Tag: Renters

  • Renters’ Rights Bill – The Devil’s in the Detail

    Renters’ Rights Bill – The Devil’s in the Detail

    • By Martin Blakey, the former Chief Executive of the student housing charity Unipol and a member of the British Property Federation’s Student Accommodation Committee.

    HEPI has maintained, as one would expect, a serious interest in student housing and the impact this Bill will have on students. The last update was given on 3 February 2025, and since then, there have been significant developments. On that basis, this update covers three areas:

    1. Work has finally commenced on how purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) will transition from the current assured student tenancy regime into common law tenancies, as those tenancies are largely outside the provisions of the Act;
    2. The Renters’ Rights Bill (RRB) is now at the Lords Committee Stage, and on 22 April 2025, around half the day was taken up discussing student-related housing, giving a clear indication of the Government’s thinking on the outcome of the Bill and student housing; and
    3. The Government-approved Unipol/ANUK National Code has undergone significant revision and is now out for public consultation before its final text is agreed.

    Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA)

    Long overdue work is now taking place by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to establish the mechanism whereby PBSA providers will become ‘specified’ under the Housing Act (1988). This will put them outside the remit of much of the Renters’ Rights legislation.

    As part of the earlier discussions on this with the British Property Federation (and their Student Accommodation Committee), MHCLG had previously advised that existing tenancies would automatically become common law tenancies. However, on 1 April, Unipol was informed that there were problems with this and that Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs) existing before the implementation of the Act will now transition to be assured tenancies that will fall under the remit of the Act.

    This may seem a rather nerdy legal change with little impact, but it would be a mistake to conclude that.

    The timescale of the Bill has self-evidently slipped from the initial aim of obtaining Royal Assent by Easter 2025, and the Government is racing to ensure that it passes through all its parliamentary stages by the summer recess on July 22, 2025. Some aspects of the Act will be subject to further detailed consultation, but the main tenure reforms will be implemented quickly. This rush to get the Bill through its parliamentary stages may explain the evident ‘make do and mend’ approach to the transition of PBSA tenancies. This rush certainly explains the Government’s unwillingness to accept any non-Government amendments in both the Commons and the Lords.

    Because PBSA tenancies will now transition into assured tenancies, the timing of implementation is important because it will determine the extent to which the PBSA market will be disrupted by this change of position. It is reasonable to conclude that tenure changes are likely to occur around December 2025 or January 2026. Since most students living in PBSA will have already signed contracts for the 2025–26 academic year, around 402,000 students are expected to be affected, based on the Unipol/NUS Accommodation Cost Survey 2021. Only bed spaces provided directly by universities will fall outside of these transitional arrangements.

    So, what are those arrangements?

    Previous AST tenants, as they become assured tenants, will:

    • Be able to pay rent monthly, and longer payment periods will be unenforceable. It is not yet clear whether rent already paid in advance will have to be refunded.
    • Be able to give two months’ notice and then leave their contracts.
    • Be able to remain in their property because the fixed-term nature of their previous contract has been abolished.

    So how will PBSA providers be able to guarantee room availability for the start of 2026-27?

    For those students living in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), MHCLG say that providers will be able to give notice under the new repossession ground 4a for students. This will allow repossession to take place between June and September, thus ensuring those rooms are available for new student tenants. But here, the new system is not clear because, as Baroness Taylor Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said in the Lords on 22 April 2025:

    The core aim of the Bill is to enhance the security of tenants in the private rented sector, including students. The prior notice requirement in ground 4A is key to this. If tenants are liable to be evicted through no fault of their own simply because of their student status, they must be informed of this reduced security before entering into a tenancy.

    And in the case of PBSA tenants, this notice will not have been given. MHCLG say that legislative changes will be made to allow for such a notice to be given within 28 days of the implementation of the Act but, so far, there is no sign of how that will be achieved, nor was it referenced in the Lords Committee debate.

    But ground 4a only applies to HMOs (roughly defined as a dwelling housing three or more students). PBSA has very few two-bed flats, but it does have 78,000 studio flats that will fall outside of ground 4a. In these cases, students can stay as long as they wish, provided they give two months’ notice of when they want to leave.

