Tenant awareness of Renters’ Rights Bill remains low
1 year ago | 11 comments
Senior Conservatives and landlords ‘plot’ to block the Renters’ Rights Bill
9:41 AM, 1st April 2025, 1 year ago
24
Senior figures within the Conservative Party have allegedly engaged in confidential discussions with landlords to derail the government’s Renters’ Rights Bill, The Guardian reveals.
The meeting, which was arranged by shadow housing minister Baroness Jane Scott, explored options such as initiating a court battle under human rights legislation.
There was also a discussion about stalling progress through numerous amendments in the House of Lords.
The gathering included representatives from the National Residential Landlords Association and Get Living.
Judicial reviews and amendments
The newspaper says that attendees reported that suggestions ranged from judicial reviews to leveraging repeated legislative revisions to push any decisions well into the autumn.
These discussions have ignited allegations of a concerted effort between the Tories and the property sector to obstruct the Bill faces in its final Parliamentary stages.
Ms Scott also expressed frustration over the lack of data showing landlords leaving the PRS because of the Bill, prompting attendees to offer help in sourcing the required statistics.
‘Fewer rental properties available’
Defending the party’s reluctance to adopt Awaab’s law, Ms Scott argued that landlords lack the organisation to meet stringent repair deadlines.
However, this stance drew mixed reactions, the Guardian says, with some saying that this would improve landlord preparedness.
Despite the Conservatives’ earlier attempts to introduce the Renters (Reform) Bill, Kemi Badenoch has adopted a firmer stance against such changes.
A Conservative spokesperson said: “The Conservatives have been cautioning that this bill is profoundly flawed, as it will result in fewer rental properties available.
“As is customary with all legislation, the official opposition consults privately with various stakeholders to gather their perspectives.”
Abolition of Section 21
Central to Labour’s legislative package is the abolition of Section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions, set to be implemented once the Bill gains Royal Assent.
Other provisions aim to enforce ‘Awaab’s law’, mandating prompt essential repairs by landlords.
Previously, Michael Gove, as housing secretary, pushed the Renters (Reform) Bill but his efforts were cut short by the calling of the General Election.
At the meeting, Get Living apparently revealed it had enlisted a top barrister to assess a potential human rights challenge, an approach Ms Scott reportedly endorsed.
One participant noted her belief that such a legal move could halt the Bill entirely.
This follows a failed Scottish challenge against a temporary rent cap which argued against property rights violations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, a Get Living spokesperson told the newspaper it supported the Bill’s success, while acknowledging worries about its current form potentially creating legal pitfalls.
Some want the Bill passed
Not all property representatives at the meeting were comfortable with the tougher approach, with some pushing for swift passage of the Bill with minor tweaks to ensure more certainty for landlords.
Anny Cullum from the campaign group Acorn, told the newspaper: “The comments by Baroness Scott have confirmed what we suspected: that there is a coordinated attempt by landlords and their supporters within the Lords to frustrate the progress of the Renters’ Rights Bill.”
She added: “Unelected and unaccountable Tory peers are using underhand tactics to deliberately delay this vital legislation even more – legislation that many of them supported in its previous guise under the last government.”
Tags:
Conservative Party, Housing Legislation, Landlords, legal challenges, Lords amendments, property industry, rental reforms, renters rights
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Related Articles
Renters’ Rights Bill returns for more Lords scrutiny in April
1 year ago | 5 comments
The Renters’ Rights Bill is not anti-landlord says KC
1 year ago | 30 comments
Member Since May 2023 - Comments: 225
9:30 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
Obvious RRB inequality between Landlord registration and no tenant registration.
An equitable approach is to register all participants including agents so that everyone must safeguard their reputation by acting fairly and in compliance with the law.
Member Since January 2016 - Comments: 16
10:09 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
Paul Bartlett’s comment has got it right. There is massive inequality between landlords and tenants. This bill will allow unscrupulous tenants to run roughshod over landlords. The disparity between the PRS and the social housing sector is widening. I am concerned that there is more substandard housing in the social sector than in the PRS. This is becoming another government two-tier system. I haven’t heard of SHELTER or other fat cat housing charities calling out the councils, and housing associations for the condition of their housing stock.
Member Since May 2023 - Comments: 225
10:22 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
The erosion of property rights is impossible to fully assess in the absence of the property Ombudsman and their dispute resolution obligations so that must be fully supported in the bill without the secondary legislation cop out.
According to gov.uk this remains one sided:
“Will landlords be able to complain to the ombudsman about their tenants?
No, it would be unprecedented and inappropriate for landlords to seek binding decisions from the ombudsman service, which is designed to protect consumer rights. Therefore, only tenants will be able to seek redress from the service.” So no awareness of the many services that landlords must consume to enable a rented property.
According to gov.uk there is no dispute improvement with an Ombudsman:
“As in the current system, landlords will need to go to court if a tenant does not leave and provide evidence that the ground applies.”
There is no attempt to improve the woeful Court delays, nor set a standard for DoJ to operate fairly in hearing cases. 4-8 month delays aren’t acceptable. Just vague words:
“The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is working with the Judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that the county court is prepared for the changes to the tenancy system.” So no accountability there, just risk.
Member Since May 2023 - Comments: 5
10:23 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
My question relates to one small aspect of the RRB specifically not allowing fixed term contracts. I am a landlord with some student properties. My incoming tenants would obviously want to know when they are due to move in so they can plan accordingly in advance of the university term times. How are they supposed to do that if there is no guarantee that the previous tenants have all moved out ?? Landlords of properties who historically rent to students need to be given the same exemption as PBSA. What is being done at a high level on this subject ??
Member Since September 2022 - Comments: 55
10:58 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
I believe that to allow Students a more favourable deal with fixed term tenancies discriminates under the Equality Act on the basis of age. You are treating younger people more favourably. Therefore the fixed term tenancy should remain.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1640 - Articles: 3
11:00 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by les at 01/04/2025 – 10:09
Awaabs Law is a direct consequence of poor social housing.
Member Since December 2023 - Comments: 1581
11:16 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
People only need look at the financial numbers to see why the PRS is shrinking.
A landlord would pay £15,000 in Stamp Duty Land Tax when buying a property for a modest £250,000.
If a higher rate taxpayer charged a whopping £1,200 per month rent, they would still lose money assuming a 75% LTV mortgage at 4.5% and other typical expenses excluding voids and risk.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 754
11:19 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
Curious that seemingly legitimate concerns raised by the opposition to draft legislation – as they are meant & entitled to do – to highlight unintended consequences etc are labelled as a ‘plot’ to delay or frustrate the bill. It may be a bit late in the day to do this, but should the opposition simply roll over and approve a bill that they (and PRS LLs) have identified as deeply flawed? Even though the consequences could be disastrous if they did?
You couldn’t make it up, yet the sad thing is that it’s true…
Member Since December 2023 - Comments: 1581
11:24 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by PAUL BARTLETT at 01/04/2025 – 09:30This review model works well for eBay and AirBnB.
Member Since October 2013 - Comments: 1640 - Articles: 3
11:26 AM, 1st April 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by Freda Blogs at 01/04/2025 – 11:19
The Grauniad!
Without a judicial review or ECHR case, these are only delay tactics. There is no majority to force amendments, so let’s just get on with it and watch the PRS implode.