Renters' Rights Bill

Written evidence submitted by Michael Zell-Davis to The Renters’ Rights Public Bill Committee (RRB07).

I am a landlord in the private rental sector and provide housing exclusively for students at the University of Birmingham. All of our properties, whilst taking the form of a shared HMO, are purpose built for the needs of the modern student tenant.

The Renters’ Rights Bill has been introduced by a desire to give tenants a better deal by abolishing no-fault evictions and re-writing the grounds for possession available to landlords, and although I support these broader aims I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the bill on the student sector.

1. Allowing students to end a tenancy with just two months' notice might provide more flexibility for them, but it could cause larger issues over time. The alignment of academic and rental cycles, which currently ensures a stable stock of housing when students need it most, could be disrupted. This could alter the business model for student landlords significantly, leading to less efficient occupancy, more administration, and higher costs. Some landlords might even shift to other markets where tenant demand is more consistent.

In Birmingham and many other town and cities with large student populations, where accommodation-especially affordable options-is already scarce, any change that reduces housing supply will lead to even greater shortages and drive up rents that have already increased due to higher levels of inflation in recent years. To compound this, there have not been requisite rises to the maintenance loan to support students over the same period.

2. The use of periodic joint tenancies would mean that if one student served notice, the entire group could end up without housing, possibly without their knowledge or consent. This issue is already addressed sensibly in Wales. The "Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016" includes provisions allowing a joint contract-holder to leave without ending the entire contract and for new joint contract-holders to be added without starting anew. This approach safeguards both parties, enabling them to negotiate a new tenancy without the risk of void periods or causing educational disruption and student homelessness.

3. Preventing students from paying rent quarterly or termly may undermine their ability to manage their finances. The previous system, which coincided with the payment of student loans, grants, or bursaries, facilitated better planning and minimized late payments or evictions due to arrears. This arrangement was especially advantageous for younger students, who might find budgeting challenging alongside other term-specific expenses.

4. Excluding one- and two-bedroom student properties reduces housing options, pushing students into more expensive PBSA or forcing them to share with people they may not want to live with. This will either strain their budgets or impact their quality of life. The bill must ensure that all students have access to affordable and suitable housing that meets their individual needs, without compromising their financial stability or wellbeing.

5. We are already agreeing tenancies that will commence in July 2025. The bill is not yet law therefore it will need specific transitional arrangements as we will not have informed student tenants of our intention to issue a Section 8 under the proposed Ground 4a.

Ensuring full compliance without defined transitional procedures or an implementation date lacks clarity for Landlords and will cause uncertainty for their student tenants. I suggest a moratorium for pre-existing tenancies agreed between landlords and student tenants before the date of Royal Assent and an implementation date of the 1st October after Royal Assent for new student tenancies to coincide with the next letting season.

In conclusion, the proposed periodic tenancy and the other reforms outlined in the Government's Bill if implemented for the student PRS would significantly disadvantage both students and landlords of student HMOs.

The Bill would lead to a considerable reduction in the number of available student properties. This scarcity would result in increased rents, reduced choice, and the potential for some students to be unable to find suitable accommodation in their university towns or cities or forcing them to find accommodation further away from their universities, impacting their academic performance and overall wellbeing. In places where PBSA cannot cover the accommodation shortfall then market forces will intensify the situation.

The unintended consequence of this policy would be a housing crisis within the student community, exacerbating its existing challenges. It is imperative that the Government reconsider this proposal to ensure fair and equitable access to housing for students and to maintain a balanced and functional rental market for student landlords.

Without amendment the Bill would create an environment where the student housing market becomes less stable, more expensive, and less accessible. I would like to request that the Government acknowledges the unintended consequences of its proposals and their negative effects on Students who rent in the Private Rented Sector and it gives further detailed consideration to these consequences prior to passing the Bill.

We therefore suggest that the government provides an exemption for all accommodation that is rented exclusively to students in the PRS, or alternatively consider other options that would be more compatible with the student PRS in its entirety.

I would like to thank you for your time and hope that you are able understand my concerns and conclusions regarding the proposals outlined in the Bill.

October 2024.