    Many of those involved at the coal-face in student accommodation will know that each year there are many requests (particularly from international postgraduates who make up the majority of the market for studios) to extend their contracts from September to just before Christmas (the reasons are various, ranging from over-running dissertation time to wanting to attend the pre-Christmas degree ceremonies). These students have to be moved on in order to make way for incoming new students – now they will be able to stay.  So, in the case of studios, PBSA suppliers will not be able to guarantee room availability to incoming students until the outgoing students have served notice (and they may ‘forget’ to do this anyway).

    If PBSA studio tenants decide to stay on for a further year (as some do as they move from masters to research degrees), then their transitional assured tenancy status will stay with them until they choose to leave.

    This added flexibility may sound great for current students, but it is very bad news for the cost and availability of accommodation for future students, particularly those looking for housing in 2026-27.

    For PBSA providers, this transitional phase is an administrative and legal nightmare; they

    • will have to re-tool their rent collection systems;
    • change their legal documentation;
    • serve specified notice to gain repossession;
    • deal with student tenants who can come and go as they wish; and
    • absorb the possibility of additional voids if students choose to leave their accommodation mid-year

    And there are other implications:

    • Students remaining in their accommodation when they are no longer students will cause many providers to be in breach of their planning permissions, which stipulate student-only occupation;
    • The Act does not allow landlords to discriminate against tenants who may have children, but it is generally accepted that PBSA studios are not a suitable environment to house children (and housing children may place the landlord in breach of any licensing conditions imposed by the local authority).

    Politicians may say ‘So what?’; this is only a transitional phase. But it is important to remember that in private sector housing, the tenant pays for everything, and so these added (and unnecessary) costs are likely to be reflected in future supply uncertainty and higher rent levels.

    Furthermore, this ‘transitional phase’ goes directly against what the Government said was going to happen when Matthew Pennycook, the Minister for Housing and Planning, said to parliament (on 19 December 2024):

    The Bill will exempt Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) from the assured tenancy system if the landlord is signed up to a government approved code of management practice.

    No mention of a disastrous ‘transitional phase’. The shifting goalposts approach of MHCLG has significantly eroded trust among housing providers in the Government’s ability to manage the transition of PBSA to common law tenancies without further problems emerging.

    Does it have to be like this?

    Well no. Firstly, the Government could seek to mitigate the effect of the transitional phase by having a time-limited new repossession ground (say 4b) which would allow repossession for students living in PBSA studios in line with existing Ground 4a. That would, at least, maintain the academic cycle on the availability of accommodation – but perhaps they are in too much of a rush to get the Bill approved to consider this.

    Secondly, the Government could seek to mitigate how many students were affected by these transitional arrangements by using powers the Secretary of State already has (under Section 8 of the Rent Act 1977 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988) to give specified status now to PBSA providers, ahead of the RRA implementation. Using those existing powers the wording in an SI could be:

    The following bodies of persons (whether unincorporated or bodies corporate) are hereby specified as bodies for the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, that is to say –

    any person managing or having control of purpose-built student accommodation if the accommodation let or to be let is registered with a code of practice which has been approved by the appropriate national authority under powers conferred by section 233 of the Housing Act 2004.

    This would mean that as soon as that Statutory Instrument was approved (and that could be done by the end of May 2025), tenancies issued after that would then be common law tenancies and this would drastically reduce the number of tenancies in any transitional stage.

    In the Lords, Baroness Taylor said the reason that Ministers were seeking additional powers to create specified status (in clause 34 of the Bill) instead of using powers they already had was:

    Although there is an existing power in the Housing Act 1988 to exempt PBSA landlords, it would have required government to frequently update secondary legislation with a list of landlords, causing a duplication of work between code administrators and officials and a lag in the link between code membership and exemption status.

    Even if this were true (there is no reason why the list of ‘landlords’ needs to be individually specified), this supposed ‘duplication of work’ over the transitional period would require a great deal less work to be done than that being caused by the Government’s currently disruptive and onerous proposals.

    Why has this ‘transition problem’ appeared now? 

    It may be unkind to conclude that after three year’s discussion with Unipol (who run the relevant Government-approved Code and the BPF) that real work by MHCLG has only just started on their own proposal and there are issues to be resolved. Even following the Minister’s statement that new powers will be granted under Clause 34 of the Housing Act, where are those new powers? There is, as yet, no evidence of any drafting of the new Statutory Instrument/s now that those are apparently needed.

