Renters’ Reform Bill, Report Stage, House of Commons, 23 April 2024

• The Renters (Reform) Bill is a flagship piece of legislation introduced by Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Secretary Michael Gove to deliver on the Government’s 2019 manifesto pledge to reform the private rented sector (PRS).
• While we called for the Bill to go further, in its first draft the LGA welcomed the Bill, which has the potential to deliver a fairer, more secure, and higher quality PRS for both tenants and landlords. 
• In its first draft, the Bill introduced a range of reforms to achieve this, including abolishing unfair Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, ending the system of assured shorthold tenancies, creating a new register of PRS landlords and a property portal to improve data on the PRS, to drive up standards across the sector, establishing an ombudsman to help tenants and landlords resolve disputes. 
• We have argued for the Bill to go further in supporting tenants’ rights and providing stronger regulatory and enforcement powers, and for government to ensure sufficient funding councils to enforce these measures and fully realise our shared ambition for a fairer, more secure, and higher quality PRS.
• For the reforms in the Bill to be effective, it is vital that councils are properly resourced. The Bill places significant new regulatory and enforcement responsibilities on councils. We welcome the provisions in the Bill that enable local authorities to keep the proceeds of financial penalties to reinvest in enforcement activity. However, this funding is unlikely to be sufficient to cover the costs of the new duties in the Bill or the scale of the proactive work that is needed to improve standards for tenants. Councils already face severe budgetary constraints; in October we estimated a funding gap of £4bn over the next two years. We welcome the additional funding announced in January, but a significant funding gap remains. Multiple inquiries, and reviews, including the Department of Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC) own research, identified that many local enforcement teams do not currently have the resources and capacity to proactively tackle poor standards in the PRS. DLUHC must conduct a full and realistic assessment of the resource’s councils need to regulate effectively, and provides them with adequate, upfront new burdens funding. 
• The ending of a private rented tenancy is the most common reason for a household being at risk of homelessness. It is imperative therefore that there is no delay in ending Section 21 eviction notices. We are very concerned by the commencement clause that would allow the Secretary of State to delay the implementation of the ban, while the Government addresses court backlogs. Without a sufficient strategy and timescale to address the alleged backlogs, this delay could be indefinite. New Government amendments to the Bill would require the Government to publish a review of the operation of residential possession proceedings in the courts prior to the abolition, further delaying the abolition. 
• We are calling on the Government to publish the evidence base establishing that, firstly, court backlogs are severe enough to warrant a delay and secondly, that the changes brought in by the Bill would have a substantial enough impact on these backlogs to warrant a delay in the abolition of Section 21 evictions. These reforms should reduce the overall number of evictions and take pressure off the courts. While Section 21 remains in place thousands more renters and their families continue to face unfair, ‘no fault’ evictions.
• If courts are found to be in need of improvement to a sufficient enough degree to warrant a delay in the introduction of the ban on Section 21 evictions, we call on the Government to commit, in law, to delivering a strategy to reduce the backlog, backed up by sufficient funding, by a specified date. 
• We welcome the Bill’s introduction of a database for landlords and residential properties, which will form the basis of the future ‘property portal.’ All landlords will be required to be registered on the portal to market or let a property, and the database will record when landlords are subject to banning orders and other relevant civil penalties and offences. This will not only allow tenants to view critical information before letting a property, but will improve data on the PRS, allowing local authorities to more effectively target enforcement activity. It is critical therefore that Government commits the resources, both financial and non-financial, to the Property Portal to ensure its longevity. For the portal to be effective, Government must require landlords to also display eviction notices on the portal. This would support local authorities in enforcing the prohibited letting period associated with new eviction grounds. For example, were a landlord to evict a tenant on a legitimate basis covered by the Bill, but then sought to re-let the property, logging that eviction on the portal would make it clear whether the property was within the prohibited letting period or not. 
• The Bill reforms existing grounds for possession and creates new grounds, including grounds which allow landlords to evict tenants if they want to sell, or move themselves or a family member into the property. We recognise that there must be mechanisms in place to give landlords the flexibility to recover their property when needed. However, the Government must introduce statutory guidance that requires landlords to provide robust evidence to prevent these grounds being used erroneously. We support extending the three-month ban on landlords reletting/remarketing their property after using these ‘no-fault’ grounds to six months, to act as a sufficient deterrent from misuse. We have concerns regarding the ambiguity of the Bill’s definition of anti-social behaviour and want to work with Government to revise the definition of anti-social behaviour on the face of the Bill to reduce the risk of this ground being abused.
• Enforcement of several aspects of the Bill will rely heavily on tenants understanding the legislation and being able to identify and report non-compliance. We have particular concerns about councils’ ability to enforce compliance with the ban on landlords reletting or remarketing their property for three months after using ‘no-fault’ eviction grounds, as this is wholly reliant on former tenants noticing that the property is back on the market after they have been evicted. We therefore believe that local housing authorities and tenants should be able to seek rent repayment orders (RROs) from landlords that do not comply with the landlord register, property portal, or mis-use grounds for eviction. RROs would act as an additional deterrent for non-compliance. They would also incentivise tenants to understand their rights and report non-compliance, which would strengthen councils’ enforcement work and reduce the burden on them. 
• The LGA welcomes that the Bill already allows tenants and councils to seek RROs if a landlord supplies false entries to the landlord register and for continued breaches, by amending part 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. 
• We are calling on the Government to expand the use of RROs to the following additional circumstances:
  • Reletting or remarketing a property within the ‘prohibited period’ (currently 3 months) While we agree with Government that the ‘prohibited period’ will be a helpful mechanism to prevent the eviction grounds from becoming Section 21 by the backdoor, RROs will provide a far more robust deterrent and incentivise tenants to be proactively aware of their landlord’s compliance with the new regulations. 
  • Letting a property without active relevant entries in the database.
  • Letting a property that fails to meet the minimum energy efficiency standards.
• Councils will be able to impose financial penalties up to £5000 where a landlord has misused the grounds for possession to evict a tenant. To act as an effective deterrent, the maximum financial penalty that local housing authorities can issue to landlords for breaches to the legislation should be increased from £5000 to £30,000 (with a minimum limit of £500). This is in line with other financial penalties that can be issued by enforcement authorities against landlords who breach legislation, for example the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022.
• New amendments to the Bill establish a six-month fixed term where tenants cannot give notice to leave their property. We are concerned that this unfairly restricts tenants who move into an unfit property or whose personal circumstances have changed from being able to move out. Moving home is a time-consuming, stressful, and onerous process that tenants do not take lightly. Tenants leaving a property within the first six months will not do so without a significant incentive. It is unlikely that the exemptions listed in the Bill will cover every possible legitimate reason for a tenant to move out. New research from Shelter evidences just how costly moves are for tenants, costing £550 million per year.
• We broadly welcome the introduction of the Decent Homes Standard in the PRS. We welcome the proposal that councils can issue appropriate financial penalties to hold landlords to account and keep the proceeds of financial penalties to reinvest in enforcement activity.
• Selective licensing schemes will continue to be an important tool for councils to manage and improve PRS properties in their areas. Local areas should have full flexibility to employ selective licensing schemes to meet local need. We are calling on Government to amend the Housing Act 2004 to remove the requirement for councils to seek approval for larger selective licensing schemes. 
• We are pleased by the introduction of amendments into the Bill that will ban landlords from adopting discriminatory practices which make it harder for people who are on benefits and/or people who have children (or have children visit them) to obtain a relevant tenancy. 
• Legislative change will be an important step forward, as it will provide unequivocal clarity to landlords and letting agents that ‘no DSS’ bans are illegal.

