Renters' Rights Bill

Submission to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee re the Renters Reform Bill 2024, from

Gerald Kennedy, on behalf of the Social Housing Action Campaign (RRB47)

1. Executive Summary:

This submission covers:

Introduction

Proposal to provide Access to Justice

Overview of the current legislative framework on housing conditions

Overview of proposals on Decent Homes and Awaab’s Law

Overview of the current Enforcement regime

Recommendations for action

2. Introduction

This is the submission of Gerald Kennedy, former MRICS Consultant and Enforcement Officer to various local authorities; former Expert Witness and joint author of Sections 79-82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The submission is made on behalf of the Social Housing Action Campaign, which represents social housing tenants on numerous issues and of which I am a Committee member. The reason for the submission is to draw Parliament’s attention to what are considered to be serious defects and omissions in the contents of the Bill relating to non-compliant conditions, and to avoid misleading MPs

3. Access to Justice

The removal of S21 no fault evictions will inevitably, in our view, lead to a substantial increase in landlord possession actions for rent arrears for which many tenants (across all tenures) will have a statutory defence. This is a counter claim (or set off) against alleged rent arrears for properties in disrepair. An amendment should be inserted to create a salaried solicitor and RICS surveyor service which can provide free representation/ technical help to tenants , in order to provide localized access to justice. This could be funded by a levy on building developers, and would alleviate the social and economic damage caused by unnecessary evictions for rent arrears.

4. The existing statutory framework for non-compliant conditions

The Government’s commentary on the Renters Reform Bill does not refer to the existing and extensive legislative framework, which is wholly misleading. There are no new housing conditions and defects such as damp/mould, cold, rats, cockroaches are all Victorian public health hazards for which existing legislation provides a permanent remedy (If enforced). For the avoidance of doubt:

a) Section 79-82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 imposes a duty upon local authorities to prosecute where there are ‘prejudicial to health’ conditions, and requires courts to convict if the matter is proven or admitted. Failure to comply with a court order is punishable with a fine of up to £500 per day

b) The 2004 Housing Act requires mandatory compliance with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating system, where there are Category 1 (risk of death) hazards. Only local authorities can enforce this Act and Officers are required to hazard rate the subject property, not the landlord or tenant. This should, nominally, rule out ‘blame the tenant’ policies, which has proved not to be the case.

c) The 2016 Housing and Planning Act permits councils to impose a fine of up to £30,000 upon non-compliant landlords, which money is supposed to fund their services.

d) The 1985 Landlord and Tenant Act is a tenant initiated county court action for disrepair and damages, although it has been curtailed by withdrawl of legal aid.

e) Applicability: the foregoing legislation applies to most tenures and therefore includes housing associations (because they are private landlords), houses in multiple occupation, both exempt and ‘regulated’, bed and breakfast ‘hotels’, asylum seeker and temporary accommodation. The Government talks about extending Decent Homes to other types of tenancies, when, in law, these protections already exist.

5. Duplication: Decent Homes

Decent Homes originated as a policy in 2002, and has long been utilized by social housing providers to upgrade their properties, particularly with new kitchens and bathrooms at huge cost. It is not new: Grenfell Tower originated as a Decent Homes policy and many upgrades have, in my view, made matters worse, primarily because of poor contractor performance and lack of technical knowledge.

6. Duplication: Awaab’s Law

Awaab’s Law duplicates the EPA 1990, Sections 79-82, which remedies criminal offences such as damp/mould by requiring tenants to give 21 days notice, but which also places a duty on Councils to prosecute. Awaab’s Law is not therefore, new, nor does it constitute a ‘crackdown’.

Instead, it transfers the responsibility for enforcement to the tenant and would require them to:

Pay their own expert (£600 plus) for a report

Pay a County Court issue fee of £332

In the absence of legal aid, pay their own Counsel’s fees (£1500 plus per day), without any guarantee of success

Endure a lengthy wait for a hearing – possibly years

Moreover, any Claimant would have to ‘come to court with clean hands’ (i.e. no rent arrears) so this route would be barred to many tenants

This legislation is unenforceable

7. The Enforcement Crisis

Figures quoted in the ‘Guardian’ indicated that 296 out of 310 Councils had not taken a PRS landlord to court the previous year (2022). For 2023, only 27 prosecutions from 11 million tenancies.

Statistics for specific councils:

Rochdale: prosecutions for damp and mould hazards –

2019-2022 – 0 (zero) for each year

2019-2022 – Civil Penalty notices for damp and mould – 3 in 4 years

Birmingham – landlord fines for failing to comply with a Housing Act Improvement notice: 0 (Zero)

Birmingham: Legal costs recovered as a result of EPA prosecutions against landlords : 0 (Zero)

Labour claim that there are 746,000 ‘serious’ hazards in PRS properties (‘Sunday Times’ 22.9.24) (which equates to breach of statutory duty on an industrial scale) but without offering any explanation for non-enforcement.

Parliament has already examined the Enforcement Crisis, when the Select Committee on Private Renting (report date 17.7.2013) concluded that a way had to be found to get local Councils to comply with their duties. This recommendation has been ignored.

8. Recommendations:

a) That the Renters Reform Bill be paused to allow proper scrutiny to take place

b) That the Housing Minister explain to Parliament why mandatory legislation is not being enforced by Councils, when they can recover the costs of doing so, and also inform all Councils that they should withdraw all policies designed to evade Parliamentary sovereignty.

c) That the Minister explain why the Government has not announced which Councils are non-compliant

d) That the Government take powers to remove the Chief Officers of such Councils and reduce their Government grant; set up remote monitoring to ensure service of notices and compliance, and also send in Enforcement squads of Experts with legal autonomy.

G D Kennedy

For the Social Housing Action Campaign

24th October 2024