    This ‘dog’s dinner’ rushed approach to the PBSA transition period has still to play out fully, and more detailed work is still required to achieve implementation.

    The Lords Committee Stage

    There was considerable discussion about students on 22 April 2025 in the Lords and it is worth highlighting some of the points made because they provide a clear indication of how the Government is thinking about student housing. As Baroness Taylor said in this debate:

    The Government made a clear manifesto commitment to transform the experience of private renting by levelling the playing field decisively between landlords and tenants…One of the reasons the Government do not want to reintroduce fixed terms or anything like them is that they add complexity into the system. Having a simple, single system of periodic tenancies will make it easier for both parties to better understand their rights and responsibilities.

    All the discussion on this Bill has been polarised into a landlord v tenant framework. This approach does not work well in addressing issues within student housing, where a third educational aspect is also relevant: the availability of good-quality housing at the right time of year, allowing students to undertake their studies in the most productive way.

    Security of tenure (the central pillar of the Bill) has only limited value to a very small minority of students and this has been recognised by what might be called ‘intermediary sector bodies’ such as UUK, CUBO, ASRA and Unipol – none of which easily fall into the Bill’s landlord v tenant framework.

    Lord Willetts, in proposing what would have been a useful amendment, eloquently summed up what has happened to student housing during discussions on the Bill:

     I understand the arguments that the Minister makes about the need for tenants to have security and be able to put down roots in the long term, but so many of her arguments for this legislation do not apply to students who are seeking reliable accommodation for an academic year. The model that she proposes is clearly not in their interests.

    The Government have clearly accepted that there is a need for some special arrangements for student lets…The Government have made some concessions to recognise the student market. There is already one exemption from the legislation, which is for purpose-built student accommodation.

    There is now a second category that has been added, and that is ground 4A, which is essentially for HMOs with three bedrooms or more in the private rented sector.

    But that leaves a third group for whom the Government are not currently providing any exemption. These are students in smaller accommodation, maybe one or two-bedroom properties, for whom none of the special exemptions are going to apply. It is therefore very odd that, in the Government’s model to tackle this problem, you could have three university students who are friends and are in three totally different rental regimes because of the structure of the exemptions which the Government are trying to offer.

    Lord Willetts’ analysis reflects how, initially, the previous Government Bill failed to take much account of the housing needs of students and how pressure from the sector had caused some of those special needs to be recognised and accounted for in a rather grudging and piecemeal fashion.

    In rejecting the amendment (which was supported by Lords from all the major parties), Baroness Taylor, on behalf of the Government said:

    We have thought very carefully about the design of ground 4A. Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area, or families containing students, will be protected.

    The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs are, so, if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year and the tenants leave in the middle of the next one, the landlord is highly likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants…

    What this says indirectly is that the Government accepts that between 25% and 32% (estimates vary) of off-street student housing could be lost by being occupied by non-students, as landlords let properties when they become vacant rather than fitting into the academic cycle. This loss of 138,000 beds (taking the lower estimate) will hit different University towns and cities differently, depending on their housing stock and is likely to take place over the next few years. As an earlier HEPI blog said back in June 2024,

    The concern in student housing was not only about overall supply but the specific reduction of student housing supply because, if students were no different to any other tenant group and could come and go as they pleased, then why would landlords rent to students and incur void periods, when they could rent to other rental groups without having empty rooms in the context of rising overall demand for renting?

    There has been no suggestion of how this lost stock could be replaced – certainly not by newly developed higher cost PBSA bed spaces which has seen net growth of only around 48,000 beds over the last three years and few of these would have been affordable and appropriate for students looking to share with a friend or partner in a lower rental bracket.

    In reality, the Government has not really accepted the sector view that students are a special group and should be catered for separately. The calls for a specialist student tenancy regime have been firmly rejected. As Baroness Taylor made clear:

    It would not be either right or fair for students to have less flexibility than other tenants just because of their educational status.

    As my HEPI blog said back in October 2024:

    It could be that the big gainers from this tenure reform are longer-term family renters and professional renters and that the poorest and most vulnerable in society together with student renters could become ‘collateral damage’. These reforms are well-intentioned by those who campaigned for them, but that does not mean all tenants will be winners from these changes.

