House of Lords Proposes Amendments to Renters’ Rights Bill

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Allow smaller landlords to issue Section 21
• Retention of Fixed-Term Tenancies
• Would you like to find out whether your tenancy deposit was protected correctly?

Introduction

The Renters’ Rights Bill represents a significant overhaul of the private rented sector (PRS) in England, aiming to enhance tenant protections and clarify landlord responsibilities. As the bill progresses through Parliament, the House of Lords has proposed several amendments to refine its provisions and in this article, we dive into just two of the proposals that caught our eye!

Allow smaller landlords to issue Section 21

Banning Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions has long been the headline of the Renters’ Rights Bill, as for far too long, renters have lived in fear of being booted from their homes through no fault of their own.

In fact, the threat of eviction or huge rent increases has done enough to keep good tenants quiet for years. Renters have felt unable to raise valid concerns about repairs, invasion of their privacy or even breaches of their statutory rights in fear of being unfairly unrooted from the properties that they call home.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook demonstrates that she is more concerned about the pockets of ‘small landlords’ over tenant protections as she has tabled an amendment to allow landlords that have fewer than five properties, to retain the right to use the Section 21 eviction notice.

That’s right, Baroness Bybrook would like to keep Section 21 ‘ no fault’ evictions for all landlords that own up to 4 rental properties. But why? She says that many smaller landlords cannot afford the legal costs to handle lengthy wait times in the courts.

This is the same Baroness Bybrook that told parliament that 45% of landlords only own one property and 40% of landlords own between 2 and 4. Therefore, is she suggesting that 85% of all landlords should be able to evict tenants willy nilly via a Section 21 notice? It sounds like it!

Further to this, Baroness Bybrook also suggested that an amendment be published that would delay the abolition of Section 21 evictions in it’s entirety, until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the courts have enough capacity to handle possession cases.

Whilst there might be an ounce of logic in her proposal to delay, the idea that scrapping Section 21 evictions for landlords that own 4 or less properties is simply absurd.

Retention of Fixed-Term Tenancies

One notable amendment suggests allowing fixed-term tenancies of up to 12 months. This proposal seeks to provide flexibility for both landlords and tenants who prefer a defined rental period, contrasting with the bill’s original intent to abolish fixed terms in favour of open-ended agreements.

As it stands, the Renters’ Rights Bill will abolish fixed-term agreements, which in simple terms means that if you sign a 12-month agreement today, when the bill is passed, this will automatically be converted to a periodic tenancy (monthly rolling term).

Currently, the amendment to retain fixed-term tenancies by mutual agreement was proposed in order to provide student renters and student landlords with more security given the nature of their circumstances, however, the amendment is worded in such a way that suggests that all tenancies can mutually agree a fixed-term of up to 12-months if all parties agree.

Further to this, another clause may be added that suggests that 12-month fixed-terms may be applicable to new build properties whereby the tenant is the first to occupy the property since its construction.

It’s difficult to summarise this particular amendment to the bill. On one hand, the fixed term could be retained for the benefit of student lets, but it can also be applied to any tenancy if the landlord and tenant both agree. However, given how competitive the rental market is, if a landlord wants a fixed term and an applicant tenant does not – who wins? Will tenants be forced to play ball to avoid missing out on the property?