Clauses 1 and 2

• The Bill will abolish Section 21 “no-fault” evictions, which allow landlords to evict tenants without a reason.
• It will also abolish fixed term tenancies. All tenants who would previously have had an assured tenancy or assured shorthold tenancy will move onto a single system of monthly, ‘rolling’ tenancies.

LGA view

• The ending of a private rented tenancy is the most common reason for a household being at risk of homelessness. In the first quarter of 2023, 32 per cent more households presented to councils at risk of homelessness after being served with a Section 21 notice, compared to the last quarter of 2019 – highlighting that the recent increase in section 21 notices is more than just a rebound from the eviction ban. 
• We support the end to Section 21 evictions and assured shorthold tenancies, which will help to give PRS tenants greater security and stability in their home and reduce the number of people facing homelessness due to ‘no-fault’ evictions or a tenancy ending. 
• Because Section 21 is widely used due to it being a guaranteed and mandatory “no-fault” eviction, it is currently impossible to tell from the homelessness statistics why tenancies have ended. An additional benefit of removing Section 21, is that it will give councils and central government more accurate information on why tenancies are ending, to help improve support. 
• The Government has brought forward an amendment that would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment on the barriers to possession and the readiness of the courts in advance of abolishing section 21 for existing tenancies. We are very concerned that this amendment would delay the implementation of the ban, potentially indefinitely, if courts are found to be too delayed and reform is not forthcoming. It is imperative that there is no delay in ending ‘no fault’ evictions.
• We are also calling on Government to publish the evidence base that, firstly, court backlogs are severe enough to warrant a delay and secondly, that the changes brought in by the Bill would have a substantial enough impact on these backlogs to warrant a delay in the abolition of Section 21 evictions.
  • Court delays have fallen to pre-pandemic levels and do not justify delaying the ban. While court delays are far from ideal, a robust judicial process must take time to account for proper case making. 
  • We maintain that the introduction of a ban on Section 21 evictions will not have such a profound impact on the court system to warrant a delay in its introduction. The abolition of Section 21 is likely to, as designed, dramatically reduce the overall number of evictions. While there may be an increase in the new eviction grounds, known as Section 8 evictions, the current number of Section 21 evictions will not translate into an equivalent number of Section 8 evictions following the ban. 
• If courts are found to need improvement to a sufficient degree to delay the introduction of the ban on Section 21 evictions, we call on the Government to commit, in law, to delivering a strategy to reduce the backlog, backed up by sufficient funding, by a specified date. 
• While repealing Section 21 evictions will go a long way to create a fairer PRS and provide tenants with a greater sense of security, a key incentive for landlords to comply with basic legal requirements of a tenancy will be inadvertently lost. Currently, in order to issue a Section 21, notice a landlord must comply with the following requirements:
  • Giving the tenant a gas safety certificate
  • Giving the tenant an Energy Performance Certificate
  • Giving the tenant a copy of the government’s How to Rent Guide
  • Protecting the tenant’s deposit in an approved scheme and providing the prescribed information to the tenant
  • Paying back any overcharged deposit or a banned fee to the tenant 
  • Being licensed under any applicable HMO or selective licensing scheme

In order to retain this compliance incentive, we are calling on the Government to include in the Bill the same requirements for issuing a lawful in-tenancy rent increase.

Clauses 1 and 2

• The Bill introduces a default fixed term of six months in all contracts, mirroring a break clause that is standard in many existing contracts. This will prevent tenants from giving notice to end the tenancy before six months have passed. 
• The Bill includes a number of exemptions, such as the death of a tenant, domestic abuse, or significant hazards in the property.