    The discussion in the Lords has now confirmed that this collateral damage for students is part of the design within the Bill. Landlords renting non-HMO properties can be reassured about their rent by simply switching their lettings to non-students – tough luck on the students, as their housing supply contracts.

    The revised Unipol/ANUK National Code

    My previous blog on 3 February 2025 outlined possible changes to the private providers’ Code and those have now been worked up into a revised Code. Briefly, these changes are:

    • The continued protection of deposits using a Government-approved deposit protection scheme;
    • Improving the flexibility for students either leaving their institution of study or not gaining a place to study, giving them the right to leave their agreement with a notice period of 4 weeks;
    • That in the event of the death of a tenant, any guarantor agreement would not be proceeded with or enforced;
    • The Code now references the Building Safety Act, the Fire Safety Act and tighter guidance on how to respond to damp and mould; and
    • In handling complaints, timescales have been tightened, and Code Members have been given a clearer pathway to ensure they respond promptly to students complaining.

    Only one significant addition has been made to the revised Code and that follows the Education Minister, Janet Daly MP clarifying the positon of students withdrawing for medical reasons from their studies and the proposed four week notice period has been extended to cover ‘if the occupant has been absent from their course for more than 60 days due to illness and has agreed with their higher education (HE) provider to suspend their studies.‘

    These proposals are subject to both a sector and public consultation period which is taking place across 9th April – 22nd May 2025. Details can be found online here and those interested are encouraged to respond.

    The changes to the Code are designed to protect and improve students’ rights in renting PBSA but, because of the uncertainty caused by the ‘transitional arrangements’ for PBSA providers, they are going into a sector that is now increasingly hostile to the Government’s approach to them and the additional administrative and legal burdens connected with assured tenancy status that have suddenly appeared. It could well be that some responses to these Code changes will be affected by a ‘feel-bad’ factor and may be opposed by some Members.

    Just two observations on the consultation. Firstly, the Code has been drafted so that the additional flexibility given to tenants to give notice on their agreement is restricted to common law tenancies, so these will not apply to transitional assured tenancies (so no ‘double-whammy’) and secondly, it is important for the PBSA sector to look beyond the immediate transitional mess and concentrate on the longer term purpose of the Code which has been a force for good, not just for student housing rights and standards, but for the sector itself, giving the student market a set of recognised value-based rules that is rarely seen in private sector renting. This demonstrates real recognition from the Code’s Members (since the Code’s inception in 2004) that students and the role of housing in education are special and need a bespoke regulatory framework.

    Conclusion

    As reflected throughout HEPI’s work, this blog approaches the issue of student housing as an educational issue and seeks to provide evidence-based observations on the student housing sector. It also seeks to offer some practical suggestions so that the possible cost and chaos in the transitional phase of the Act can be mitigated, particularly for PBSA providers.

    There are still discussions to be held with MHCLG and practical issues to be resolved on how future Statutory Instruments and specified status is to be achieved. So far, although the Government say they are in ‘listening mode’ they seem not to have heard terribly well and the way in which students have been ‘accommodated’ within the Bill has been both secretive and unpredictable. It would be good if a more open relationship on future proposals could be established.

    Finally, this is the first mention of the Department for Education in this blog because they appear to have had no discernible influence or input into a Bill that will both disrupt the student housing market and see some significant reduction in supply. Going back to 24 October, Education Minister Janet Daby MP stressed that the Department for Education was:

    ‘Working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to promote the importance of a strategic approach to meeting student housing needs to providers and local authorities.

    Going forward, it would be good to see some, or any, evidence of that.

    Source link

  • It’s not too late to fix the Renters’ Rights Bill

    It’s not too late to fix the Renters’ Rights Bill

    • By Calum MacInnes, Chairman of the Student Accredited Private Rental Sector (SAPRS).

    Today, the Renters’ Rights Bill will undergo its Second Reading in the House of Lords. This far-reaching Bill is long overdue. Once it becomes law, it will deliver a much-needed overhaul of private rented sector regulation in England.

    With the Bill, the Labour Government has a huge opportunity to deliver a rental market that is fairer and improves housing quality for the millions of renters in the UK.

    However, at present, the Government is blind to the woes of one particular group of renters: students.

