Thinking about the private rented sector – redux

The Senedd’s Local Government and Housing Committee report on the private rented sector (about which I blogged on 6th December) was debated in plenary session.  It provides an interesting moment of reflection on the question of the purpose of the PRS, but also certain more technical issues, and two big issues.

One big issue to the Committee, which is reflected in the Plenary session discussion, is about “discrimination” (I’m using inverted commas because this isn’t unlawful as such) against potential tenants who have pets, particularly dogs.  There is a rapid evidence review, which has just been published on this issue by Lindsay McCarthy and Tom Simcock in the most recent issue of the International Journal of Housing Policy (as always, if you would like a copy, and don’t have access, then do get in touch).  Now, I do appreciate that this is an issue for some, perhaps many, but I can’t help thinking that there are bigger issues with the PRS, and I wonder whether so much time and space is spent on this issue in the absence of being able to do more in the sector.  For example, if there was greater supply, I wonder whether this would be an issue at all.  Given the framing of the pet provisions in the Renters Rights Bill in England, there are significant complexities here, and ultimately those provisions may not change practice anyway as they may be quite simple to avoid.

The other big issue seems to be about the no fault ground for eviction.  The Committee adopted a mid-range position here, suggesting (following Generation Rent) that tenants should be allowed to retain the last two months rent of their tenancy.  The Welsh Government have rejected this recommendation, which appears to have been controversial in any event.  I am not a supporter of this recommendation.  You either have a notice-based ground of possession or not; if you do, and occupiers are able to retain the last two months of the rent, they are given a freebie at the expense of the landlord; and, there seem to me to be at least Article 1 of the First Protocol issues here, in any event.  I appreciate that the headline in the Renters Rights Bill is that England are getting rid of the no fault notice-based possession, but there are all sorts of other riders and possibilities in the Bill, and I would encourage AMs’ to look beyond the headline.  Here, I thought the Committee Chair’s response was fair and right: “in a way, it depends on how much faith you have in human nature in terms of the landlords”.

The issue that kind of rears its head but underlies much of the debate is about the purpose of the PRS.  There was an interesting intervention by Sam Rowlands in the Plenary debate where he misconstrued something said by Carolyn Thomas.  The issue here is whether the PRS is a stopgap between tenures.  Others raised the issue about the use of the PRS as a sector in which support is provided to occupiers, funded through housing support grant.  We are in a position now where there is an absence of social housing, despite attempts to grow it (which, in any event, have a lengthy lead in time), and ownership is beyond most homeseekers.  This is not like the 1970s when there was debate about whether the PRS was needed at all.  The PRS now fulfils a range of different roles, including long term provision for households (but without the long term security of social housing).

Like most debates, I’m not sure how much added value there was in the Plenary debate.  Rent controls were ruled out by the Cabinet Secretary again, on the basis that “They could lead to a reduction in the supply of rental properties, an increased risk of homelessness and higher rents for newly let properties. It’s very possible that rent controls would have a detrimental impact on the very people that such measures should be protecting”.

In my view, Wales has been leading the UK in terms of the way in which it has thought about the private rented sector, and rented housing tenure more generally.  The provisions of the 2014 and 2016 Acts have been genuinely path-breaking.  Subject to the discussion about the English Bill’s application in Wales (see blog, 13th December 2024), Welsh legislation has changed the dynamic away from complex legal interpretations towards a recognition of the important of managing and governing the relationship between provider and occupier.  However, the issues of supply and purpose effectively underpin all debates.