Justin Bates KC, Giles Peaker and Liz Davies KC gave evidence.

Good afternoon and thank you for coming along. As this session has to end at 2.40 pm, with no Chair’s discretion in relation to that, I suggest that we get started straight away. May I ask you to introduce yourselves briefly?

Justin Bates KC:

I am Justin Bates, a barrister and King’s counsel at Landmark Chambers here in London, and I am the editor of the “Encyclopedia of Housing Law and Practice”.

Giles Peaker:

I am Giles Peaker, a solicitor at Anthony Gold Solicitors and a partner in the housing law team.

Liz Davies KC:

I am Liz Davies, a barrister and King’s counsel at Garden Court Chambers, and I write about homelessness and for Legal Action magazine on housing.

Thank you very much. David Simmonds will ask the first question.

I would like to ask you about the impact that the Bill will have on first-tier tribunals and whether they are ready for the potential consequences. Perhaps we can develop that to ask about the interactions with ombudsman services as well, with one of the issues being how renters whose rights are infringed, or where there is a dispute, can achieve reasonable restitution, whether that involves going to court, a tribunal or the ombudsman serviceQ49.

Justin Bates KC:

Obviously, the best people to ask about the FTT’s resources and whether it is ready will be the FTT staff, the president and so on. I simply note that Parliament has given the first-tier tribunal a lot of new powers over the last few years, and I am sure it would welcome additional funding to enforce all these things. My impression, as a practising barrister, is that the FTT works better than the county court system; my experience is that it is generally faster and more responsive. But you are giving it a lot of new work to do, and I am sure it would be grateful for any money you can send its way.

Giles Peaker:

The ombudsman would have to answer the question on the ombudsman. My impression is that the ombudsman—the social housing ombudsman as it is—is currently receiving a lot of complaints and there is some impact on the timescale in which they deal with matters. Clearly, if there were an extension or a new ombudsman, the resourcing of that would have to be looked at. I do not think any of us could say that the county courts are not under strain at present—they are, across the board. How much of an increased workload there would actually be as a result of the Bill, though, is more of an open question.

Liz Davies KC:

I just add, in respect of the county court, that part of the problem with litigation at the moment is litigants in person. There are new rights in the Bill that tenants will want to rely on. Housing legal aid is in crisis, there are what are called housing deserts across the country, and frankly, it is more efficient for tenants to be able to receive early legal advice so that they know whether there is or is not a point to take to the county court. I suppose one message to you, although it is beyond your remit, would be to try to increase legal aid as well. It would make litigation more efficient.

Q Thank you. That is a really helpful point. Are the terms of the new possession grounds introduced by the Bill reasonable for both tenants and landlords? In summary, do you feel that the Bill gets the balance right?

Liz Davies KC:

I am concerned about mandatory grounds 1 and 1A. Clearly, they bring an end to no-reason evictions, with the end of section 21, but they are still no-fault evictions as far as the tenant is concerned. It is helpful that the period will be one year and that there is four months’ notice, rather than the two months’ notice in the previous version of this Bill, the Renters (Reform) Bill. But I am concerned that the balance is not right.

Mainly, I am concerned about the idea of a court being faced with mandatory grounds when the tenant has done nothing wrong, and there may be incredibly compelling circumstances about the tenant but the court cannot look at them; it has absolutely no remit and no jurisdiction. So the tenant might say—I am sorry to have to say this—“Myself or a member of the household has a very serious terminal illness. To ask me to move within four weeks or two weeks, or what have you, is going to have an appalling effect on that.” They might say, “We have a very severe disability and so it will take us longer than other people to find somewhere to live.”

My preference would be to make all grounds discretionary, because I think that does provide the balance. But even if Parliament were to reject that view, it seems to me that courts ought to have the opportunity, in exceptional circumstances, to look at the tenant circumstances and to either reject a possession order, or have the flexibility to make a possession order that is suspended for a certain period of time—postponed for a certain period of time. It seems to me wrong in principle that a court cannot consider any circumstances of the tenant, whatever they are. That is my concern on 1 and 1A, and I think Justin will speak about 6A.

Justin Bates KC:

Can I ask you to also look very carefully at ground 6A when it comes to scrutiny? Ground 6A is the new ground for possession, where the landlord needs possession, because they are on the banned landlord database or because they are operating an overcrowded house in multiple occupation—the landlord is effectively a criminal landlord and needs possession to deal with the consequences of their criminality. Presently, that is a mandatory ground for possession. I understand why, because I can see that there is a difficulty with one arm of the state saying, “You are breaking the law and you will keep breaking the law if we don’t act, and we won’t allow you to get people out.”

Can I flag two concerns? First, there is a concern among those in frontline tenant services that it will act as a disincentive to people reporting their rogue landlords, because if you report your rogue landlord to the local authority and it then puts them on the banning order list, you face a mandatory ground for possession.

Secondly, it strikes me as odd that a tenant who has done nothing wrong—save had the misfortune to have a criminal landlord—is required to move with no compensation and no provision of suitable alternative accommodation and so on. I can understand why we need 6A. I understand that we do not want to leave people committing crimes because a judge will not give a possession order, but it strikes me that you could look at some sort of compensation scheme. If you were minded to do so, the model is section 34 of the Housing Act 2004, which already gives the tribunal the power to order compensation when people have to leave because of prohibition orders. You could steal lots of the language from section 34, put it into ground 6A, and you would have much less scope for the unfairness that seems to me to be evident.

Giles Peaker:

On the broader question of whether a balance is struck, I think it is a political decision as to where the balance falls, but broadly there is one. I do have specific concerns about 1 and 1A, as well as those raised by Liz, which are in terms of the evidencing of a mandatory ground. If the ground is the landlord wants to sell, or the landlord wants to move in or move in a family member, what standard of evidence is required for them to demonstrate that? In terms of the current wording, it would probably be enough to simply express an intention to do so. My sense is that there needs to be at least a level of formality—a signed declaration of truth on a statement or a particulars claim signed by the landlord—in terms of bringing possession proceedings on the back of that.

But there is also what follows on from that, and I think this issue has come up in Scotland, where there is a similar sort of provision. If a landlord re-lets a property within the 12 months proposed, the potential enforcement is great: it is a criminal breach, with a prospective civil penalty, and a prospective rent repayment order application by the former tenants. That is all great. The question is how you get from the possession order being made to action on the breach. As it stands, it appears that the only way in which that could possibly happen is if the ex-tenants realise that the property has been re-let—heaven knows how, and heaven knows where they will be in the country by that point—and then notify the local authority, which can take enforcement action. It strikes me that there should be some kind of recording that that ground has been used—a landlord database might be a place for that. The local authority can be aware that that ground has been used, and if it becomes aware of a re-letting, the full enforcement apparatus can kick in.

Q Thank you all for coming to give us your expert opinion. I have two questions, one specific and one general. First, to follow up on grounds 1 and 1A, I understand the general push for all grounds to be discretionary, but we took a view that these should be mandatory, in terms of getting that balance right. But I very much hear the points being made about evidential requirements.

Could I ask you to draw out a bit further how you expect this to work? In a sense, when we talk about discretionary grounds, we are always told, “Let’s trust judges”—that was certainly the case with the previous Bill. In a sense, what we intend to do here is trust judges’ judgment on whether those grounds have been used appropriately, and we would expect the type of evidence that they look at to include things like a letter instructing solicitors or an affidavit. But do you not expect the courts to operate in that way on the basis of the Bill? Do you expect them to act in a more light-touch way, as you have suggested? It is not usual practice for Governments to force the courts to consider certain types of evidence, and if that is the case—if you accept that—where do we go to try to influence the courts to look at certain categories of evidence, to ensure that these grounds are being used appropriately?

Giles Peaker:

In terms of how you can specify things, to some degree, it is a question of wording. Grounds 1 and 1A are expressed as an intention, and if the intention is there, the ground is made out. If a landlord has written to the court to say, “I intend to sell”, it seems quite difficult for the court to go behind that, unless the tenant has evidence to the contrary. So partly it is around language. Intention—settled intention—needs looking at. But with different wording, a different evidential requirement may well follow—so potentially, as you say, the landlord would have to evidence engagement with an estate agent or a solicitor on a sale, or would need evidence from the relative who was intending to move in, to the same effect.

Q Would you accept that this is less of a problem if we are confident that the 12-month no re-let period is enforceable? Then, in a sense, there is a serious disincentive for landlords to act spuriously.

Giles Peaker:

Yes, hence my talking earlier about the reason to fill in the gap between the notice seeking possession or the court order, and potential enforcement, which is a bit of a lacuna at the moment.

Q That is very helpful. My second question is more general, which will give each of you the chance to range a bit more freely. I know that you were engaged with the previous Bill, so you will know the debates that took place. It was very much our intention with this Bill to address the various deficiencies, omissions and, critically, the loopholes that existed. It would be good to get your views on whether you think we have broadly done that, and if not, whether there are any remaining loopholes in the Bill that you can see more disreputable landlords trying to exploit.

Justin Bates KC:

I will go first, because this is what we spend our time talking about. Clause 30 is wholly defective and should not be allowed to stay in this form after the Bill Committee. It is a loophole. Clause 30 presently says that something will not be an assured tenancy under your new regime if it is for a tenancy of more than seven years. So I will grant you a tenancy of seven years and one day, and I will reserve to myself, as landlord, a landlord-only right to break, exercisable after six months on two months’ rolling notice. There you go: I have just recreated section 21 and there is nothing you can do about it.

You need to look at clause 30 very carefully. The reason it is in there is to fix a different problem. It is there because certain shared ownership leases and certain long leases have accidentally ended up being treated as assured shorthold tenancies, so that is what you are trying to close. The better way to solve that problem is to amend schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, which is the main Act you are grappling with, to say that shared ownership leases cannot be assured tenancies, and that long leases for terms of more than 21 years—which is the normal definition of a long lease—cannot be assured tenancies. And then take clause 30 out, because what will happen—as sure as night follows day, and as the entire history of housing law since 1915 shows you—is that landlords will offer seven years plus a day with a landlord-only break, because this is not an area where there is equal bargaining power. It will be, “Take it or leave it, and I’ve just brought section 21 back in through the back door.” So please look very carefully at clause 30.

Matthew Pennycook::

Q Any more for any more? I have two points. It is excellent that you have prevented bidding wars. Clause 4, I think, is about advance rent, and we were just discussing this outside. You cannot prevent bidding wars without also having a limit on advance rent of one month, because otherwise, you have outlawed bidding wars but the landlord will then be happily prepared to let to the tenant who is robust enough to be able to offer six months’ rent in advance, rather than one month’s rent. You get back to tenants’ financial circumstances in bidding—so that point is about advance rent.

The other point is smaller and more technical, and is on the subject of homelessness. Because you are taking out assured shorthold tenancies from the homelessness regime, which allows local authorities to find people private rented sector tenancies, and you have done a lot of drafting amendments to take out the words “assured shorthold”, you have also taken out a mechanism in the Housing Act 1996 that currently allows a homeless family—where they are given an assured shorthold tenancy and that ends within two years—to reapply as homeless and where they do not have to show a priority need. It helps to deal with the revolving door of homelessness, potentially in the private rented sector. You have abolished that—I imagine inadvertently, because you are taking out the words relating to assured shortholds. However, I would suggest that you try to get that back in, so that in the more unusual cases—once this Bill has gone through—if a homeless person is given an assured tenancy in the private rented sector and it comes to an end within two years, they will be able to come back to the homelessness authority. It is section 195A of the Housing Act 1996.

YouQ said earlier that the first-tier tribunal is working better, but did you really answer the question of whether you feel the Bill will increase pressure on the tribunal and the courts, and whether they are ready for it? Have you seen any evidence of an increase in funding, given this impending legislation?

Justin Bates KC:

I want to be careful not to speak for the first-tier tribunal judges. Parliament has provided additional funding for the FTT in anticipation, not of this Bill, but of other areas. Those of you who worked on the Building Safety Act 2022 will know that you gave new powers to the FTT over unsafe buildings. Funding came along with that, because new building safety judges have been appointed. For obvious reasons, I am not privy to all the spending decisions, but as a regular attendee of the tribunal, I can see that money must have been provided. Whether you provide more money for this Bill is, frankly, miles above my pay grade.

On the increased workload, it is very difficult to say. It is plausible that there may not be that much of an increase in workload, because people can still agree what the new rent will be. If they agree it, there is no need to go anywhere near the tribunal. If I were pushed, my informed guess would be that there will be an increase in the first few years, because there always is whenever the law changes, and that it will settle down after a while, but I cannot properly comment on the minutiae of how you fund the FTT.

Just to follow up on that point, none of us knows what the increase in tribunal work will be, but there will be an active incentive not to agree a rent increase because you have your rent, it is going to go up, there is the delay of the process, and then at the end, the worst that can happen is that you get the rent increase that you were going to get anyway. Why would not tenants always, as a matter of course, put off the evil hour? They would get six, eight, 12 or 15 months free.Q

Justin Bates KC:

But what I am saying is that I do not know whether it will be that long. There is an assumption in the questions, which may or may not be correct, that all these cases will need a hearing. Most of the section 13 cases that the tribunal already deals with are done on the papers. It rattles through 10 of them a day because, unless there is something specific about the property—unless you need to see it to understand the condition of disrepair, or whatever—there is no reason why you cannot do rent-based determinations on the basis of written materials: the Rightmove print-offs, the price and so on.

Q But even on that basis, you are loading on to the landlord a requirement to create the papers and a period in which the tenant has to respond —I am guessing 14 or 28 days, but we do not know yet. Then there is a period of consideration. What is it currently? Even if it is dealt with on the papers, what is an average period of deliberation?

Justin Bates KC:

The tribunal’s KPI internal target is all decisions within six weeks.

Q But what it is actually doing?

Justin Bates KC:

It broadly keeps to that. The FTT is pretty good at keeping to its standards. You can safely assume that we are looking at three months. Those are the figures you are throwing at me, and I can see that being realistic.

Q Okay, so three months of avoiding a 20% rent increase. Everyone will do it, will they not? Why would they not?

Justin Bates KC:

I do not know, is the answer. That is not a cop-out; it is recognising the limits of what lawyers should safely talk about.

Q Okay, I accept that answer. Am I right in thinking that there are about 4.6 million private tenancies out there?

Justin Bates KC:

Broadly, yes.

Q So if everyone does it, that is quite a lot of extra work. Even if 25% do it, it is 1 million papers-only cases a year.

Justin Bates KC:

Yes.

Liz Davies KC:

Of those where the landlord increases the rent. You are assuming an annual increase.

Q Just on that, every landlord—or the vast majority of landlords—increases the rent annually to take account of inflation and other issues. Is that not right?

Justin Bates KC:

There is a famous housing benefit case, which the Commission on Social Security likes to remind us of, that says that Rachman is not the only model of landlord. It is entirely possible not to do that, or to agree sub-ones. Remember that the private rented sector is so difficult to pin down as a single, homogeneous beast. A landlord who lets to someone who is predominantly reliant on welfare benefits to pay their rent will not hike it beyond the inflation rate of the benefit, because all they would be doing is creating a situation in which the tenant cannot pay.

I do not think you are wrong to raise that spectre; I just struggle with how we identify how likely that is to play out, and what the numbers will be in any given period. I do not think, for my part, that we can safely assume that every landlord will go as high as humanly possible, or that everyone will be defended, but on your broad point that there will be a delay, yes, that must be right.

I want to ask about condition and the decent homes standard. Will you elaborate on how you think that bringing the decent homes standard into the private rented sector can most effectively be enforced? What might you anticipate going forward from the way that the Bill is draftedQ ?

Giles Peaker:

What is envisaged is it being enforced by local authorities, and the powers of the local authorities appear to be great. The question, as with existing powers for local authority housing enforcement, is the very variable performance—or the extremely variable performance—between local authorities. Whether one wants to impose a duty on local authorities, rather than a power, would be an interesting question; I strongly suspect that funding demands would follow on from that. But the powers are there and could be very effective; it is a question of the will to utilise them.

We do not yet know what the contents of the proposed decent homes standard will be. It would be good to see a unified standard across social and private tenancies—there is no reason why there should be any distinction between the two kinds of accommodation. The social housing side, as I understand it, will be enforced by the social housing regulator, which is a slightly different situation, but the same standard would apply. Tenants, as it stands, will not be able to enforce the specific standard except by complaint to the local authority.

Q You rightly highlighted that tenants will rely on local authorities to pursue enforcement and that there is a very variable standard among local authorities for doing so, although you mentioned that tenants would not be able to take enforcement action themselves. You have alluded to a possible duty—that is a question that you have thrown out there—but what other alternatives might there be?

Giles Peaker:

Tenants will have their existing rights under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2019 amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Quite how far that will overlap with the decent homes standard—well, we will have to see what is in the decent homes standard. There will certainly be some degree of overlap, I imagine, through the presence of housing, health and safety rating system hazards, so there would still be a route for tenants to take action on specific hazards, but it will not necessarily enforce decent homes, full stop.

Justin Bates KC:

For my part, I think that by far the better tenant-empowerment repairing provisions of this legislation are the extension of Awaab’s law to the private sector. If you get the details of secondary legislation right, that could be a real game changer, because that will be enforceable by tenants through private law proceedings in the county court. If you set sufficiently robust—fair, but robust—timescales, you will do a lot of lawyers out of work, which would be an excellent thing. Look at that.

This is my first time on a Public Bill Committee, Sir Christopher, so I might make a mistake with process. May I briefly point Jerome at the answers provided in written evidence and in earlier verbal evidence, which I felt answered the question already? In terms of, “Surely, won’t all tenants do it?”, I think we heard a clear answer that, for the vast majority of the population, anything to do with courts is a terrifying and bureaucratically faffy process that they will not want to engage with. On “Won’t landlords just max it out”—

Order. I am going to stop you there, because this is an opportunity for Committee members to ask questions of the people who have come along as witnesses. We have limited time and once we start opening up a debate with other Committee members, it will be at the expense of being able to hear what we hope is, and is likely to be, very valuable evidence. If you have a question for any of the members of the panel, I shall be happy to take it, but if not, I suggest that you have your arguments with other Members when we get into full line-by-line consideration, when there will be plenty of opportunity for you to intervene on another Member with whom you disagree.

Q I would like to ask the panel for their views on issues around insurance. You can get different kinds of landlord insurance; some are optional and some are not. Some provide you with a guarantee to pay the rent if the tenant fails to pay in time. Some insure against damage caused to your property by a tenant while they are occupying it. Others may be insurances that are required as a condition of a mortgage, such as buildings insurance. There may also be contents insurance, which is normal but not strictly legally required.

I know there is some pressure around issues such as tenants with pets and making sure that they have a right to occupy. A landlord may discover that the cost of insurance is significantly higher because of the pet or because of some other circumstance relating to the tenant —for example, they might have a poor credit history and are therefore not insurable for failing to pay the rent via the landlord’s normal insurance company. I am interested in how you see the Bill dealing with that issue and ensuring that tenants are not effectively barred from applying to rent particular properties because of those insurance issues and also that landlords do not find that the insurance they must have is so expensive as to effectively make their business as a landlord impossible.

Giles Peaker:

My understanding was that the tenant could be required to have pet insurance. It is a permitted payment.

Liz Davies KC:

Or the landlord has the insurance and the tenant refunds them. You have made a broader point, but just looking at clause 11 on pet insurance, the tenant will refund the landlord, so it becomes an exempted permitted payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. On the cost of insurance, I am sorry, but that is certainly beyond my legal expertise.

Giles Peaker:

In terms of that situation, it is hard to see an impact on building or contents insurance. For insurance for unpaid rent, you would have to ask the insurers, but my immediate sense would be to ask why it would be different from now, when the tenant will face possession proceedings for rent arrears if the rent is not paid. But that would have to be one for the insurers.

Q The question is about the impact on supply. A prospective landlord may decide from the outset to insure their rental income from the property, but after the required credit check on a tenant, the insurer may say, “We won’t insure this tenant. If you put that person in the property, we won’t cover it”—for instance, if they had a bad credit history. At the moment, the tenant and landlord can negotiate a higher deposit or a similar way to deal with that, but if that is precluded and you cannot go for a higher deposit or rent in advance or different arrangements fixed in the contracts of guarantors, the result may be that that person cannot rent a property because they cannot achieve the relevant credit check. I am keen to ensure that people who are in that situation—I have had constituency examples—do not find themselves effectively excluded from the private rented sector because they become uninsurable as tenants.