    Students risk being hit by a ‘double whammy’ of increased tuition fees and the financial impact the Renters’ Rights Bill will have, shortening student housing supply even further and making it more expensive.

    The Bill’s passage through the Lords presents a vital opportunity to ensure the Bill delivers an overhaul of the private rented sector. As one of the most vulnerable groups of renters particularly affected by high costs of living, the legislation must consider students and the unique nature of the student private rented sector. The concerns about student welfare in the rental market appear to resonate with the wider public: New research commissioned by SAPRS (Student Accredited Private Rental Sector), a coalition of second- and third-year student accommodation providers across Britain, has found that a majority (66%) of the British public believe that the Government does not care about students.

    They are an important group of voters, in particular for the Labour Party, and the Government risks alienating them. Students will remember, and Keir Starmer might receive payback at the next General Election’s polling station.

    HEPI and higher education organisations like Universities UK have previously rightly warned the legislation threatens the availability, affordability, and quality of student housing as the sector is already at crisis point.

    As part of the Bill, the Government plans to end fixed-term tenancy agreements (FTTAs) ignoring the special case that is student housing. Student housing relies on cyclical FTTAs that have successfully balanced student and landlord needs by aligning with university term times and ensuring landlords have security of tenure each year. By dismantling this model, the Bill risks reducing housing availability, creating uncertainty for students and disrupting the cyclical rental market.

    There is an easy solution, and it is not too late for the Government to listen to the sector and students and to fix the Bill. On the issue of fixed-term tenancies, the Bill must create parity between the student private rental and the purpose-built sector – anything else risks exacerbating the existing crisis.

    Our proposed SAPRS code of conduct would establish standards of conduct and practice for the management of the student private rental distinct from the purpose-built sector, aimed at creating a framework of standards to facilitate effective and fair treatment of students. 

    An exemption along these lines is already included in the Bill for the purpose-built sector; there is no clear reason why the same exemption should not apply to private rentals, and the Government has so far refused to spell out a convincing reason.

    If the Bill is not changed, the Government will miss a vital opportunity to deliver a better deal for students – and risk punishing an important part of its electorate.

    Source link

  • Renters’ Rights Bill Update – into the Lords

    Renters’ Rights Bill Update – into the Lords

    By Martin Blakey, the former Chief Executive of the Leeds-based student housing charity Unipol. Read Martin’s previous comments on the Renters’ Rights Bill from November 2024, October 2024 and June 2024. A proposed amendment to the Bill is attached at the bottom.

    Elsewhere on the site, David Lam explores, from the perspective of a widening participation student, the true value of going to university – not just in terms of career prospects, but in the friendships, experiences, and personal growth it fosters. You can read the blog here.

    Background

    The Renters Rights Bill passed its Report stage in the Commons on 14 January 2025. The first reading has now taken place in the House of Lords, with the second reading listed to take place on Tuesday 4th February. The stated aim of the Government is that the Bill should become law and take effect over the summer of 2025 and, at present, the Bill is on track to achieve that aim.

    This is a good moment, therefore, for an update on recent developments together with a few thoughts about how the Bill has developed and been shaped.

    This blog follows on from the earlier detailed HEPI blog on 9 October 2024 Renters’ Rights Bill and Student Accommodation: The Final Stretch? https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/10/09/renters-rights-act-and-student-accommodation-the-final-stretch/ and does not seek to cover that ground again.

    As a reminder, most of the Renters’ Rights Bill will not apply to purpose build student accommodation (PBSA) where the provider is a member of the Government approved Code; PBSA providers will let their rooms on common law tenancies rather than the assured tenancies that are covered by this Bill.

    Latest Developments

    During the Report stage of the Bill in the Commons, a relatively small number of Government amendments were agreed upon (no non-Government amendments were agreed) and three have particular relevance to students in off-street housing on assured tenancies:

    a) a new clause 14 limits the amount of rent that a landlord can require to a maximum of one month. It does so by amending Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 so that any payment of rent made before a tenancy agreement is signed will be a prohibited payment. A new clause 13 amends the Housing Act 1988 to ensure that tenants continue to be protected from unreasonable requests for rent to be paid early once a tenancy has commenced. Landlords will no longer be able to include any terms in the tenancy agreement that have the effect of requiring rent to be paid prior to the rent due date.

