Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-01
Topic: Housing
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): I very much support my noble friend’s amendment, which proposes that any tenancy must be offered for a fixed period of three years. Of course, there may be people who have sold a house and are waiting to buy who need a short tenancy, or there may be students who want it for less than a year—nine months, perhaps—and will then move on. Obviously, no one is saying that any tenant and landlord should be locked into it irrespective. The tenants themselves will be the best judge of how long they are likely to need that tenancy As it stands, all the power is with the landlord. I was interested to hear in the speeches opposing this no recognition of the fact that something like a third of all privately rented property is below the decency standard and that if any tenant in that situation asks for repairs, they risk—I am not saying it will happen—losing the right to extend their tenancy. After six months, 12 months, or whenever that tenancy is up for renewal, they can and will be out. As a result, we know, not just from Crisis and Shelter, but from our own environmental health officers in local authorities, how often tenants are afraid to require repairs to be done because if they do, they will lose their home. There is too much of an imbalance of power between the landlord and the tenant, given the legal situation in tenancies, the level of rents and the shortage of supply Who is most interested in six-month, short-term tenancies? It is not necessarily the landlord. A good landlord may be delighted to have a long-stay tenant without the risk of voids, the cost of churn and so on. I am sure that there are many such landlords in that situation; I do not doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is one such Who does have an interest? The letting agencies, of course. Every time there is a new letting after six months, they get a new set of fees. The six-month limited tenancy is gold to the letting agencies. It is desperate news for tenants who might need repairs. There is also a problem in respect of mortgage providers: I understand that only a couple of building societies, one of which is Nationwide, are willing to underwrite buy-to-let where the assured tenancy is likely to last for more than six months. Therefore, everything colludes to prevent a good landlord doing what he might like to do and to prevent tenants having the security of putting down roots in their community. It is not in the interest of a bad landlord who does not want to do repairs; it is not in the interest of the letting agency; it is not in the interest of the mortgage providers. There is, therefore, a complete imbalance of power. I am not speaking about those tenants who, quite rightly, see the rented sector as a temporary tenure on their way through to either a different home in a different part of the country or to a different form of tenure. I am talking about those who are locked into the private rented sector with children who need to go to schools, with GPs’ surgeries that they need to get placements in, and who may have a disability in the family and need the support of neighbours who will help them. They should not be at the whim of a bad landlord, a bad letting agency and overly risk-averse mortgage providers for buy-to-let This amendment would say that that tenancy must be offered; rogue tenants would be sent on their way, as they should be. It would help good tenants and strengthen the arm of good landlords to provide what is needed, which is homes in which people can put down their roots.