What’s been going on with the Renters’ Rights Bill?

Last Tuesday, as well as hearing from Unipol (the student housing charity based in Leeds), it heard from a variety of groups representing landlords, tenants or others with expertise.

In the morning session the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) expressed concern about the cyclical nature of the student housing market. It pushed for a moratorium period similar to the previous Renters (Reform) Bill, which would have required everyone to wait six months into a tenancy before being allowed to leave it. It argued that would benefit landlords by covering set-up costs and preventing a shift towards short-term lettings like Airbnb.

The official NRLA position is a minimum six-month tenancy period (four plus two months) to provide “stability” for both landlords and student tenants. If landlords got their way, students would be locked into paying 6 months’ rent even if they never took up their tenancy.

In the second afternoon session Unipol student homes appeared – generally regarded as student-friendly, but also themselves landlords. It supported the exemption of purpose-built student accommodation from the shift to periodic (ie never ending) tenancies, arguing that these are designed specifically for students and have planning obligations that restrict occupancy to students only.

It argued that allowing indefinite stays could lead to non-students occupying these spaces, complicating management. The issue of some students having much worse rights in PBSA or having to commit to a 52-week contract was not discussed.

It also supports measures designed to allow landlords of HMOs for students to seek possession (ie evict students) in advance of the academic year. It proposes an alternative – a fixed-term student tenancy specifically for off-street housing – that would provide security while addressing student needs, such as allowing notice if a student leaves their course.

The charity also highlighted issues like the restrictive nature of guarantor requirements (something that NUS brought student reps to Parliament over last Wednesday) and early renting pressures given housing shortages – its suggestion is a cooling-off period for student tenancies to mitigate. Right now in the Bill, that ability for landlords to evict students in the summer would only apply to HMOs. A large group of MPs have already submitted an amendment preventing guarantors from having to stump up in the event of a death – if a student is seriously ill and no longer needs a student house, not so much.

Unipol also expressed concern over the exclusion of one and two-bedroom properties from that provision – which it said could lead to a significant reduction in student housing availability. It reckons that smaller properties make up a substantial portion (31 per cent) of the student housing market, tenants including typical undergraduates, not just those for mature students or families.

On early renting, Unipol struggled to explain why students often feel pressured to secure housing early – its solution on that would be to curb early renting by introducing a cooling-off period that would allow students to cancel agreements up to four months before the tenancy start date, discouraging landlords from pushing for early sign-ups. It’s not at all clear that would actually work to reduce the pressure.

It was also concerned that students might use their two months’ notice to leave a property in May, which it said would disrupt the annual rental cycle that landlords rely on. It pointed to Scotland where tenure changes “led to increased student homelessness” – a dubious claim (repeated in UUK’s evidence submission) that we’ve debunked on the site before.

Unipol supports the idea of creating a specific student tenancy or an accreditation scheme for landlords in the off-street sector. This, it argues, would allow accredited landlords to offer fixed-term tenancies similar to those provided by purpose-built student accommodations (PBSAs). It argues that this approach would ensure accountability and quality for students while providing landlords with business certainty. Whether officials have the capacity to be thinking about students specifically at this late stage is another question.

On the issue of students dropping out, Unipol agreed that the Bill provides a solution by allowing these tenants to exit their tenancies if they leave university. It then oddly suggested that some landlords, “especially” those in the purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) sector, already release tenants when circumstances change, often giving two months’ notice. There’s not much evidence for that – as we saw during Covid.

And on university academic years, Unipol agreed that the current proposed grounds for possession, limited to the June-September period, overlooks the needs of “non-traditional” students, such as those enrolled in one-year master’s programs starting in January, nursing students, and PhD candidates who may study through the summer. It acknowledged that many universities offer multiple start points throughout the year – making the current proposed timeframe restrictive and unsuitable for these students. It suggested greater flexibility in the notice period to accommodate varied academic timelines.

Responding, housing minister Matthew Pennycock acknowledged the financial burden that demands for extortionate rent in advance place on tenants, excluding some groups from renting. He asserted that the practice must be prohibited—and noted that while existing measures like the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and new rent periods provide some protection, he is considering how to “definitively address” this issue during the Bill’s development. If that bit does get clearer, landlords will demand guarantors and/or refuse to rent to international students – so if he is to “definitively address” the issue, there’s work to do yet.

Yesterday the committee started to discuss amendments. David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Con) was concerned for international students, proposing amendments aiming to “protect supply” by locking in students to fixed term tenancies. Responding, Pennycock said that “as a point of principle”, the government would not deny any type of tenant, including full time students, the rights and protections afforded to them under the new tenancy system that the Bill introduces – all while supporting the right of landlords to evict HMOs with students in them over the summer. Principles shminciples.

Later there was plenty of debate on upfront rent demands – Pennycock promised that a government would come on outlawing large demands soon – and proposals on additional grounds for possession, proposing rent increases be tied to the Bank of England base rate, local authority resourcing for enforcement, and enforcement mechanisms.

There’s plenty of detail still to come, but that Pennycock quote is the key axis problem – anything that resembles better rights for any group of tenants is going to mean that landlords crow about supply. The ongoing question is whether any particular supply impacts in the student part of the market should automatically mean that we deny them the rights of other citizens.