    The effect of this is that tenants can be certain that the financial outlay to secure a tenancy will not exceed the cost of a tenancy deposit and the first month’s rent.

    b) A restriction has been added to repossession ground 4A (that allows landlords to recover possession of an HMO that is let to full-time students) and landlords will not be able to use the ground if the tenancy was agreed more than six months in advance of the date on which the tenant has a right to occupy the dwelling.

    c) A new Clause 21 inserts sections into the Housing Act 1988 to limit a guarantor’s liability for rent following the death of a tenant. Terms of guarantee agreements that purport to hold a guarantor liable for rent in these circumstances will be unenforceable. The details are complex but, generally, this liability is removed only where a guarantor is a ‘family member’.

    So, what impact will these changes have on student tenants? As is common in housing, there is a balance between the positives and negatives that these changes will bring.

    a) Restricting rent in advance

    Generally, this means that students will pay rent monthly to their landlord, in advance. This will have the advantage that students who previously found renting difficult because they did not have sufficient ‘up-front’ money will find renting easier. Notably, rental payments will no longer bear any relationship to when students receive their loan payments or University terms.

    The downside to this change is that students, unlike most tenants in the private rented sector, rarely have a credit history and landlords sometimes see students posing a higher risk of non-payment. This is particularly the case if a student is from overseas, where debt recovery post-tenancy can be difficult, if not impossible. Up-front rent payment has, in the past, gone someway to allaying fears of non-payment.

    Many landlords are likely to react to this perception of increased risk by increasing their use of guarantors (where a third party guarantees to pay the rent in the event of tenant default).

    One of the key MPs seeking to restrict up-front rent payments (Alex Sobel MP for Leeds Central and Headingley, which has a large student population) realised this and also made a strong case for limiting the use of guarantors but this was rejected by the Minister who said

    I appreciate fully that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for some prospective tenants, and I understand the reasoning behind his amendment. However, I am also mindful that in some instances the use of guarantors can provide good landlords with the assurance necessary to let their properties to tenants who may otherwise find it difficult to access private rented accommodation… Having considered this issue in great detail, I ultimately concluded that limiting guarantors could inadvertently make life more difficult for certain types of renter.

    Hard data on the use of guarantors is hard to come by, but their use will likely increase. This might cause problems for those with no easy access to guarantors, particularly those who have no family members or international students who have no UK-based contacts.

    Another likelihood is that landlords start increasing the size of deposits to guard against the non-payment of rent. Generally, the size of deposits that students pay has been low compared to other private renters. This is probably because, at the time of renting, students are low on cash and many have already paid one deposit (for where they are currently living). Being asked to pay a larger deposit for next year’s accommodation acts as a disincentive to rent and therefore landlords have kept student deposit levels low.

    Many non-student private renters are asked to pay a deposit that is the maximum allowed by the Tenant Fees Act which is capped at 5 weeks rent. Looking at the most detailed national data available in the last 2021 Unipol/NUS Accommodation cost survey, the average deposit students paid was £259 and the average weekly rent (at that time, excluding London) was £170. So in theory, student deposits could be increased to around £850. It is unlikely student deposits will rise to their maximum level, but many forecast an increase from the commonly charged £250 to £500 over the next couple of years.

    On balance, the positives and the negatives probably balance each other out. Some students will benefit, others will not. Although placing limits on guarantors may have been seen as a step to far by the Government, had up-front rent payments been restricted and the use of guarantors had also been restricted, this would have been a significant win for student renters.

    b) Trying to stop early renting

    This new clause aims to reduce early renting. Landlords will no longer be allowed to take repossession of their property under the new ground for possession (4a) that stops students from staying outside of the academic cycle if the tenancy was agreed more than six months in advance of the date on which the tenant has a right to occupy the dwelling.

    The Housing Minister, in agreeing this change, said that this would:

    Act as a strong disincentive against landlords who wish to use it to pressure students into early sign-ups, as many do now.

    Many in the student housing world have long been dismayed at how the student renting season has been getting earlier and earlier. Many first-year students now rent properties for their second year of study within their first 6 weeks of arriving as freshers. Anything that stops this early letting is a good thing and is to be welcomed. This change is likely to have no negative effect on the overall level of supply and demand in the student market; it simply gives students a longer time to think and will enhance their decision-making.

