(4A) Where—

(a) a local housing authority is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to two or more persons, and

(b) the contraventions in relation to which the local housing authority is so satisfied arise from the same conduct by one or more of the persons acting on behalf of the others,

the local housing authority may impose a financial penalty under this section on the persons (or some of them) jointly, and if the local housing authority does so, the persons on whom the penalty is imposed are jointly and severally liable to pay it.”.

This amendment is consequential on NC3 and NC4 and allows a local housing authority to impose a joint penalty where persons have acted on behalf of others.

Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 15, line 17, leave out “16G” and insert “16I”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 27, in clause 11, page 15, line 25, leave out “16H” and insert “16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 28, in clause 11, page 15, line 31, leave out “16G” and insert “16I”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 15, line 32, leave out “16H” and insert “16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 30, in clause 11, page 15, line 37, leave out “16G” and insert “16I”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 31, in clause 11, page 15, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 16 and insert—

“(1) A person who is a landlord under a tenancy to which section 16E applies, or is acting or purporting to act on behalf of such a landlord, is guilty of an offence if, in relation to the tenancy—

(a) the person relies on a ground in Schedule 2 which the landlord is not entitled to rely on, knowing that the landlord is not entitled to rely on it or being reckless as to whether the landlord is entitled to rely on it, or

(b) the person relies on one or more of Grounds 1, 1A and 6 in Schedule 2 and specifies in the notice under section 8, or purported notice under section 8 (within the meaning given by section 16E), that proceedings for possession of the dwelling-house will not begin earlier than a date specified in the notice, knowing or being reckless as to the fact that the date is earlier than 6 months after the beginning of the tenancy,

and the tenant surrenders the tenancy within the period of three months beginning with the date of service of the notice or purported notice in which the ground or grounds were specified.

(1A) Subsection (6) of section 16E applies for the purposes of subsection (1) as it applies for the purposes of that section.”.

This amendment makes it an offence for landlords and people acting on their behalf, or purporting to do so, to serve notice using a ground for possession on which the landlord is not entitled to rely, if the tenant surrenders the tenancy within 3 months following service of the notice. It also makes changes consequential on NC4.

Amendment 32, in clause 11, page 16, line 12, at end insert

“but it is a defence for a person who contravenes section 16E(4) otherwise than as a landlord to show that they took all reasonable steps to avoid contravening it”.

This amendment provides for defences that may be put forward by a landlord’s agent where the agent contravenes the new section 16E(4) inserted by NC4.

Amendment 33, in clause 11, page 16, line 27, leave out “16F” and insert “16H”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 16, line 36, leave out “16F or 16H” and insert “16H or 16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 35, in clause 11, page 17, line 3, leave out “16F or 16H” and insert “16H or 16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 36, in clause 11, page 17, line 3, at end insert—

“(7A) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of a body corporate, the officer as well as the body corporate commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(7B) Where an offence under subsection (2) committed by a body corporate is proved to be attributable to any neglect on the part of an officer of a body corporate, the officer as well as the body corporate commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(7C) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsections (7A) and (7B) apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with the member's functions of management as if the member were an officer of the body corporate.”.

This amendment makes it possible for officers of a company or other body corporate to be prosecuted for offences committed by that body under new section 16G (which is re-numbered as 16I by other amendments).

Amendment 37, in clause 11, page 17, line 6, leave out “16H” and insert “16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 38, in clause 11, page 17, line 6, leave out “16G” and insert “16I”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 39, in clause 11, page 17, line 9, leave out “16G” and insert “16I”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 40, in clause 11, page 17, line 12, leave out “16G” and insert “16I”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 41, in clause 11, page 17, line 22, at end insert—

“(3A) Where—

(a) a local housing authority is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to two or more persons, and

(b) the offences in relation to which the local housing authority is so satisfied arise from the same conduct by one or more of the persons acting on behalf of the others,

the local housing authority may impose a financial penalty under this section on the persons (or some of them) jointly, and if the local housing authority does so, the persons on whom the penalty is imposed are jointly and severally liable to pay it.”.

This amendment allows a local housing authority to impose a joint penalty where persons have acted on behalf of others.

Amendment 42, in clause 11, page 17, line 27, leave out “16I” and insert “16K”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 43, in clause 11, page 17, line 31, leave out “16F to 16H” and insert “16H to 16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 44, in clause 11, page 17, line 33, leave out “16F(4) and 16H(3)” and insert “16H(4) and 16J(3)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 45, in clause 11, page 18, line 2, leave out “16F and 16H” and insert “16H and 16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 46, in clause 11, page 18, line 3, leave out “16F and 16H” and insert “16H and 16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5.

Amendment 47, in clause 11, page 18, line 4, leave out “16F and 16H” and insert “16H and 16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 48, in clause 11, page 18, line 7, leave out “16F and 16H” and insert “16H and 16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 49, in clause 11, page 18, line 8, leave out “16F to 16H” and insert “16H to 16J”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and NC5. It updates the new section numbering to reflect the fact that those new clauses insert new sections earlier in the 1988 Act.

Amendment 50, in clause 11, page 18, line 9, leave out from “authority’” to end of line 10 and insert

“means a district council, a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly.’”—(Jacob Young.)

This amendment makes clear that the functions of local housing authorities under sections 16F to 16I of, and Schedule 2ZA to, the Housing Act 1988 (which relate to England only) are not conferred on Welsh county councils and county borough councils.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.