While MPs were debating Welfare cuts, Peers were making it up as they went along on student housing

Peers spent quite a bit of time debating how the Bill would affect student accommodation, with warnings of potentially serious consequences for the student housing market.

The most significant moment came when Amendment 5 passed by 221 votes to 196, removing the restriction that limited Ground 4A (which will allow landlords to evict students at the end of the academic year) to properties with three or more bedrooms.

That means that landlords of smaller properties, including one and two-bedroom flats often rented by postgraduate students and international students, will be able to use that ground for possession.

The debate revealed some quite deep divisions over whether students should be treated differently from other tenants. Baroness Scott of Bybrook, leading for the Conservative opposition, argued that fixed-term tenancies for students were “not a loophole; they are a solution that works,” bringing order to the cyclical nature of the academic rental market.

She and other peers warned of what might happen without those protections – students forced to house-hunt during exam periods, friendship groups unable to secure accommodation together, and international students struggling to arrange housing before arriving in the UK.

Lord Fuller delivered a passionate intervention, warning that the Bill would create “a two-tier system” where wealthy students could afford purpose-built student accommodation while those from disadvantaged backgrounds would be priced out of the smaller, more affordable private rentals.

He argued that the changes would “discriminate against a certain type of woman,” citing Muslim women whose mothers accompany them to university, and would make it harder for the UK to attract international students who often need to secure accommodation before obtaining UK bank accounts or credit histories.

Of course because anyone will be able to end a tenancy on two months notice, resulting in landlords openly discussing shifting their tenancy start dates back to June 2nd or so (evicting on June 1st), as usual none of them seemed to notice that the upshot of their Amendment will be to render any student who’s still actually studying in June homeless. Thanks.

The government held firm on most other issues. The minister (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) insisted that “students pay the same rent – often higher rents – as other tenants and so should have the same rights as everyone else.”

She defended an exemption from the Bill for purpose-built student accommodation as reflecting its “unique business model” while arguing that extending similar protections to the private rental sector would undermine tenant rights.

The prohibition on landlords requiring rent payments in advance generated some heat, with peers arguing that it would particularly disadvantage international students. Lord Fuller pointed out that foreign students “often want to secure accommodation before they get on the plane to come to this country” and typically “will not have references or a track record.” He warned that without the ability to pay rent in advance, “the only practicable way they can secure a tenancy with that impaired record” would be eliminated.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook attempted to find a compromise through Amendment 43, which would have allowed tenants and landlords to mutually agree up to six months’ rent in advance. She specifically highlighted how this flexibility was crucial for “overseas students and those with poor or limited credit histories,” noting that overseas students “often lack a UK credit history and therefore require UK-based guarantors, which is not always possible.”

Nevertheless, that amendment was decisively defeated 23 to 103, with the government maintaining that allowing rent in advance would become a requirement in hot rental markets, effectively discriminating against those without substantial savings.

There were also concerns about when students could secure housing for the following academic year. Lord Fuller was worried the Bill would “create an overheated market in September” and cause “massive inconvenience for second-year and third-year students,” particularly those with work placements overseas who would need to “fly back early to try to secure a home when they could have sorted it out well before, in February or March.”

Again as usual, none of them seem to have clocked that the combo of the June 1st/2nd new tenancy thing, combined with the provision on landlords not being able to sign tenancies more than six months in advance if using that Ground 4A eviction thing, is going to result in pretty much every student property in England becoming available on December 1st or 2nd. For reasons I’ve discussed before, that seems… sub-optimal.

Several peers raised concerns about how the changes would affect guarantors, who are often essential for student tenancies. Baroness Scott warned that abolishing fixed terms could “destabilise the position of tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories,” noting that “many of these individuals rely on guarantors, who, in turn, require the legal certainty of a fixed term.” The removal of fixed-term tenancies was seen as potentially making it much harder to secure guarantors, particularly problematic for students without parental support or young adults leaving care.

