A cross-party group of MPs has warned the Government not to resurrect attempts to ban “revenge evictions” until it has done its homework.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Private Rented Sector said that more should be done to establish the scale of the problem. It also said it is not clear whether legislation “is necessarily the best tool” to tackle the problem.
Proposals to ban retaliatory evictions, whereby tenants who complain about their properties are evicted, failed to pass through the Commons in November.
However, the ban is now to be considered once more as an amendment to the Deregulation Bill being debated in the Lords.
The amendment would mean that where a landlord is given a notice from their local authority to improve their property, they could not regain possession of the home for six months.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Private Rented Sector’s report says: “Too often on private rented housing it has become very easy to call for greater regulations here or there without a proper assessment of what is and isn’t working.”
The group says it heard a “bewildering”variety of different figures during its own inquiry into the issue and that obtaining “objective data that hasn’t been collected by a particular group with a vested interest was impossible”.
Shelter has claimed that as many as 213,000 tenants faced eviction last year after asking their private landlord for repairs, but others say those figures significantly over-estimate the problem.
APPG chair Oliver Colvile said: “Evidence is crucial to making good policy – and at the moment we just don’t have that evidence.
“If the number of retaliatory evictions is as low as some of those who gave evidence at our inquiry suggested, then Parliament should consider whether making tenants aware of their existing rights might be better than introducing more regulations.
“If this latest amendment does go ahead, then we will still need good evidence to ensure that we can monitor its success.”
The report also calls for a landlord to regain possession rights as soon as improvements have been made, rather than have to wait six months, and says that local authorities should be given time limits within which to investigate tenants’ complaints.
Residential Landlords’ Association chairman Alan Ward said: “The report brings some much-needed clear thinking to the debate, which should be based on facts and data and not on hyperbole.”
Comments (3)
I would really like to know on what criteria Shelter base their statistics – 213,000 tenancies ended after ‘the tenants asked for repairs’ is completely meaningless unless all the facts about every one of these tenancies are known. I think some of the following questions need to be answered to get the true picture: Were 213,000 tenancies really all ended ONLY because the tenants asked for repairs?; Were any of the ‘repairs’ in fact improvements which the landlord had no legal obligation to make?; What was the least serious and the most serious ‘repair’ that was requested?; Were there any other factors affecting the landlords’ decision (e.g. rent arrears, poor tenant behaviour, landlord unable to afford repairs, landlord wanting to realise their investment etc etc)?; How many of the 213,000 properties were immediately re-let without any repairs or improvements? (a crucial question this one); How many of the 213,000 properties needed to be vacant for the repairs to be carried out?; How many of the 213,000 properties were sold because 2014 was a good year for selling?; The Shelter statement is so emotive no politician could afford to oppose it, but the statistics are so incomplete and lacking in detail that they have no real meaning unless all the above questions are answered as well. Otherwise I will continue to believe this is an almost non-existent problem which certainly does not merit new legislation.
spot on Robin. Other related questions 1. 213,000 is a nice round number how accurate is this number? 2. What statistical methodologies were employed to derive these statistics and show they were a good reflection of entire market? 3. How will this legislation be communicated and enforced who how and when?
"You're making it up" a point made on EYE at the very start of this. CLG have not a bit of practical knowledge or understanding about the PRS and MP's are being handed vested interest generated reports based on lobbying rather than fact. One would think that Grenville Turner sitting as a non Exec would at least bring an understanding of the need to have at least one person with an understanding of the sector within the department otherwise a situation akin to Lord of the Flies is created. At least good sense has prevailed for the time being.