Tarun Bhakta and Tom MacInnes gave evidence.

Good morning to both our new witnesses. Could you begin by introducing yourselves? Then I will go to Members to ask questions.

Tom MacInnes:

Good morning. My name is Tom MacInnes. I am the director of policy at Citizens Advice.

Tarun Bhakta:

My name is Tarun Bhakta. I am policy manager at Shelter.

Q This is the second time that Parliament has had a go at reforming renters’ rights. Could you tell us how you feel this Bill is different in what it means for tenants, compared to the previous attempt to reform the rented sector?

Tarun Bhakta:

First, I would like to thank the Committee for inviting us to give evidence today. To answer your question on how the Bill is different, there are significant changes from the previous version of the Bill. In our view, the previous version was of good intention, but full of aspects that would undermine its core purpose, particularly as the Bill moved forward and changes were introduced, for example to essentially remove periodic tenancies or reintroduce fixed-term tenancies—that minimum period for tenants.

Similarly, there were policies with a lot of shortcomings —ideas such as the no re-letting period after landlords evict a tenant. We have seen in Scotland that one in five landlord sale evictions have not ended up in sale, so there is evidence of abuse in the system. It is really important that there are measures to deter landlords from abusing the new section 8 system, and to catch landlords who are dishonestly evicting tenants. The previous Bill included only a three-month no re-letting period, which would have been much too small a deterrent for landlords seeking to abuse the eviction grounds and evict tenants dishonestly. We are really pleased to see changes in this Bill that go significantly further, such as the 12-month no re-letting period.

There were measures in the previous Bill that we would call half-baked, particularly when it came to notice periods. We know that the most common type of eviction in the new system will be for landlord sale or for landlords moving in. The previous version of the Bill included just two months’ notice, which would have retained and recreated many of the problems that we see in our current private rented sector, where tenants are faced with short notice and unreasoned evictions. We think many of those are avoidable, but we also know that that short notice is not long enough for renters to find a new place to live. There are really positive changes in this Bill in comparison with the previous version. We think it will go a very long way to addressing the needs, but given that we are so early in the Parliament —we welcome the speed at which the Bill is being implemented—it is still important to view this Bill as a work in progress.

In our evidence today, we will pick out two key areas. First, we think the Bill can go further in chapter 3—the discrimination clauses—on improving access to rented homes. Secondly, we think the Government need to take another look at rent increases. Looking at the evidence from tribunal cases, we do not think the current approach in the Bill—to tweak the work of the tribunal, as discussed in the previous panel—will achieve its aim of preventing evictions by the back door, or economic evictions, as they have been called. We think that the evidence that we have heard today on the tribunal today shows that we need to go further there.

Tom MacInnes:

We would agree with quite a lot of that. The Bill does improve the position for renters. We agree with the changes around re-letting, but we would say that that is probably only as strong as the enforcement, so we would be interested in looking at that further. We also welcome the longer notice period and the stronger rules on discrimination against families and those receiving benefits. Those are definitely things that we think are improvements.

We may come on to this, but there are other areas in which we might be looking for a couple of improvements. In particular, there was some discussion earlier around the portal and the use of the portal. We think that it could be used for better establishing what the market rent was in an area. If you are talking about in-tenancy rent rises, is that possibly a place where you could agree what actual rents were, rather than past rents? There could be something useful there, but broadly speaking it is a step in the right direction.

Q May I pursue a couple of points, Mr Bhakta, on the difference between things set out in legislation and the use of guidance? I know that you gave evidence previously on this issue, which has come up not just in the context of this Bill. Could you draw the Committee’s attention to your views about how that has an impact in the real world and how it would most effectively be addressed, given the complexity and, sometimes, the timing and flexibility of some of the issues that that is designed to address?

Tarun Bhakta:

Yes, I think so. I think you might be referring to talking about the evidence requirements on eviction grounds.

indicated assent.

Tarun Bhakta:

It has long been our call that the Bill should specify and set a higher threshold and make that clear, particularly for the landlord sale and the landlord moving in eviction grounds. We also think that the Bill should introduce a post-eviction proceeding.

There are two really important parts to establishing that clarity in the Bill. First, tenants and landlords need absolute clarity about what constitutes a legitimate eviction. We see through our legal services that the decision on whether to challenge an eviction notice in court is an incredibly complex and difficult one for tenants to make. The process of going through the courts to challenge an eviction is time-consuming, costly and very stressful for tenants, so it is about setting out that clarity, particularly in those landlord sale and landlord moving in eviction grounds. Making that threshold clear would provide clarity for tenants to help to make that decision. We believe that that would also have the effect of supporting tenants to understand where an eviction is legitimate and prevent some of those cases from making it to court.

