Like most people, I want to see a thriving private rented sector that works for landlords and tenants alike. I also want to see renting made more secure and affordable. However, any new regulations must be necessary and proportionate as over-regulation risks pushing good landlords out of the sector and empowering those who simply ignore the rules.
I am concerned that the approach set out in the Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill will have the opposite effect.
With regard to Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions, while I absolutely support the principle of giving tenants more security, the Government’s tenancy reforms could overwhelm the courts, cause gridlock in the justice system, and create even more problems for tenants.
This is something the Housing Select Committee warned the last Government about, highlighting that an unreformed court system could undermine tenancy reforms. It is therefore important that the new Government ensures the courts can process possession claims efficiently. Ministers must be upfront about the impact of these reforms, and it is worrying that the Government has again failed to publish an impact assessment alongside the Bill.
My main worry is that the Government’s proposals could cut supply in the private rented sector which risks driving up rents and making it harder for people to find a suitable home to rent. This is exactly what we have seen in Scotland where similar measures were implemented in 2017. The number of private rented properties in Scotland has decreased by 13 per cent, the number of private landlords has reduced by 11 per cent, and the number of homes available to let to tenants has reduced by 17 per cent. These are statistics that I do not want to see replicated.
I have also carefully considered Shelter’s campaign on the Renters’ Rights Bill and, while I recognise that rent controls may sound attractive, in practice they can have a negative impact on the sector. Evidence from Britain and around the world shows that rent controls can discourage investment in the private rented sector and lead to declining property standards as a result. There are also examples that rent controls may encourage more illegal subletting and can have an inadvertent negative impact on the supply of housing.
I do not believe any of this would be in the interest of renters and so, while I do not feel able to support this specific proposal, I assure you that I will continue to closely follow and scrutinise the Bill as it progresses through Parliament.
Like you, I want to see tenancies sustained as far as possible and I believe the Government should do everything it can to support long-lasting tenancies wherever possible. I do, however, think preventing landlords from using possession grounds for a period of two years could stop them from regaining their property when they have a genuine reason to do so.
With regard to practices such as guarantors and upfront rent, I believe it is important that landlords retain the ability to ensure a sustainable tenancy for both parties. However, I do not think asking for a large amount of rent in advance should be the norm.
As a fellow pet owner, I wholeheartedly agree pets can make excellent companions and are an important part of the lives of millions of people. As part of the Renters' Rights Bill, the Government is proposing to give tenants the right to request a pet, which landlords must consider and cannot unreasonably refuse.
Landlords can benefit from making their properties open to tenants with pets, where appropriate as it can increase demand, lead to longer tenancies and attract more responsible owners.
However, it is worth bearing in mind that not all properties are suitable for pets. Landlords have the right to protect their properties from damage and are required to comply with health and safety standards, meaning they may not allow pets in all cases. It is also reasonable the Government ensures landlords can ask that tenants take out pet insurance to cover any damage to the property.
What is crucial is that landlords and tenants are provided with clear guidance on the Government's reforms, and I will press Ministers to publish guidance in good time before these rules come into force. While I do not agree with the approach taken by the Government, I am committed to working constructively in Parliament to address these concerns and those of my constituents.