    But this is an odd way of going about trying to stop this early letting cycle. Indeed, the Minister went on to say:

    I want to be clear that the amendment will not lead to an outright ban on contracts being agreed more than six months in advance.

    This is why an earlier HEPI blog said:

    It is clearly daft that many students are looking for next year’s housing in November of the preceding year. There should be a ‘cooling off period’ that would allow students to withdraw unilaterally from any contract made up to four months before it begins.

    So, two points here. Firstly, on timing, many student tenancies begin over the summer period (from 1July onwards), so renting could still take place in early January and ground 4a could still be used. A four month limit would have meant many students renting in March, which would have been a much better outcome.

    Secondly, this is an odd way of going about trying to tackle early-renting. A legal expert in this field makes the point:

    I don’t like the ‘removal of privileges’ approach to achieving policy objectives. It would be clearer all round if they either ‘banned’ signing up more than 6 months in advance, or gave people cancellation rights. That way, landlords and tenants have more chance of understanding what they are doing. With this approach, I can see students signing up early as always, then realising that Ground 4A can’t be used and staying put. The people who will lose out are the intending tenants of the following year, who are unlikely to have made any enquiry before booking as to whether or not the landlord will be able to give possession.

    This change, if it has the effect of slowing down early-renting, is to be welcomed but it is a bit half-hearted and may have less impact than hoped for.

    c) Limiting a guarantor’s liability for rent following the death of a tenant

    This change followed a number of examples given by MPs of landlords heartlessly chasing guarantors for payment following the death of a tenant. The new clause aiming to stop this is, however, limited to family members. As the Minister put it:

    I should make it clear that if in a joint tenancy the guarantor is not a family member, their liability for rent will be maintained….Our new clause strikes the right balance: guarantors will be protected from being held liable for rent when they are grieving; landlords will be able to reclaim costs owed prior to a tenant’s death; and guarantor’s liability for other costs incurred under the tenancy will not be affected.

    This approach gives rise to several pages of detail in the Bill, not least because it has to define ‘family member’ and then goes into considerable detail about what happens when the guarantee affects joint tenants (as many student renters are). These additional clauses bear all the hallmarks of a rushed and ill-thought-through change. The definition of ‘family member’ for guarantor purposes, for example, is different from another definition in the same Bill of ‘family member’ relating to tenancy succession.

    Again, all a bit half-hearted and unnecessarily complex. What was wrong with saying, once a tenant dies, their guarantor arrangement dies with them? For students, this change will have little effect unless, at the point the tenant dies, a guarantor is a family member and those within joint tenancy arrangements have restricted the scope of their guarantor payment to a fixed sum of rent (otherwise unpaid rent is a joint liability to be borne by other tenants or their guarantors).

    Students and the Report Stage

    Students were mentioned frequently in the debate, often by MPs with significant numbers of students living in their constituency. Generally, they confined their comments to amendments and had, no doubt, been told that this was not the place for revisiting matters that had already been considered during the second reading stage.

    Several MPs raised the issue of affordability in rented housing, both for students and other renters and there was frequent referencing of whether rent controls should be used, or ‘rent stabilisation’ that some MPs suggested should ensure that rents should rise by no more than annual earnings or CPI. The Minister, Matthew Pennycook, went out of his way in his summing up speech to reject the possibility of rent controls:

    The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), spoke in support of their respective amendments to introduce forms of rent control.

    However, as we debated extensively in Committee, the Government sincerely believe that the introduction of rent controls in the private rented sector could harm tenants as well as landlords by reducing supply and discouraging investment. While I fully appreciate that there is a broad spectrum of regulation that falls under the title of rent control, there is, as we debated at length in Committee, sufficient international evidence from countries such as Sweden and Germany, cities such as San Francisco and Ontario, and the Scottish experience since 2017, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent control.

    An amendment to extend ground 4a to all properties occupied by students failed. Readers will recall that ground 4a allows a landlord, with prior notification to tenants, to repossess a property in order that it can be let to future groups of students. After a considerable amount of lobbying by both educational sector bodies and landlords, the Government responded that it:

    …recognises that the student market is cyclical – and that removing section 21 will mean landlords cannot guarantee possession each year for a new set of tenants.