Secondly, the current wording in the Bill is very open. It goes further in Scotland, in our view, and although it is all very well being confident in setting guidance for the courts and hoping that the judges make the right decision in court, tenants need that clarity before we reach the court stage. Also, judges do need some steer; we see some inconsistency in cases between judges, and it is not the case that they will all interpret the law in exactly the same way, so setting that clarity in the legislation is important. We cannot have a situation in which the landlord states that they intend to sell the property and that is case closed: we need more clarity than that.

Q Thank you both for coming to give evidence to the Committee. Can I pick up on two points? The first is on rent increases. The Government have been very open that we have no plans to implement rent controls, and we have been clear about our reasons why. I take the point that you might have a different view, but we will set that to one side for the moment. What are your concerns around how the process in the Bill could be used by landlords as an effective section 21 by the back door? Perhaps we can have a bit of an exchange about this, but why do you think it does not provide that protection against unreasonable, within-tenancy rent increases?

Tarun Bhakta:

It is difficult to set that to one side, so you will forgive me if I do not.

Q But how would you improve the provisions in the Bill?

Tarun Bhakta:

First, we believe that the Government need to look at the proportions by which rents are increased. Currently, the tribunal is able to access only the eventual rent, whether or not that is a market rent, so in effect it works with a ceiling, rather than looking at the proportions of rent increases. This is really important, because through the tribunal and our services outside the tribunal we see very large proportional rent increases. This is what matters to tenants: they cannot afford large proportional increases in their rent because of that shock, particularly where they are on fixed incomes and receive housing benefit or pensions.

The data at the tribunal is really telling. The average size of a rent increase permitted by the tribunal in the last hundred cases was 23%. The majority of renters tell us that they could not afford a rent increase of more than 10%, yet two thirds of cases in the last 100 cases in the tribunal ended with a rent increase for a tenant of 10% or more.

Q To be clear, that is because the tribunal is saying that the previous rent is so far below what it judges to be the market rent?

Tarun Bhakta:

That is exactly right, and 16 of the 100 cases we looked at saw an eventual rent increase of more than 40%. We know, both through our services and through our research, that that is not manageable for tenants. That is the kind of rent increase that pushes tenants out of their homes or into debt. The problem is using a ceiling of market rent to judge the eventual rent increase.

Setting limits on proportional rent increases is commonplace across Europe. I know the Government have said they will not introduce any measure of rent controls, but it is quite unhelpful to lump all rent controls together when there is such a range. Rent controls is not a policy, but a category of policies. It is common across Europe to limit the proportion by which rent can increase during tenancies. The purpose of that is not to bring down rent or tackle affordability in any major way, but to protect people from those disproportionate rent increases that force them out of their homes.

In the tribunal there is evidence of landlords, where they are not able to secure section 21 eviction for whatever reason, turning to rent increases. There are at least four cases in that 100—this is only where the tribunal have provided background notes, which is not very common—where a landlord has clearly sought to evict the tenant and has not been able to, so has turned to a very large rent increase, and all the tribunal has been able to do is permit a large rent increase. In many of those cases we assume the tenants will have had to leave the property.

Q To pick up the point made by the previous witnesses, we took the view, which is quite finely balanced, that the potential disincentives to landlords of losing potentially up to three months’ rent increase—though we want to bring the tribunal process timelines down—could be accommodated by the sector, as opposed to tenants being disincentivised to take the case to tribunal in the first case by having the rent increase kick in from the point that the section 13 notice was served.

You heard the concerns from the previous witnesses about how that would operate and the unfairness of that. With your experience, how would you say the new system would operate? We have been very clear that we want more tenants to take challenges to tribunal, though we do not want the tribunal overwhelmed. What would you say to the charge that the decision the Government have made, to put the point of payment when the tribunal makes its determination, will see a flood of cases come in and all advice groups will tell tenants to take every single rent increase to tribunal?

Tarun Bhakta:

We are often accused of plotting to tell everyone to take things to court. We do not think that would be the case. As you say, we want more tenants to be able to challenge their rent increase at tribunal because, particularly in the last couple of years, we have seen extremely large rent increases for tenants during tenancies. The reason we do not think there will be a flood of cases to the tribunal and the reason we would not advise tenants to do that is that, if you look at this evidence, there is very little that the tribunal is able to do at present to address those large rent increases. We would not advise tenants to simply delay the inevitable, because, looking at the data, a large rent increase is somewhat inevitable—it might not be the exact rent increase the landlord asked for in the section 13 notice, but there is strong evidence that the tribunal will permit a very large rent increase.

Q Could you quickly set out to the Committee the process of going to tribunal, for those who are not aware of it? There is sometimes in the commentary this idea that it is incredibly easy, which is put paid to by the very low numbers that go. What is the process? It is onerous in many ways, so am I right that it is a significant jump for tenants to take a case to the tribunal in the first place?