LGA view

• Establishing a six-month fixed term restricts tenants who move into an unfit property or whose personal circumstances have changed from being able to move out. Moving home is a time-consuming, stressful, and onerous process that tenants do not take lightly. Tenants leaving a property within the first six months will not do so without a significant incentive. It is unlikely that the exemptions listed in the Bill will cover every possible legitimate reason for a tenant to move out.
• New research from Shelter evidences just how costly moves are for tenants, costing £550 million per year.
• In the past year 245,000 tenants were forced to move because their fixed term tenancy came to an end, 61,000 were forced out by rent increases, 190,000 were served with an eviction notice, and 135,000 were informally asked to leave by their landlord. 
• While we recognise the need to strike the right balance between tenants’ and landlords’ rights, we support the Government’s ambition to end fixed term tenancies –this measure unfairly restricts tenants and is counter to this aim.

Clauses 3 and 4

• The Bill introduces three new mandatory grounds for possession, which will enable landlords to regain their properties following the removal of Section 21.
• New grounds 1 and 2 allow a landlord to regain possession if they or their family want to live in the property, or they wish to sell the property. The notice period for these grounds will be two months. Landlords will not be able to use them in the first six months of a tenancy. After using them, they will be banned from reletting or remarketing their property within three months.
• The Bill also includes a new mandatory ground for eviction, in the case where a tenant has been in at least two months’ rent arrears three times within the previous three years. The notice period for the rent arrears ground will be increased to four weeks from two weeks.
• The Bill will expand the existing discretionary ground to evict tenants who exhibit anti-social behaviour, to include behaviours “capable of causing” nuisance or annoyance. Currently, the landlord must demonstrate that a tenant’s behaviour is "likely to cause” a nuisance or annoyance. On this ground, landlords can begin eviction proceedings immediately.

LGA view

• We recognise that there must be mechanisms in place to give landlords the flexibility to recover their property when needed, including when they want to live in or sell the property. However, to prevent these grounds being misused, the Government must publish statutory guidance that requires landlords to provide robust evidence they are selling the property, or that they or a family member are moving into the property. 
• We are pleased that the Government has responded to our concerns to prevent landlords from turning properties into short term lets during this period.
• The LGA are calling for the three-month ban on landlords reletting/remarketing their property to be extended to six months, to act as a sufficient deterrent to prevent these grounds being mis-used to evict tenants erroneously.
• Regarding the mandatory ground for eviction for rent arrears, eviction should always be the last resort after other options, such as repayment plans, have been exhausted in order to reduce the risks of eviction and the threat of homelessness for tenants. We are calling on Government to make the ground for eviction for rent arrears discretionary, rather than mandatory, as this strikes the right balance that allows the court to judge whether rent arrears are severe or problematic enough to warrant eviction.
• We support the inclusion of guidance on the factors that courts should take into account when considering whether to grant a possession order on the discretionary anti-social behaviour ground of possession.This will add a degree of fairness for tenants by requiring co-operation with any engagement from the landlord to be taken into account by the courts when considering whether to grant a possession order on the anti-social behaviour grounds. It will also provide consideration of the impact of anti-social behaviour from a specified tenant on other tenants living in the same House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).
• We have concerns regarding the ambiguity of the Bill’s definition of anti-social behaviour. Including all behaviour that is ‘capable of causing’ nuisance or annoyance sets a low bar for what constitutes anti-social behaviour. We want to work with the government to revise the definition of anti-social behaviour on the face of the Bill to reduce the risk of these grounds being open to abuse. The Government should also deliver on their commitment to bring forward guidance outlining what constitutes anti-social behaviour.
• Social landlords should have the same grounds for possession as private landlords. We continue to work with the Government on the practicalities of this section. 

Clauses 6 - 9

• Landlords will be able to raise rents annually to market prices (i.e. what they could expect to receive if letting to a new tenant on the open market) and must provide two months’ notice of any change.
• Tenants will be able to challenge above-market rent increases through the First-tier Tribunal (property chamber).
• These clauses seek to prevent above-market rent increases being used to force tenants to vacate a property.

LGA view

• We support the proposals that seek to regulate rent increases to once a year, increase the notice period for rent increases from one to two months, and enable tenants to challenge excessive rent increases through an independent Tribunal.
• Increasing the notice period for a rent increase from one to two months will give PRS tenants a longer period of time to plan for rent increases. On that basis, the 2-month notice period should also be extended to tenants living in relevant low-cost tenancies (as defined by the Bill), instead of the 1-month currently being proposed. 
• It is critical that the process for tenants to challenge excessive rent increases through the independent tribunal are accessible and understood by all. The process must also be efficient and avoid unnecessary delays that may put the housing security and the wellbeing of the household at further risk.
• The Government’s guidance states that 'to avoid fettering the freedom of the judiciary, the tribunal will continue to be able to determine the actual market rent of a property.’ We would welcome clarity on whether this means the tribunal will be able to propose an even higher rent increase than initially proposed by the landlord. Determining the market rent of a property is not a simple task, hence why challenges go to through the Tribunal. It is unreasonable that the burden of accurately assessing the rent should fall to the tenant to have the confidence to seek a determination from the Tribunal.
• If the Tribunal can propose increases to tenants’ rents, it will inherently discourage the use of this process and undermine its purpose of providing tenants with stronger protections against excessive rent hikes. It is therefore vital that the Tribunal can only confirm or reduce a proposed rent increase – but not increase it.
• It will be important that tenants are aware of their rights under the new legislation relating to rent increases. This must be supported by a national, government-led information campaign to make landlords and tenants aware of the new rules. Ensuring that landlords and tenants are aware will reduce the potential for non-compliance and in turn reduce the burden on the First-tier tribunal.
• We would welcome further information on what assessment has been made by the Government of the potential impact that these new clauses will have on the capacity of the First-tier Tribunal (property chamber) to make decisions across its whole portfolio in a timely manner. Where impacts have been identified, we would welcome clarity on what steps are being considered to mitigate against delays to decision-making.
• The Bill will do nothing to support private renters who are already struggling to afford their housing costs. The LGA continues to call on the Government to tackle the drivers of high housing costs by empowering councils to build a new generation of 100,000 high-quality, sustainable social homes a year.
• To improve support for vulnerable households in rent arrears, the Government should urgently review the funding and use of Discretionary Housing Payment to ensure that councils can use it to restore financial stability and sustain tenancies as well as working with councils and housing providers to strengthen fair and effective debt management.