Lord Fuller highlighted a particular concern about student house shares, arguing that fixed-term tenancies serve as “a discipline that keeps everybody together and protects everybody’s interests.” He warned that without fixed terms, if one student in a friendship group wanted to leave mid-year, “it reverses the obligation” onto the remaining students to find a replacement, rather than the departing student being responsible for finding someone to take their place. He’s right – but there’s no fix for that in sight.

Lord Truscott raised concerns about students potentially exploiting the new two-month notice period for what he called “legal backdoor short lets.” He warned that in coastal resorts and city centres, students might rent properties advertised for long-term rental but give notice immediately, effectively securing accommodation for just two months at a fraction of the cost of short-term lets. He noted that “short-lets can cost four times higher than long-lets” and worried this would “open the floodgates” to students treating long-term rentals as cheap alternatives to expensive short-term accommodation. It’s unlikely that he could hear me scrunching my face up and yelling “twaddle” into my mobile phone screen.

The debate about rent increase challenges also had relevance for students. Baroness Wolf of Dulwich specifically mentioned that “if I were an officer in a student union, for example, and I was asked my opinion, I would have to say that appealing remains something of a no-brainer.” This was about concerns that SUs might actively encourage mass appeals against rent increases, potentially overwhelming the tribunal system.

What Baroness Wolf seemed to have forgotten is that landlords won’t be able to propose a rent increase until a year has passed on a tenancy, and other bits of the Bill give landlords the right to evict them before that kicks in. Because what wafer-thin protections are there on rent increases apply to tenancies not properties, SUs won’t be doing what she suggests at all – they’ll be complaining about the fact that landlords will be able to jack up the rent between tenancies with complete impunity.

There was an attempt through Amendment 7 to include apprentices in the definition of students (which would have given them access to similar protections). Wolf argued that was a missed opportunity, observing that apprentices “are employees, many of them rather adult employees” who face similar accommodation challenges. She reflected on historical precedents when apprentices “lived with their master” and warned that modern apprentices from “less economically advantaged places” would have “far fewer apprenticeship opportunities” without adequate accommodation options.

Lord Fuller warned about the broader impact on university communities, stating that “student towns and cities are seeing a decline in student-appropriate housing.” The concern was that the Bill’s provisions would accelerate this trend, with landlords choosing to exit the student market entirely rather than deal with the new regulations. This, he said, could create severe accommodation shortages in university areas, driving up prices for the remaining properties. As ever when those sorts of concerns are raised, evidence for the assertion was not forthcoming.

In fact, a recurring theme was that the Bill might drive smaller landlords out of the student market entirely, leaving only expensive purpose-built student accommodation owned by large institutional investors. Lord Fuller warned about students being “forced into these new student blocks” with “cinema rooms and pizza places – the whole thing – but it is costing a fortune,” while more affordable options in the private rental sector disappeared. Several peers referenced Scotland’s experience with similar reforms as a cautionary tale. Lord Fuller specifically mentioned that “Dundee and Edinburgh are already blighted by rent controls” and that this “should provide a warning” about the potential impact on student accommodation availability.

As I keep saying, the problem in Scotland was about rocketing demand, not collapsing supply – which suggests Fuller’s cautionary tale should have really been about ensuring universities reasonably believe a student will have somewhere to live before they offer a place.

Lord Fuller made an interesting technical point about student identification, noting that “universities issue certificates and those certificates are handed to the local authority in the case of council tax, so they can get the 100% council tax allowance.” He argued this existing system could be used to verify student status and prevent abuse of student-specific grounds for possession, countering concerns from Lord Shipley that unscrupulous landlords might falsely claim tenants were students to evict them more easily.

Lord Willetts made a particularly pointed observation about inter-departmental tensions, suggesting he didn’t “believe conspiracy theories, but on this occasion I think that the interests of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are very different from the interests of the Department for Education.” He argued that while MHCLG might not mind if fewer students traveled to university, this would undermine the Department for Education’s “commitment to social mobility and opportunity.”

You have to admire his optimism that the Department for Education has even noticed.