Tarun Bhakta:

Yes, absolutely. Before I talk about what the process looks like for tenants, which Tom can maybe add to, we need to understand that, for tenants who do not interact with courts or tribunals or anything like that in their daily lives, going through one of these processes, whether we know it to be arduous or not, sounds and feels scary to tenants. That is really important to understand. The vast majority of tenants do not want to go through these processes. It is not fun—it never has been fun—but there is also the fear of what might happen and of how it might damage the relationship with the landlord. All those things weigh heavy on tenants’ minds. That is a really important factor to consider. The proposals that we have for limiting rent increases would, in effect, do away with the need for tribunal decisions, but for a very rare and small amount of cases.

When it comes to the actual process of tribunal, there is such poor data out there about rents in the wider sector that it is very difficult for tenants to gather that evidence. It is somewhat on them; it is also on the landlord, but it is somewhat on them to gather and provide that evidence. The tribunal will do some of that work, but tenants are expected to, or generally do, provide evidence at the start.

Tom MacInnes:

From our perspective, it is basically exactly that: people do not have the time or, really, the capacity to take these things to tribunal, and they often decide that it is not worth it.

To the point about the data available out there about what a reasonable or market rent is, there are so many different sources. Even at an Office for National Statistics level, there is not complete agreement. We really welcome the end to bidding wars, for instance, for new tenancies, but our concern is that an unintended consequence might be that a landlord would put in a very high price to start with and then bring it down, and it is that high price that gets logged and sets the market rate.

For us, the role of the portal is to establish what the actual rents are—a basis that everyone can proceed on together, rather than it being some debated fact. There is a real role there for making that stuff public and known. Then you get two well-informed sides of an argument.

Q One final question, just so that I have understood your concern. Do you question whether the tribunal has the expertise to look at all of the sources of data and evidence that are out there in relation to rents, and to make a fair assessment about market rent?

Tom MacInnes:

I do not know whether it is about expertise, but it is simply an observation of what always happens—it tends to end up on the high side. What the rates are is just so contested.

Quite a number of Members want to come in, so it would be helpful to have quick questions and answers.

Q When I met your Citizens Advice colleagues in my constituency, they said, “We can give all the advice that you like, but ultimately, the problem is that money out is more than money in.” I have that ringing in my ears, and that inspires this question.

We all know that rents have been increasing out of proportion to incomes over the last few years, creating this growing gap where one or, at this rate, two generations of people risk never being able to afford to get out of the private rented sector. I am really worried about that, especially as that group ages. Do you think the Bill does enough to address the issue of affordability of rents and the long-term and growing problem of those generations of people, moving into old age, permanently trapped in the private rented sector?

Tom MacInnes:

We will not go back to the bit about rent rises, but we will talk about some other aspects. The thing that concerns us is asking for enormous amounts of rent up front, so what we want is to have that limited to a month’s rent up front. There are also other issues around guarantors and asking for guarantors, in the next stage along the process. We think that has discriminatory consequences against people who actually can afford it, but cannot point to the evidence of it—people who could afford the rent but do not have anyone in their social circle, if you like, who could back them up for a year or whatever. We would like the instances of relying on guarantors to be reduced. If the issue of perceived affordability changes, the choice for those groups grows; we are looking for that kind of support.

We welcome the end of “No DSS, no benefits”, but we are worried about that coming in in other ways, such as someone not having rich enough friends to back them up. We would like to see that being addressed.

Q As far as I am concerned, you can talk about rent controls.

Tarun Bhakta:

We really agree with those points about rent in advance and guarantors, which are particular priorities for Shelter. Particularly through our legal services, we have been one of the foremost organisations supporting tenants to challenge DSS or housing benefit discrimination. We see how slippery that discrimination is. It is very difficult for tenants to understand whether they have experienced it.

To add to what Tom said, we have some evidence that rent-in-advance requests are disproportionately made to housing benefit claimants, but that also applies to older renters, as do guarantor requests. Rent-in-advance and guarantor requests often come together or are linked. A lot of older renters do not have someone in their support network who is willing or able to offer to be a guarantor. The effect of these requests that landlords introduce is to lock people out of the rented sector. Tom said that they are perceived affordability issues. It is that first step into housing, and affordability is strongly relevant to that, but we find that people who can afford the rent are prevented from renting properties because of arbitrary barriers such as rent-in-advance and guarantor requests.