Clause 9

• The Bill requires landlords not to unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant in the PRS requests to have a pet in their home and enables tenants to challenge a landlords’ decision through the Ombudsman.
• It will also amend the Tenant Fees Act 2019 so that landlords can require insurance to cover any damage caused by pets living in the property.
• This provision does not apply to tenancies of social housing.

LGA view

• These proposals are a welcome step which will help to improve the experience of renting and make it easier for tenants with pets to find accommodation in the PRS. 
• It is important that the changes are fair for both parties. We therefore support the proposal to enable landlords to require the tenant to take out an insurance policy, to cover any potential damage to the property caused by a pet. 
• Landlords will be required to consider all requests on a case-by-case basis. It is welcome that the Government has committed to publish guidance for tenants and landlords, which should help guide decision-making and outline examples of reasonable and unreasonable requests. This guidance should also support tenants to challenge decisions where they think that their request has been unreasonably rejected. 
• If a prospective tenant already has a pet, they could be at risk of being passed over in favour of other applicants. We are concerned that this policy will therefore only make a difference for renters looking to buy a pet, rather than those who already have pets and are looking for accommodation. This is a risk highlighted by other organisations including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Clauses 11 - 13

• The Bill mandates that landlords must provide a written statement of terms setting out basic information about the tenancy and both parties’ responsibilities, while retaining both parties’ right to agree and adapt terms to meet their needs.
• This provision prohibits certain actions by a landlord or former landlord of an assured tenancy including misuse of possession grounds. It also prohibits a landlord from reletting or remarketing a property within three months of evicting a tenant using the grounds of occupation or selling. 
• This section does not apply to tenancies of social housing under which the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing.
• The Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement covering the effectiveness of new possession grounds, the effect of moving to periodic tenancies and abolishing fixed terms. This must be published within 18 months of the measures taking effect and being applied to existing tenancies. This will also be proceeded by an independent review of the new system.

LGA view

• The Government must publish statutory guidance which places robust requirements on landlords to provide reasonable evidence they are selling the property, moving in themselves, or moving in a family member. 
• To ensure this policy achieves the Government’s intention, we support extending the three-month ban on reletting/remarketing to six months, to disincentivise these grounds being misused to evict tenants.
• We have concerns about councils’ ability to effectively enforce compliance with the ban on landlords reletting or remarketing their property for three months, as this is wholly reliant on former tenants noticing that the property is back on the market. In addition to the ability to issue fines, local housing authorities and tenants should be able to seek rent repayment orders (RROs) from landlords that misuse the grounds for eviction. RROs would act as an additional deterrent for non-compliance. They would also incentivise tenants to understand their rights and identify and report non-compliance.  
• It is critical that any new burdens on councils in relation to enforcement of such a ban are met with adequate upfront funding and resources from the Government. DLUHC’s own research and consultation with councils on PRS enforcement identified that the current capacity of enforcement teams was often not sufficient to proactively tackle poor standards and conditions.
• A redress scheme should be available for tenants who feel their landlord has misused possession grounds, including cases where a landlord has relet or remarketed a property within three months of possession on the grounds of occupation or selling.
• We welcome a statement which covers the effectiveness of the of new possession grounds, the effect of moving to periodic tenancies and abolishing fixed terms. We would also welcome an independent review of the new system, particularly due to our concerns over councils' abilities to enforce compliance. The Government must consult local authorities and industry experts to ensure that the review is robust and that the impact on local authorities is properly considered.

Clauses 14-16

• The Bill adds new provisions to the Housing Act 1988, to introduce financial penalties for landlords who breach the prohibitions, including those relating to the misuse of possession grounds and for not providing a written statement of terms as required by the Bill.
• The clauses are intended to deter non-compliance and help councils proportionately target enforcement activity against landlords who disregard their obligations to tenants.
• Local housing authorities will be able to impose financial penalties up to £5000, where they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a landlord or former landlord has contravened provisions contained in the clauses.
• Alternatively, where a landlord or former landlord is found guilty of an offence through the courts, they may be liable for a fine of up to £30,000 or prosecution. 
• The Bill sets out the process a local housing authority needs to follow before imposing a financial penalty as well the appeals process for landlords.  It provides that local housing authorities may use the proceeds of financial penalties to fund costs and expenses associated with carrying out enforcement activity in the PRS.
• The Government has introduced new clauses that make available a range of new investigatory powers for councils.
• The Government has brought forward an amendment that would ensure that a landlord, or another person acting or purporting to act on the landlord’s behalf, cannot be penalised for wrongly relying on a ground for possession where they ‘reasonably believe’ that the landlord is entitled to rely on it.

