MPs reject amendments to Renters’ Rights Bill ahead of Royal Assent

The government have rejected most amendments for the Renters’ Rights Bill as it nears Royal Assent.

MPs debated amendments from across all parties for the bill, but the majority were rejected.

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook insisted the bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible, while Conservatives argued it undermines the private rented sector and will cause landlords to leave the market.

We will allow for a smooth transition to the new system

Mr Pennycook repeated his claim that no-fault evictions are a leading cause of homelessness, despite government figures showing this is not the case.

He also explained that MPs would support landlords during the transition period and confirmed that all fixed-term tenancies will automatically become periodic under the new rules.

He said: “This Bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The time that it has taken for the legislation to make its progress through the House is not cost-free. Families across the country have been subject to no-fault section 21 evictions, which we know are a leading cause of homelessness, and renters across the country need the Bill on the statute book.

“Following Royal Assent, we will allow for a smooth transition to the new system, and we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. We want to make that change as smoothly and efficiently as possible, and to introduce the new tenancies for the private rented sector in one stage.

“On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies: existing tenancies will convert to the new system and any new tenancies signed on or after the date will be governed by the new rules. We will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition and we will provide sufficient notice ahead of implementation.”

Designed to undermine the private rented sector

However,  James Cleverly, Conservative Shadow Housing Secretary, accused the government of undermining the private rented sector with a bill that is “entirely counterproductive.”

He said: “While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well thought through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector.

“The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses, issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector.

Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off.”

Government rejects pet amendment

Among the amendments debated was the proposal giving landlords the right to require pet damage insurance.

Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, tenants will have the right to keep pets in rental properties, with landlords only able to refuse if they can provide a valid reason.

Peers also voted to accept an amendment allowing landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit of up to three weeks’ rent on top of the usual deposit cap. The government, however, rejected this, arguing that the Tenant Fees Act 2019 already provides sufficient protection.

Mr Pennycook said: “The amendment to allow landlords to require an additional deposit, equivalent to three weeks’ rent, as a condition of consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. We cannot support this amendment. Requiring a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900.

“Such sums would be unaffordable for many tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300. We are satisfied, this speaks to the point made by the Hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any damages relating to pet ownership. Crucially, as I mentioned, we already have the delegated powers necessary, under the Tenant Fees Act 2019, to allow higher deposits for tenancies with pets, should evidence come forward to the contrary.”

Rejected amendments

Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, if a landlord evicts a tenant to sell a property but the sale falls through, they are currently barred from re-letting it for 12 months.

Peers voted 213 to 209 in favour of Lord Cromwell’s amendment, which would have reduced this period to six months.

The government, however, rejected the amendment, meaning landlords remain barred from re-letting for the full 12 months if a sale falls through.

The government also rejected applying possession Ground 4A to one- and two-bedroom student properties.

However, Mr Pennycook rejected the amendment as unnecessary.

He said: “Ground 4A exists precisely because the government recognise the unique nature of the student rental market and are determined to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings continues accordingly. However, ground 4A was deliberately designed to ensure that the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced in the Bill were not denied to non-typical students. We believe restricting its use to HMOs or dwelling-houses in HMOs strikes the right balance, and I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.”

Elsewhere during the debate, the government also approved its own amendment which would give landlords three months to evict tenants as long as possession notices are served before the Bill becomes law.

Plus, giving the Secretary of State powers to amend the Section 13 rent increase rules at a later date if a backlog of cases builds up in the court and allow councils to enter properties to inspect conditions without prior notice.

The government also approved, in a double standard, that they will exempt purpose-built student accommodation from the Bill and they will still be able to issue fixed-term tenancies.

What’s next for the bill?

No major changes were made to the bill, and the abolition of Section 21 along with the introduction of the Decent Homes Standard remain in place. Assuming the bill is not returned with further amendments by the Lords, it will then be sent to the King for Royal Assent, although secondary legislation will be required for many of its provisions to take effect.

The government said it will launch a campaign to help landlords and tenants prepare for the bill.

Reaction to the debate

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.

Sián Hemming-Metcalfe, the operations director at Inventory Base, said: “This Bill cannot be allowed to drift endlessly between the Commons and Lords.

“Minor amendments are no substitute for real direction, and the reality is stark: only one in six landlords are ready for the RRB.

“Unless Parliament delivers clarity now, uncertainty will harden into paralysis across the rental sector.”