The row about the apparent govt amendments to the Renters (Reform) Bill goes on, principally about the proposed initial 6 month term in which the tenant could not give notice (although also, obviously, about the unspecified delay in introduction of the ban on section 21 for an unspecified period pending a report on the courts’ ability to cope).
Ben Beadle, Chief Exec of the National Residential Landlords Association responded to one such criticism on twitter (‘X’)
It is incorrect to suggest that #tenants will be locked into dangerous properties with proposed changes to the #RentersReformBill – when Minister Jacob Young has committed in his letter before Easter, to look at exemptions for **just that**.
It is absolutely right that there are… https://t.co/EpLQ3GEIjq pic.twitter.com/sajsCvZK8d
— Ben Beadle (@BeadleBen) April 3, 2024
“It is incorrect to suggest that #tenants will be locked into dangerous properties with proposed changes to the #RentersReformBill – when Minister Jacob Young has committed in his letter before Easter, to look at exemptions for **just that**. It is absolutely right that there are exemptions for dangerous and sub standard properties, but these proposals now strike right the balance. If as Tom says, tenants are unlikely to move after 60 days and Govt cater for dangerous properties, then what’s the problem? Time to stop carping, support pragmatic changes and get the Bill moving. Here’s what Jacob Young said”
Referencing the leaked letter from the Housing Minister, which said, with regard to the proposed 6 month initial term:
“We are considering exemptions, such as the death of tenant, or domestic abuse, or significant hazards in the property”.
Let us assume that ‘considering’ turns into ‘manifesting’, how pragmatic is this?
Death of a tenant – well that is currently a mess anyway in terms of ending tenancies. But who is going to give notice to the landlord? Who could, before appointment as PR (and that takes *ages*)?
‘Significant hazards’ – tenant says “I am leaving after two months because there are significant hazards”. Landlord says “no there aren’t. I want six months rent”. Who adjudicates? Landlord brings a money claim in the county court, tenant has to defend and evidence? It gets referred to an ombudsman and has to be evidenced? In any event, and whatever court or tribunal has to deal with it, there will be a lot of such cases clogging up the systems. It is, let us be honest, a rare thing for a private landlord to admit or agree that the state of their property is hazardous when let, particularly when there is rent at stake.
Domestic abuse – this is probably the worst of all. Tenant says “I need to leave after two months because I am suffering domestic abuse”. Landlord says “You are trying it on, I want the 6 months rent” (believe me, some will). Then what? The tenant has to somehow evidence their abuse in court proceedings, or some ombudsman dispute or other arbitral tribunal?
This would be frankly intrusive and humiliating, but according to Ben Beadle, it is pragmatic, in order to give landlords the certainty of an initial 6 month term.
When the Bill returns, apparently shortly, there will be very limited further opportunities for scrutiny, amendment or revision. Dropping in potential horrorshows of amends that may well, for example, require a victim of domestic abuse to evidence their abuse to the landlord to justify early notice to quit within the first 6 months, at such a late stage is bad law making. Even worse when it is solely to appease a bunch of Tory backbenchers whom, I think it fair to say, do not have tenants suffering domestic abuse or living with significant hazards uppermost in their list of concerns.
We will have to see the detail of any Govt amends, of course, but it is hard to see any way in which carving out these exemptions would not present huge issues, both for arbitral courts of bodies and for tenants. I think Ben Beadle and I might have different definitions of ‘pragmatic’.