LGA view

• We fully support the intent behind these clauses. It is important that councils can issue appropriate financial penalties to hold landlords to account. 
• We welcome the provisions in the Bill that enable councils to keep the proceeds of financial penalties to reinvest in enforcement activity. However, this funding alone will likely be insufficient to cover the full cost of undertaking enforcement work in the PRS that is required to achieve the ambitions of the Bill, particularly as it will be councils’ intention to issue financial penalties or undertake criminal proceedings as a last resort. 
• Multiple inquiries and reviews, including the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC’s) inquiry into the Regulation of private renting and DLUHC’s own research and consultation with councils identified that many local enforcement teams do not currently have the resources and capacity to proactively tackle poor standards and conditions in the PRS. It vital that DLUHC conducts a realistic assessment of the resources councils need to regulate the PRS effectively. New burdens funding should then be allocated accordingly. 
• To act as an effective deterrent to landlords, the maximum financial penalty that local housing authorities can issue to landlords for breaches to the legislation should be increased from £5000 to £30,000 (with a minimum limit of £500). This is in line with other financial penalties that can be issued by enforcement authorities against landlords who breach legislation, for example the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022. 
• We broadly support the clauses that seek to increase councils’ investigative powers to support the targeting of criminal landlords.
• However, effective investigation and enforcement is reliant on having the right number of trained and qualified staff, which councils are facing significant challenges in recruiting. A recent LGA workforce survey showed that 45 per cent of councils were having difficulties recruiting environmental health officers and 25 per cent were having difficulties retaining housing officers. 
• New regulatory responsibilities will exacerbate existing pressures in skills capacity and recruitment. We want DLUHC to urgently work with sector experts to develop a skills and capacity building strategy to ensure that councils can support effective implementation of the reforms. This also needs to consider the cumulative impacts of new responsibilities/duties falling on councils relating to oversight and enforcement activity in the PRS in recent years.
• We are very concerned about the ambiguity of the wording that exempts a landlord from being penalised when they use a possession ground that they are not entitled to use, so long as they ‘reasonably believe’ they are entitled. Given the vague and undefined language used, these grounds are open to misuse and could become a Section 21 by the ‘backdoor’.

Clauses 19

• The Bill provides for private registered providers of social housing to pay tenants’ removal expenses when they re-possess the property on the grounds of redevelopment or providing suitable alternative accommodation. 

LGA view

• It is unclear why only private registered providers of social housing have to pay removal expenses. We would like to see a consistent approach to landlords, regardless of whether they are in the private or social rental sector.

Clause 21

• Currently, councils have a prevention duty (duty to help prevent people from becoming homeless) for every household that is served with a valid Section 21 eviction notice. 
• Following the removal of Section 21, the Bill clarifies that councils must continue to consider that someone is threatened with homelessness if they will become homeless within 56 days. However, assessments for whether a council owes a household a prevention duty will now be based on the individual circumstances of each case.
• The Bill also removes the reapplication duty from the homelessness legislation. The reapplication duty currently applies when a household at risk of homelessness accepts an offer of private rented accommodation (thereby ending the council’s duty to help prevent them becoming homeless) becomes homeless again within two years. In this case, the council which offered the private rented accommodation owes the household the ‘reapplication duty’ and it is their responsibility to help secure accommodation for the applicant.  
• The Bill will require all households who reapply for the prevention duty to be assessed for their eligibility for support based on their current circumstances, with no distinction between those who accepted private sector or social housing offers to end their previous main duty. 
• Given the abolishment of fixed term tenancies, the Bill will replace the requirement for councils to offer private rented accommodation for at least 12 months with a requirement to offer an assured tenancy. 
• The Bill will establish a prevention duty for when tenants are served with a section 8 notice for a mandatory no-fault ground, such as the landlord or a family member moving in or selling the property. This will mean any households served with an eviction notice will be owed a prevention duty by the local authority.

LGA view

• Councils will always assist households facing homelessness. We are pleased to see that, in line with our consultation response on consequential changes to the homelessness legislation, that the Government has taken forward Option 1 from its consultation. This will give councils discretion over when to accept a homelessness duty and decide if it can appropriately be discharged, in cases where they believe that an individual is not at risk of homelessness. 
• Homelessness services are at the sharp end of the housing emergency and are facing unsustainable demand. An increasingly unaffordable PRS, combined with a shortage of social housing, the rising cost-of-living and the impact of supporting new arrivals and refugees is creating the perfect storm for a homelessness crisis. 
• While this change will help councils to prioritise more effectively in the face of current pressures, there is a risk it may lead to some areas focussing limited resources on emergency cases rather than preventive work to stop households becoming homeless in the first place. 
• As a local connection is not required to accept a prevention duty, councils are concerned that the change may also result in people seeking support via the prevention duty in areas which have more capacity to support people in a wider range of circumstances. This underlines the need for all councils to be adequately resourced, based on local need, to meet the demand for homelessness support within their own area. We would also welcome Government guidance to address this issue.
• To address current pressures, we continue to call for the Government to take a cross-departmental approach to homelessness prevention which tackles the drivers of homelessness and provides adequate funding for councils’ homelessness prevention work. While re-aligning LHA rates with at least the 30th percentile of market rents is a positive step, a significant funding gap remains.

Clauses 27-29

• The Government has amended the Bill to include provision from the A Fairer Private Rented Sector white paper to make it illegal for landlords and agents to have blanket bans on renting to families with children or those in receipt of benefits – known as ‘no DSS’ policies.