To answer your question more directly, it is fair to say that the Bill does not introduce measures to address affordability in the sector. We think the Government should take a longer look at that and, to go back to my previous answer, take a more reasoned approach to rent controls. Essentially, they should explore the options, particularly where rent increases for sitting tenants are forcing them out of their homes. That undermines the core purpose of this Bill, which is to provide greater security for tenants and help them to avoid homelessness. Beyond that, it is clear that we need much greater provision of social housing and much more adequate housing benefit in order to tackle some of the affordability issues in the private rented sector.

The previous panellists believe that the Bill will increase homelessness. My simple question is: do you agree with that assessment of the Bill?Q

Tom MacInnes:

I do not think we would agree with that, no. By way of background, the number of people that Citizens Advice is helping with homelessness has never been higher—we hit a record this summer—so the number of people who are homeless is already incredibly high. The Bill gives more power back to the tenant, so we think it redresses a power balance.

One of the things that we would like to think about to reduce homelessness is the bit that happens at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has to give a four-month notice period, but within that the tenant has to give two—two months within that four. So the tenant is given a deadline, which is shortened, to find another place, and it is often difficult to find another home. We have talked about the affordability issues. There is an issue about potential homelessness at the end of a tenancy that everyone knows is going to end in any case. We would like to see that period reduced, ideally to zero but certainly to one month.

There is also a really good case for a rental waiver—a rent-free period—within the last two months of the four so that people can afford to move out. They must be able to afford the fairly substantial initial costs of moving, and not pay two months’ rent, because there is a homelessness risk right there. No, I do not think the Bill will increase homelessness.

Tarun Bhakta:

I have a simple answer followed by a less simple one. No, the Bill will not increase homelessness. We have already heard that the end of assured shorthold tenancies is the leading cause of homelessness. The Bill will eradicate short-notice and no-reason evictions, which many believe are not legitimate and would not meet the bar for eviction under the new system. We are supportive of the way that section 21 and fixed-term tenancies are being abolished and of the implementation approach set out by the Government. We think the Bill will reduce homelessness. I very much agree with Tom that, if and when tenants are served with an eviction notice, the Bill could go further in supporting tenants in access to finding a new rental home. I will come back to the point about rent in advance and guarantors.

Housing benefit claimants are disproportionately at risk of homelessness if they are served with an eviction and they face these additional barriers disproportionately. According to Acorn research, one in five renters claiming housing benefit had been asked for 12 months’ rent in advance in the last three years compared with just 6% of renters not in receipt of housing benefit, which shows how disproportionately the barrier is applied to housing benefit claimants, who are in turn themselves, being on lower income, more at risk of facing homelessness once they are served with an eviction notice. That is one area where we would say the Bill is a work in progress. We could improve that access to new rented homes where tenants are served with an eviction, and that would help people to avoid homelessness if and when they are served an eviction.

Gideon Amos and then Jacob Collier—if you both ask quick questions, we can get you both in.

Q I have two very brief questions. You will have heard the previous witnesses. Have you seen any evidence of an increase in section 21 evictions since the introduction of the Bill? You will have heard the discussion about fixed-term tenancies and whether they should still be available by agreement between landlord and tenant. Do you have concerns about that? What are your views?

Tarun Bhakta:

First, the evidence is that section 21 evictions are increasing. We do not have evidence that that is because the Bill is coming. We heard in the evidence that many landlords will wait and see, and find that being a landlord in the new system is not so bad. That is what the evidence of tenancy reform in Scotland in 2017 showed. The evidence we have does not point to that.

Can you remind me what your second question was?

It was about retaining the option of fixed-term tenancies to two or three years if it were agreed between landlord and tenant.

Tarun Bhakta:

No, we would not support that at all. It is an illusion that a fixed-term tenancy is a mutual agreement between tenant and landlord. Tenants expect that that is what they have to do. Tenants most commonly sign—the majority sign—12-month contracts, yet we know that tenants want longer than that. It is just that tenants do not feel that they have the power in the sector to ask for a different length of fixed-term tenancy.

In our services, we see fixed-term tenancies locking tenants into unsuitable properties; maybe repairs were promised and not done, or the property has deteriorated, their circumstances have changed, or the rent has increased and tenants are locked in and liable for the rent during that period—

rose—

Jacob Collier is next.

How far do you think the Bill will go to give renters greater security and stabilityQ ?

Tom MacInnes:

We welcome it as an organisation. We think it improves renters’ stability. It gives a bit more power to the renters. There is more that could be done—for example, there is stuff around the two months’ notice only being required after a four-month period. To repeat some previous points, there is a bit about landlords selling their properties and the evidence required. If the evidence landlords needed to provide was increased, we think that there would be a reduction in the misuse of that ground and an increase in stability for renters. We do think the Bill makes a difference and increases stability, and if a change could be made in enforcement, it could do even more.

That brings us to the end of that session. Thank you very much indeed. We will move on to our next witnesses.