    Having engaged across the sector, we understand the cyclical model is critical for landlords’ business models and ensures a timely and robust supply of student accommodation. We will therefore introduce a ground for possession that will facilitate the yearly cycle of short-term student tenancies. This will enable new students to sign up to a property in advance, safe in the knowledge they will have somewhere to live the next year.

    But this right to repossess only applies to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and it does not apply to one- and two-bedroomed properties.

    The suspicion is that the Government assumed non-HMO properties housed only a small number of students and any such reduction in supply would be fairly marginal. This is a significant miscalculation.

    Data provided by the Accommodation for Students website (the largest search engine for student off-street properties) showed that 31% of the off-street properties on their website were not HMOs and were listed as showing 1 or 2 beds for rent. There were significant regional variations behind this average, which reflected the different housing stock in different areas. In Newcastle upon Tyne, 54% of student-advertised properties were non-HMOs, in Preston this was 50% and in Nottingham 40%.

    These figures show that these smaller properties form a significant minority of the supply and, in many student cities, this kind of smaller property is a key part of the student accommodation supply. These areas, with many non-HMO student properties, are still vulnerable to stock moving into the non-student lettings market.

    Purpose Build Student Accommodation

    Work is now taking place by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to establish the mechanism whereby PBSA providers will become ‘specified’ under the 1988 Housing Act, taking them outside the remit of much of the Renters Rights Act. There was some speculation about whether the new Decent Homes Standard (DHS) would apply to PBSA, but that has now been clarified. In response to a parliamentary question on 19 December 2024, the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook said

    The Bill will exempt Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) from the assured tenancy system if the landlord is signed up to a government approved code of management practice. Such accommodation will therefore not be subject to the DHS, but landlords will need to meet rigorous standards set by the codes which are tailored to the needs of PBSA….Failure to meet these standards will result in membership being terminated, meaning the property will then be subject to the DHS.

    The Government-approved Code for the private sector is currently being reviewed by its operator Unipol and, as was reported earlier, is likely to include provisions to ensure:

    • the continued protection of deposits using a Government-approved deposit protection scheme and using that adjudication process to resolve any disputes;
    • improved flexibility for students either leaving their institution of study or not gaining a place to study, giving them a right to leave their agreement having given a period of notice. An initial draft of the Code gives the notice period as 8 weeks, but there is a view that this could be shortened to 4 weeks without adversely affecting suppliers;
    • that in the event of the death of a tenant, any guarantor agreement will not be proceeded with or enforced;
    • that the Code now references the Building Safety Act, the Fire Safety Act and tighter guidance on how to respond to damp and mould; and
    • that in handling complaints, timescales have been tightened and Code Members have been given a clearer pathway to ensure they respond promptly to students complaining.

    These inclusions in the Code are designed to protect and improve students’ rights in renting PBSA. These proposed changes are subject to both a sector and public consultation period (likely to take place across March and April 2025).

    Will anything change in the Lords?

    The suspicion is that there will be few major changes made but, for students, two amendments suggest themselves from what has been reported earlier:

    The first is that, in order to maintain properties in the student sector, ground 4a should apply to all properties occupied by students, not just HMOs.

    The second would be to shorten the time span of 6 months to 4 months, which would allow landlords to recover possession if the house is let to full-time students. This would mean, if the Government’s view that this will discourage early renting is correct, that house-hunting would take place in March, just before Easter.

    Conclusion

    The Renters Rights Act seeks to rebalance the rights between tenants and landlords and the changes it brings about will have different effects on different sub-sectors of the rental market.

    In many areas within the Bill, policymakers wanted all renters to have the same rights with a view to improving the security of tenure for the vast majority of rented tenants and ending no fault evictions. But treating students differently does not imply that they are ‘second-class citizens’; instead, it recognises the important links between good housing supply, on the one hand, and standards and academic achievement on the other. It remains important that student housing does not suffer from collateral damage as additional protections are added to the rest of the private rented sector for longer-term renters.

    Many have speculated on what shifts in the availability of student off-street properties will take place, but it is important to stress that no one actually knows what will happen. The first real indications will be seen towards the end of this year, as current first-year undergraduates start looking for their housing for 2026-2027.

    Source link