Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 May 2025. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Renters’ Rights Bill.


Renters’ Rights Bill

My Lords, first, I am really disappointed because a number of noble Lords who have been involved in all these debates over the past four days in Committee are unable to be in their seats because of the later time of day. That will not help us scrutinise this Bill as we should.

I thank all those who have contributed on Amendments 148, 197, 200 and 242, which are now in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Noble Lords are absolutely right to highlight the issue of consistency —an issue we on these Benches intended to raise today —but my noble friend Lord Hunt also introduced an important new concern: the threshold of proof required by local authorities before a financial penalty can be imposed. On matters such as these, it is vital that we draw on the expertise of the legal profession to improve the Bill’s drafting, and I hope the Minister will seek the wise counsel of noble Lords such as my noble friend as these matters are taken back to the department.

As noble Lords have rightly pointed out, the financial penalties under consideration are significant. Many landlords are small-scale or so-called accidental landlords, who may not be in a position to absorb such fines. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Committee seeks clarity on the methodology, consultation process and factors, such as the ability to pay, used in determining these thresholds.

Given the scale of these penalties, the standard of evidence and the threshold for their imposition must be carefully examined, and my noble friend set out with clarity the issues that may arise without a sufficient burden of proof, and the legal argument underpinning these amendments. There is legitimate concern about penalties being applied without adequate legal scrutiny, potentially undermining due process. We therefore welcome these amendments and believe my noble friend Lord Hunt has made a compelling case. When large fines are at stake, a high level of rigour and certainty must be reflected in the legal standard applied. What is more, any concerns expressed on these matters should not be dismissed too readily and should be carefully considered, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
845 c1974 
Session
2024-26
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Death Assured tenancies Letting agents Fees and charges Families Liability Undocumented migrants Fines Exemptions Farms Discrimination Estate agents Landlords Evictions Holiday accommodation Guarantees Local government Qualifications Multiple occupation Ombudsman Pets Private rented housing Standards Rural areas Regulation Vetting Repairs and maintenance Tenants Tenants' rights Rents Students Repossession orders Security of tenure Right to acquire scheme Change of use
Legislation
Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk