){kind=small}
By Dr. Tola Amodu
We are told so often that housing (and renting in particular) is “in crisis” that it is sometimes difficult to think beyond what the best solution might look like in a meaningful way. Changing the law is always proposed as the ultimate solution without necessarily thinking about how best to secure an effective outcome. Law after all is a process and not an ‘end in itself’. Let’s look a little deeper into the proposals.
The Proposed Renters’ Rights Bill
The Kings speech outlining the legislative programme for the new Government, contains the stated aim to break down barriers to opportunity. Integral to this, is an ongoing mission to reshape relations between tenants and landlords in the property sector – especially the private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Bill as proposed will give “greater rights and protections to people renting their homes, including ending no fault evictions and reforming grounds for possession” The King's Speech 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) . In many respects the Bill proposed (and the ‘devil’ will, of course, be in the detail) consolidates much of the previous Government’s proposals found in the Renters (Reform) Bill. That Bill, all of 206 pages, contained an ambitious programme to reform tenancies, further criminalise landlord anti-social behaviours by introducing a power for local housing authorities to impose financial penalties on landlords in the event of proving unlawful eviction or harassment, introduce by delegated legislation a landlord redress scheme (requiring all residential landlords to be members, so that tenants and prospective tenants could seek independent redress), create a national database of private landlords, effectively disclosing their identity; prohibit throughout the jurisdiction and in Scotland, forms of discrimination against in particular those with children or in receipt of benefits, give tenants the right to request permission to keep a pet and enhance the enforcement and investigatory powers of local authorities having responsibility for housing matters.
The Renters (Reform) Bill contained also, proposals to amend the grounds which landlords can use to recover their property. One key proposal, which became ‘lost’ during the progress of that Bill was to abolish section 21 Housing Act 1988 – the now infamous provisions enabling landlords recovery of their property at the end of the fixed tenancy term as of right (provided that they had served the correct notices before the tenancy began). It is known that the provisions are used by unscrupulous landlords as a covert rent review measure – to increase the rental by as much as the market would permit or to adopt retaliatory eviction tactics, should a tenant complain about the defective condition of their home. SHELTER the Housing charity noted earlier this year that 26,311 households in England have been removed from their homes by court bailiffs as a result of Section 21 since the government first promised to scrap no-fault evictions in 2019. More than 26,000 no-fault bailiff evictions since government pledge to scrap Section 21 - Shelter England That Bill contained proposals to enhance the “decent home standard” for dwellings let in the sector.
It would seem that the new Renters’ Rights Bill will pick up from the previous proposals and have many similarities. The background paper to the King’s Speech makes plain Government’s intent to level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant by providing renters with greater security, rights and protections and cracking down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against tenants with bad practices such as unfair rent increases intended to force tenants out, and pitting renters against each other in bidding wars. FINAL - 17/07/24 King's Speech 2024 background briefing final GOV.uk.docx (publishing.service.gov.uk)
Many of the proposals repeat the contents of the previous Bill, including the strengthening of renter’s rights and protections including preventing discrimination on the grounds of being in receipt of benefit or by reason of having children, giving tenants the right to request a pet, enhancing fitness standards, providing for a database of residential landlords and a new Ombudsman Scheme to the sector and enhancing the enforcement powers of local authorities. In addition “Awaab’s Law” (requiring timely and effective repairs to defective properties), would apply to the sector. The Bill, as proposed, seems not to apply to Scotland at all.
The abolition of section 21 Housing Act 1988, was a key provision in the previous Renters (Reform) Bill. As we know, that Bill did not reach the statute books before the election, and the proposal to remove section 21, did not come to fruition. The new Bill should, given the size of Government’s majority, have no problems with being enacted. Few, if any could complain about the stated aims. It is important that a “home” carrying with it all of the emotional as well as economic value attached to the ideal, should be recognised as being of fundamental importance to those living in it. Enactment is the easy part, enforcement is quite another.
Rent increases are slowing with average rent with increases rising by 8.6% in the 12 months to July 2024, (down from 9.1% in the 12 months to March 2024). According to some this marks the slowest rate for three years, but seventeen renters are chasing each individual property https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj627rr3wk9o .The proposals to rebalance the rights between renters and landlords contained in the Bill are however, but one part of a rather complex “jigsaw” in the housing landscape. Arguably, if mission and outcome are to be achieved, much more is needed. Collaboration and co-operation on the part of all those present in the ‘regulatory space’ and that includes landlords, will be needed if the provisions are to work. The historic binary between renters and landlords, and the attritional mindsets ensuing must be overcome if seismic shifts in the private rented sector – or indeed any rental sector, and there is much to be done in the social and public sectors too, are to be effective. The oppositional language of “landlords bad, renter’s good” can be overplayed to disastrous effects. Further as regulators are only too aware, laws are only as good as the associated compliance strategies sitting alongside them. If the institutional structure for enforcement is not adequate, either by reason of funding enforcement, the absence of space to adjudicate disputes or even the misalignment with general property law principles, counterproductive effects can arise.
We see in so many sectors how ineffective regulation can be – we only need consider the privatised utilities’ companies, the powers of local authorities to perform the existing statutory duties they have at their disposal and the consequences of insufficient resources to pursue enforcement action. Scholars of regulation are well aware that without appreciating the capacities of those being regulated – whether their propensity for deviance, ignorance or their lack of resources, the clouds of regulatory failure loom large on the horizon. Taking steps to enhance trust between those stakeholders present is also a very important factor. There have been times when renter and landlord groupings have aligned. One case being in challenging the Immigration Act 2014 (as amended) provisions relating to the ‘Right to Rent’.[i] Although the outcome was unsuccessful, ultimately we do know that if the right climate is created we can transcend the binary pitching renters and landlords against each other to useful effect. It is only then that we might see the changes everyone would like. Otherwise we may be doomed to another perambulation around the metaphorical Mulberry bush.
[1] Amodu A coalition of the (un)willing? The convergence of landlord and renter interests in the “right to rent” ISSN: 2514-9407