LGA view

• We are pleased by the introduction of amendments into the Bill that will ban landlords from adopting discriminatory practices which make it harder for people who are on benefits and/or people who have children (or have children visit them) to obtain a relevant tenancy. 
• People who receive benefits continue to unfairly face discrimination when renting in the PRS. The NAO estimated that over half (52 per cent) of landlords are unwilling to let to people who receive housing benefit. This is despite several court rulings which found that refusing to rent to tenants on this basis is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, given that groups with protected characteristics – such as disabled people and women – are more likely to receive benefits.  
• 26 per cent of households living in the PRS receive some form of housing benefit and are at risk from these discriminatory practices. PRS tenants who receive housing benefit are already at higher risk of becoming homeless, with ‘no DSS’ policies making it even harder for them to find a place to live.
• Legislative change will be an important step forward, as it will provide unequivocal clarity to landlords and letting agents that ‘no DSS’ bans are illegal.
• However, there is a risk that in practice this law could be difficult to enforce as tenants and regulatory authorities would have to point to evidence that applicants are refused because of being in receipt of benefits and/or having children. Therefore, for this new policy to be enforceable, identification of ‘no DSS’ practices must be measurable and objective. As an example, through advertisement or through refusal to allow the prospective tenant to view the property.
• Therefore, for this new policy to be enforceable, councils will need significant resourcing to identify illegal practice that may be more implicit, with guidance for landlords, tenants, and enforcement authorities on how to make such investigations measurable and objective. We would welcome further clarity on how this will be applied in practise.
• We welcome provisions in the Bill that will allow councils to issue financial penalties to landlords who are in breach of the legislation. To act as an effective deterrent to landlords, the maximum financial penalty that local housing authorities can issue to landlords for all breaches to the legislation should be increased from £5000 to £30,000 (with a minimum limit of £500). This is in line with other financial penalties that can be issued by enforcement authorities against landlords who breach legislation, such as the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022. 
• The reforms do not include protections for other groups that have experienced blanket bans, such as non-UK passport holders and prison leavers, and so the proposals would not deliver a fairer PRS for those cohorts.
• We are pleased the Government has acted on our urgent and consistent calls to restore Local Housing Allowance rates to the 30th percentile of market rents, which is a hugely positive step in increasing the security of housing, reducing homelessness and supporting the most vulnerable in our society. This step will reduce the incentive for landlords to pass over benefits claimants as tenants, as these prospective tenants will be more able to afford rents in the PRS
• We are calling on the government to ensure that LHA rates continue to be uprated in 2025/26 and beyond, to ensure that tenants continue to receive adequate support with the costs of housing.
• We are pleased that the Government has expanded the definition of ‘benefits claimants’ to apply to those who would be eligible for a council tax reduction.

Clause 42

• Clause 42 adds new provision to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to enable local housing authorities to issue financial penalties of up to £30,000 for an offence under section 1 of that Act. This will apply in cases where they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence.
• It also provides that a person cannot be convicted of an offence under section 1 for any conduct if a financial penalty has already been imposed under new section 1A in respect of that conduct.

LGA view

• We broadly welcome this new power for local housing authorities to issue financial penalties where they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a landlord has committed an offence under section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
• A local housing authority should also be able to impose a civil penalty and seek a rent repayment order (RRO) in relation to offences under section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. This would act as a strengthened deterrent from repeat offences and dissuade others from committing similar offences. There is a precedent for this in relation to a number of other offences under the Housing Act 2004, for example failure to comply with an Improvement Notice. 

Clauses 45-52

• The Bill enables the government to approve or designate a redress scheme for private residential tenants, which will deliver on the Government’s commitment to create a new Ombudsman for the PRS. 
• Secondary legislation will be used to require prospective, current, and former residential landlords to register with the redress scheme (the PRS Ombudsman).
• The Bill provides for a local housing authority to impose a financial penalty on a landlord if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they have breached regulations or committed an offence under the new provision. These include when a landlord persistently or repeatedly fails to comply with the requirement to be a member the redress scheme or markets a property when they are not a member of the scheme. 

LGA view

• We welcome the creation of an Ombudsman for the PRS. This will mean that PRS tenants will have the same access to redress as those living in social housing and will ensure that tenants can hold landlords accountable for poor standards or non-compliance. The Ombudsman must have the appropriate set of powers to effectively and efficiently tackle poor-performing landlords and prevent reoccurrence of issues. 
• The Housing Ombudsman Service for social housing has, in addition to undertaking dispute resolution, been a driver for improvement in the sector. The Ombudsman has provided a suite of tools and resources to promote best practice among both landlords and tenants. We would expect the PRS to also benefit from a similar improvement service. 
• The current Ombudsman already serves some PRS landlords, who have joined voluntarily. We consider that there is a strong case for expanding the role for the current Ombudsman, rather than establishing a new Ombudsman for the PRS. This would provide a single, clear access route for redress for everyone living in a rented property, whether it be in the private or social rented sector.
• It is encouraging that the Government has made its intention clear to expand the role of the current Social Housing Ombudsman to cover the PRS but it remains vital that Government provides the necessary resources to cover the anticipated work, which equates to 1.5 million landlords and 4.4 million households in the PRS.
• We broadly welcome the powers for local housing authorities to issue financial penalties as appropriate for non-compliance with the redress scheme/ Ombudsman. 
• We also welcome the provisions in the Bill that allow councils to keep the proceeds of financial penalties to reinvest in enforcement activity. 
• The Bill allows for an approved redress scheme to be able to investigate complaints from tenants where their landlord fails to address their complaint appropriately or in a timely manner and, where appropriate, compel a landlord to take action to put things right or provide compensation.
• Where the complaint from a tenant concerns the breach of a regulatory threshold, local housing authorities may take enforcement action to bring the landlord or property into compliance with the regulations, and, using its discretion, to sanction landlords. 
• In these circumstances, tenants will be able to complain to either the local housing authority or an approved redress scheme.
• The clause also allows for official guidance on how local authorities and any approved redress scheme will work together to resolve complaints where both parties have a jurisdictional interest.
• We would like to work with the government to understand how this proposal, which will enable tenants to complain to either the local housing authority or an approved redress scheme on particular issues, will work. 
• There is a risk that having two separate routes of redress will add unnecessary complexity and confusion to the system, as well as potential duplication of activity.
• Clear, unambiguous guidance and close collaboration between the redress scheme and councils will be critical to ensure that there is consistent approach to resolving issues for tenants as quickly and efficiently as possible. 

