The Government has rejected most amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill that were suggested by the House of Lords, warning that they will be open to landlord abuse.
Peers had suggested allowing an extra deposit for tenants wanting pets and allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a member of their family living with them.
But Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook suggested these would be open to abuse.
Commenting on the ongoing debates, Marc von Grundherr, director of Benham and Reeves, said: “Matthew Pennycook has justified rejecting the majority of Lords’ amendments by suggesting that landlords would exploit any concessions to behave poorly. This narrative is both unfair and inaccurate.
“The vast majority of landlords are honest, hard-working individuals who operate in an ethically sound manner and provide a vital service to millions of tenants.
“Demonising them is not only misleading, it risks further destabilising the rental market at a time when supply is already critically short – so it’s extremely disappointing to see landlords used as a scapegoat to prevent the necessary changes required to balance the Bill.”
Sam Humphries, founder of property management platform Dwelly, added: “Even before this Bill has been implemented we’re already seeing a rise in landlord repossessions, driven by a lack of trust in the court system and a desire to regain control of their portfolios before these changes come into effect.
“With only minor amendments made to the Bill and the abolition of Section 21 evictions set to go ahead, this trend is only likely to intensify, putting even greater strain on the courts and leaving many more tenants without a roof over their head.
“It underlines the unintended consequences of pushing through sweeping reforms without properly considering the realities of the rental market.”
One amendment did make it through though.
A House of Lords change proposed that farmers should be able to provide accommodation for incoming agricultural workers, regardless of whether they are employed directly or self-employed.
Without it, the Bill would only allow properties to be regained for employed workers, leaving some farm businesses struggling to accommodate self-employed workers.
The National Farmers’ Union made the case that grounds for possession should apply even if the incoming agricultural worker is self-employed, such as a self-employed party to a share-farming arrangement, or a self-employed shepherd or dairy relief worker, and to reflect changing employment practices in the sector.
On the passing of the amendment, Pennycook said: “We believe this small technical change will support the government’s clear intention of ensuring that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising wider security of tenure, and I pleased that both Lord Carrington and the National Farmers’ Union had indicated their support for these changes.”
This article is taken from Landlord Today