Build to Rent Code – The softest regulatory imperalism

Rented property has become an asset class, financialised and globalised, even if locally set.  The sector (whether housing association or private) is becoming dominated by large scale commercial entities, like Blackstone etc (do read Brett Christophers’ excellent Our Lives in their Portfolios).  One aspect of the changing face of renting, and the shift from it being a sideline activity perhaps as part of a pension or inheritance or whatever, is “Build to Rent”.  This is a large scale operation which has been encouraged by the Westminster government and my sense is more generally.  There is an important literature on Build to Rent (see, for example, this piece by Megan Nethercote).  It shares quite a lot of similarity with the development of student housing (as discussed in earlier blogs).  The products are newbuild properties specifically designed for renting.  A Westminster government guide for local authorities, published in 2015, described it as this:

“Build to Rent housing schemes are purpose built large-scale private rented sector developments of flats and/or houses owned by institutional investors, property companies, housing associations and property management organisations over the long-term.”

As that guide says, it is not a new phenomenon, but I would suggest that its recasting using this label ties in to its development as an asset class and a Westminster government baby project, particularly as we are all seeking to professionalise the supply of rented property.  A casual search on the Wales.gov website brings no entries for “build to rent”.

The array of providers of this kind of housing demonstrate that it is big – massive – business.  My interest was further piqued by the Build to Rent Alliance Code of Practice for Build to Rent.  Its subtitle is “Defining the Standards in Build to Rent”.  This type of document is a kind of soft regulation (probably the softest) which sectors seek to govern their output – see, for example, the similar (and government franked) code on student housing.  Anyway the BTR Code was produced with much fanfare (by the BTR community at least) and does love itself an inordinate amount.

My point here, though, is not to criticise this Code or any other – I am quite interested in this kind of soft law as a research site, but that’s another story – or, criticise Build to Rent, or those which provide it (but reserve the right to do so).  I want to address something about the kind of regulatory imperialism that assumes regulatory convergence across Britain, and ignores devolution and, indeed, difference.  The Code proclaims (and has been proclaimed) as covering England and Wales.  But, it is completely ignorant of how Wales diverges from England.  It sets out the legislation and regulations, but does so only through a Westminster lens.  It is really quite shocking in that sense, especially as the Chair of this alliance, Clive Betts (for whom I have always had a lot of time, as he was the Westminster select committee chair on housing for ages and talked sense), really should have known better.  The Code is said to have been developed like this:

“The Code for England and Wales, an industry first, follows nearly four-years of development with key industry participants, relevant stakeholders and residents, to produce a comprehensive framework for industry compliance.”

And

“Focus groups of individuals currently renting and all with Private Rented Sector experience – (86%) within Build to Rent developments and (14%) in social housing – were asked their views on the BTRA Code of Practice …”

I don’t want to come across as being a bit chippy or anything like that, but the least they could have done is to get the law right.  It doesn’t bode well for a BTR landlord signatory to this code to comply with the Renters Rights Act 2025 or the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 if building their accommodation in Wales.  The Code is meaningless in Wales (see the list of legislation on p 10 and Appendix 1).   It is really quite frustrating.

One must, then, ask what was the thought process behind extending the code to Wales; a question which, I suspect, would yield quite revealing answers.