Clauses 53-72

• The Bill will establish a database of existing residential landlords, prospective residential landlords and dwellings which are, or intend to be, let under residential tenancies. This new database will provide the basis for the future Privately Rented Property Portal service. 
• The database will also record when landlords are subject to banning orders, and landlords who have been convicted of other offences, financially penalised for other specified breaches or are subject to other regulatory action. 
• The Bill specifies that landlords will have a period of 28 days after registering on the database to comply with regulatory requirements. Landlords will need to keep entries on the register up to date with key documentation, such as gas safety certificates for the entry to remain active. 
• The Bill requires local housing authorities to have a role in running the database, including authenticating, editing, and removing incorrect entries, if the database cannot be automated. 
• The Bill stipulates that landlords must pay a fee to register on the database and pay late payment fees. 
• The Bill provides that properties and the private landlord will be required to be registered on the database before they can be let, or before they are advertised for let. 
• The Bill will require local housing authorities to enter all eligible offences and all civil penalties on the register – including where landlords have received banning orders or other financial penalties – making offence data publicly viewable. 
• The Bill will introduce penalties for landlords that breach the requirements of the database, including by recklessly providing misleading information. These will be set by the authority imposing the penalties, but they must not exceed £5,000 or £30,000 respectively. 

LGA view

• We welcome the introduction of a database for landlords and residential properties. We are pleased the Government recognise the important role of robust data which will better support councils to target and tackle non-compliant landlords.
• The forthcoming property portal will also create a more transparent system for tenants, by providing a ‘single front door’ to check important information about prospective properties and landlords.
• For the portal to be effective, the Government must require landlords to also display eviction notices on the portal. This would support councils in enforcing the prohibited letting period associated with new eviction grounds. For example, were a landlord to evict a tenant on a legitimate basis covered by the Bill, but then sought to re-let the property, logging that eviction on the portal would make it clear whether the property was within the prohibited letting period or not. 
• Given that the register and property portal will be a vital tool to support an effective enforcement regime for the PRS, it is critical therefore that the Government commits the resources, both financial and non-financial, to the Property Portal to ensure its longevity.
• To ensure a transparent and fair PRS, we are calling on the Government to expand the list of details landlords are required to include on the Property Portal to the following:
  • details of notices of possession served by a landlord in respect of each dwelling of which they are the landlord
  • energy performance certificates of relevant dwellings
  • information relating to dispute resolution for deposit protection schemes.
• The LGA believes that local housing authorities and tenants should also be able to seek RRO’s from landlords that do not comply with the requirements of the database or commit an offence related to the database. The introduction of RROs for non-compliance with the database would act as an additional deterrent for landlords committing repeat offences. It would also incentivise tenants to engage with the property portal and check whether their landlord and property are registered and compliant. This would help to support councils’ enforcement work against a minority of rogue landlords who may seek to evade compliance.
• There is a precedent for the use of RROs in relation to a wide-range of other offences under the Housing Act 2004, for example failure to comply with an Improvement Notice. 
• There will be new pressures on councils following the introduction of the database including monitoring compliance with the duty to register; enforcing against those that are not registered and reporting compliance. This will require sufficient, upfront new burdens funding.
• The LGA welcomes that the Bill already allows tenants and councils to seek RROs if a landlord supplies false entries to the landlord register and for continued breaches, by amending part 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. 
• We are calling on Government to expand the use of RROs to the following additional circumstances:
  • Reletting or remarketing a property within the ‘prohibited period’ (currently 3 months) While we agree with the Government that the ‘prohibited period’ will be a helpful mechanism to prevent the eviction grounds from becoming Section 21 by the backdoor, RROs will provide a far more robust deterrent and incentivise tenants to be proactively aware of their landlord’s compliance with the new regulations. 
  • Letting a property without active relevant entries in the database.
  • Letting out a property that fails to meet minimum energy efficiency standards.

Clauses 79 and 80

• The Bill provides that enforcement of the prohibitions of the landlord legislation will be the duty of local housing authorities in England.
• The Bill also enables county councils which are not local housing authorities to exercise powers equivalent to local housing authorities.
• The Bill will require housing authorities to notify other local housing authorities when it plans to take enforcement action in their geographical area.

LGA view

• We would welcome further clarity on these measures which appear to confer a duty of enforcement on local housing authorities, which will make enforcement activity statutory. 
• This clause is at odds with other clauses in the Bill relating to enforcement e.g. issuing of financial penalties, which is worded ‘a local housing authority may impose’ which signifies that enforcement activity is discretionary. 
• We support provisions which provides clarity that county councils who have responsibility for trading standards enforcement in two-tier areas will have powers to enforce relevant parts of the legislation. Enforcement responsibilities relating to the PRS are split across local authority housing and environmental health teams and trading standards services, which in two-tier authorities sit separately within district and county councils respectively.
• It is vital that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) conducts a realistic assessment of the resources councils need to regulate the PRS effectively. New burdens funding should then be allocated accordingly.
• It would be expected as good practice that a local housing authority would notify another local housing authority if they planned to take enforcement action in their area. 