Giles Peaker:

Deposits are already capped.

Justin Bates KC:

You cannot do it through deposits, because paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 will stop you doing that. You can presently do it through rent in advance, because the Bill does not prevent that, although I query whether it should. You could not do it by increasing the rent above market value, but you cannot do that anyway because section 13 as it stands would kick in.

Liz Davies KC:

Is Giles’s point not right that this is a current problem in any event? Sorry to be asking you questions, but he is suggesting that it is alleviated because of the mechanism of section 21.

Q What I am hearing from constituents affected by it is that rent in advance is the method by which they get around this, as well as guarantors potentially, but if the Bill removes that scope, then the one route they have to negotiate—because of their bad credit history—is effectively removed and they are potentially excluded from that market. I am just trying to understand whether this is genuinely a problem.

Liz Davies KC:

So it is the rent-in-advance point. We would have to look at what the Bill says about guarantors. I am sure the Minister knows, but that would be the answer—something around advance rent or guarantors. It negates the point earlier, I accept that. This needs some thought.

I want to interrogate further what opportunities you see the landlord database providing for private renters and good landlords as a result of the Bill. Your area of expertise is vast and it is a joy to listen to you contribute, so I would like you to elaborate on any positive outcomes you think could come from the Bill—we want to make sure those can happen.Q

Liz Davies KC:

The fact that landlords are required to be registered will raise the bar for good landlords. We do not yet know what information should be on the database. I cannot remember whether it is in the Bill or the explanatory notes, but it is assumed that any enforcement action or rent repayment orders they have had to make—anything that affects their quality as a landlord—will be there. That must raise the bar and set a minimum standard for landlords, which we currently do not have. Tenants, frequently those at the bottom of the market, are then subject to the consequences and disadvantages of that, so having that bar is really important.

The other thing is that making the information, when we know what it is, publicly available is extremely important because it holds landlords to account. Finally, it also affects the local authority’s ability to bring the various enforcement measures they have under both the Housing Act 2004 and the Bill.

Justin Bates KC:

I did not hear Ben Beadle’s evidence this morning, but if you get the right details on the database—so that it is a publicly searchable database that shows you whether your landlord has done anything in a list of prohibited things and so that it has details about the safety of the building, for example whether the gas safety certificate has been uploaded or not—I would have thought that he and the NRLA would have been crying out for something like the landlord database. It gives them what they have always wanted: a way of differentiating the good landlord from the bad landlord and a simple way for a tenant to identify the good landlord and the bad landlord. If I put your name in and it comes up on the database that you are subject to a banning order, I probably should not rent from you. If I put the property address in and discover a prohibition order—those are registered on the database—I probably should not live there. That is what you should be able to do if you can get the database to work properly.

The way you have done it, for obvious reasons, it is all at the level of principle. The critical information is what you will do in secondary legislation about what is accessible. But if you get the database right, you go a really long way towards helping tenants to make informed decisions and helping good landlords to drive bad landlords out.

We have time for one quick question, if anyone has one.

Q We have the decent homes standard for social housing, and the Bill would introduce it for private housing. That seems to me to leave Ministry of Defence housing in the middle. Can you think of any other categories of housing that would not be covered by the decent homes standard?

Liz Davies KC:

Currently, Home Office accommodation for asylum seekers is not in the Bill. I am pretty sure, off the top of my head, that temporary accommodation under homelessness is, but if I am wrong about that—Justin and Giles are nodding, so it is. Temporary accommodation for asylum seekers should be there; we know that has problems with conditions.

I am sorry—I am embarrassed about this—but I should have said right at the beginning that I have acted as a consultant for the Renters’ Reform Coalition. I am not here today in that capacity, but I need to put that on the record.

Justin Bates KC:

I would need to really check the detail, but housing provided by local social services authorities—Children Act 1989 accommodation rather than Housing Act accommodation—may not be covered. That might be another area of exemption. But the big one will be Crown properties: MOD, Home Office and so on. If you want to bring them in, you will need to expressly say so because, as I am sure you all know, the rule is that it does not bind the Crown unless you expressly say so.

That brings to an end this evidence session. I thank the witnesses for their contributions.