Clauses 83-85

• The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint a lead enforcement authority, or lead enforcement authorities, for the purposes of any provisions of the landlord legislation. The approach is like that taken in existing estate and letting agent legislation. 
• The Bill sets out the duties and powers of a lead enforcement authority. A lead enforcement authority’s functions to issue guidance, information, and advice to more than 300 local housing authorities will help local authorities enforce the measures in a consistent way.
• The Bill gives a lead enforcement authority the power to enforce the provisions for which it is responsible. A lead enforcement authority provides an opportunity to create a centre of expertise on the relevant legislation and can act as a backstop for enforcement. 

LGA view

• We support the principle of a lead enforcement authority to support councils in enforcing the new legislation. The use of a lead enforcement authority for this type of new responsibility can help to ensure that funding is appropriately targeted at the organisations enforcing specific areas of activity. 
• Councils will require clear and timely guidance in order to enforce the new legislation effectively. This will help local authorities to bring about a consistency in enforcement across the country, ensuring that an appropriate balance is struck between the rights of tenants and landlords. 
• Whilst the lead enforcement authority role is welcome, effective enforcement of regulations is reliant on an adequate number of qualified and trained staff.
• DLUHC should urgently work with sector experts to develop a skills and capacity building strategy to ensure that local authorities can support effective implementation of the reforms. 

• The Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the new National Supported Housing standards (introduced in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight Act), which outlines how these will be developed, overseen, and enforced.

LGA view

• Local Government shares the ambition of driving up standards in supported housing and temporary accommodation. 
• We look forward to working with the Government to develop standards that are fit-for-purpose and deliver genuine improvement while recognising the increased pressure this may place on councils.
• Alongside this, the Government must establish a locally-led and fully-funded oversight and enforcement regime for exempt supported accommodation within a strengthened national regulatory framework to address growing issues in the sector. We support the introduction of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, as a vital first step in achieving this.
• There should be a full consultation on the detail of the report, with full engagement with local government and other key stakeholder to ensure standards and proportionate and realistic.

Clause 76

• The Government has introduced measures in the Bill to apply the Decent Homes Standard to the PRS, following their past commitment to do so. This will give renters safer, better value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities.

LGA view

• We broadly welcome the introduction of the Decent Homes Standard in the PRS. We welcome the proposal that councils can issue appropriate financial penalties to hold landlords to account and keep the proceeds of financial penalties to reinvest in enforcement activity. However, this funding alone will likely be insufficient to cover the full cost of undertaking enforcement work in the PRS that is required to achieve the ambitions of the Bill, particularly as it will be councils’ intention to issue financial penalties or undertake criminal proceedings as a last resort.  It is vital that DLUHC conducts a realistic assessment of the resources councils need to regulate the PRS effectively. New burdens funding should then be allocated accordingly. 
• To act as an effective deterrent to landlords, the maximum financial penalty that local housing authorities can issue to landlords for any breach to the legislation should be increased from £5000 to £30,000 (with a minimum limit of £500). This is in line with other financial penalties that can be issued by enforcement authorities against landlords who breach legislation, such as the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022. 
• To mitigate the risk of landlords exiting the PRS or passing the costs of meeting the DHS to tenants, an extended implementation timeframe should be considered. Our response to the government’s consultation on introducing the Decent Homes Standard in the PRS.
• We have concerns about extending the Decent Homes Standard to temporary accommodation. Ultimately, we share the ambition that those in temporary accommodation should have access to good quality accommodation, with councils working hard to provide the most suitable accommodation they have available. However, given the ongoing housing challenges and councils increasingly struggling to source accommodation, this could further reduce the supply of temporary accommodation available to councils in the short-term. Temporary accommodation is costing councils £1.74 billion per year, with households living in temporary accommodation having risen by 89 per cent over the past decade to 104,000. It is not just a cost issue for councils – it is that often the supply of temporary accommodation is simply not available.
• We are calling on the Government to provide long-term funding certainty for local government to help councils scale up to deliver an ambitious build programme of 100,000 high-quality, climate-friendly social homes a year and implement our six-point plan for a council housebuilding renaissance. This needs to be a key priority that must sit alongside any proposal to apply the Decent Homes Standard to temporary accommodation, to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of good quality homes for everyone. 

Not currently included in the Renters (Reform) Bill

• Landlord licensing schemes can have significant benefits for both landlords and tenants, and particularly in respect of enforcement. For example, where landlord licensing is in place, there is an obligation on the ‘person in control’ to identify themselves to the council to secure a license. 
• Having this information allows councils to contact private landlords quickly and easily when necessary. It also makes it much easier to implement effective complaint mechanisms which put tenants at ease. 
• However, councils lack the flexibility to take forward whole area or area-specific licensing schemes. From April 2015, councils have been required to secure Secretary of State approval for licensing schemes that cover more than 20 per cent of the area or 20 per cent of privately rented homes.
• The Government has made clear its intention to review selective licencing in light of changes brought about when the property portal is established. 

LGA view 

• The LGA is strongly in favour of retaining the ability of local housing authorities to designate areas as subject to selective licensing, as provided in the Housing Act 2004. We broadly support the announcement that the Government intends to conduct an independent review of selective licensing alongside the new Property Portal to ensure there is no duplication and that efforts are streamlined for landlords, tenants and local authorities. We urge the Government to engage with sector experts and local authorities as part of the review. 
• Selective licensing schemes will continue to be an important tool for councils to manage and improve PRS properties in their areas as the reforms, including the establishment of the national Property Portal, are introduced.
• We continue to call on the Government to amend the Housing Act 2004 to remove the requirement for councils to seek approval from the Secretary of State for larger selective licensing schemes.

Elliot Gregory
Public Affairs and Campaigns Advisor
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 07766252833