RRB - House of Lords amendments, Don’t get too excited

The Renters' Rights Bill, is causing quite the storm in the Private rented sector, having recently advanced to the House of Lords after clearing the House of Commons, this progression marks a critical phase where the Lords will meticulously examine the bill, proposing amendments to address perceived gaps and enhance tenant safeguards.

Notable amendments proposed by the House of Lords are whipping up a frenzy throughout the industry, some of these proposal are:

·       Delay abolition of S21 until the courts are ready

·       Allow smaller landlords to retain the use of S21

·       Fixed term tenancies to be retained

·       All possession grounds to be discretionary

·       Tenants restricted from giving notice until the first 4 months have passed

Many of these amendments will bring a welcomed relief to those who feared the Bill in its currently draft would have a detrimental effect on their  business.

However, the journey from proposed amendments to enacted law is fraught with challenges.

The Parliamentary legislative process is intricate and multifaceted. After a bill passes through the House of Commons, it moves to the House of Lords, where it undergoes several readings and detailed scrutiny. During this stage, the Lords can suggest amendments, but their power is ultimately advisory.

The House of Commons holds the authority to accept or reject these amendments.

Given the current political landscape, the government maintains a robust two-thirds majority in the House of Commons. This majority empowers the ruling party to dismiss amendments from the House of Lords that do not align with its legislative agenda.

Historically, while the Lords serve as a revising chamber, offering expertise and suggesting modifications, the elected Commons has the final say, often overriding the Lords' recommendations when there is a significant majority.

In the context of the Renters' Rights Bill, despite the well-intentioned, common sense led and potentially transformative amendments proposed by the House of Lords, it is anticipated that many, if not all, will face rejection in the Commons.

The government's legislative strategy and priorities are likely to prevail, sidelining the Lords' contributions.

While the proposed amendments may appear as a beacon of hope for landlord seeking enhanced rights and protections, it is prudent to temper expectations.

The legislative process, dominated by the government's substantial majority, suggests that the final version of the Renters' Rights Bill may closely mirror its original form as passed by the Commons, with minimal incorporation of the Lords' suggestions.

In summary, while the House of Lords plays a crucial role in scrutinising legislation and advocating for improvements, the prevailing political dynamics and established parliamentary procedures indicate that the Renters' Rights Bill is unlikely to undergo significant changes before becoming law.

Landlords and letting agents should remain engaged but realistic about the prospects of the proposed amendments being adopted.

The Unemployable Woman: 48, Experienced, and Too Capable for the Corporate World

There comes a point in a woman’s career where her experience, knowledge, and ability should be her greatest strengths. 

At 48, after years—if not decades—of refining my skills, navigating challenges, and solving complex problems, I should be at the peak of my professional value. 

Yet, paradoxically, many women in my position find themselves unemployable. 

Not because they lack ability, but because they have too much of it.

My most recent rejections sound like this

“We feel your knowledge and experience outweigh the level of the role”

“We would love to offer you the job but the £25k salary is non-negotiable”

“Thank you for your interest in the vacancy, but at this stage we are looking for someone who can build their career with the company”

And my personal favourite from a market leader in the estate and lettings world

“That was a great interview, you have some fantastic ideas and a vision that really aligns with what we are trying to achieve. Unfortunatly we feel that you just are correct enough”

What the f&ck does that even mean? Not corporate enough??? 

The corporate world, despite its claims of valuing talent, innovation, and problem-solving, often operates on an entirely different set of unwritten rules. 

Employers don’t necessarily want true problem solvers. They want employees who will work around the problem, not challenge its existence. 

They want compliance, not directness. 

They want fit, not friction. And a 48year old woman, comfortable in her own skin, confident in her expertise, and unwilling to tolerate inefficiency, is anything but a frictionless hire.

The Fear of the Competent Woman

Having spoken to other women in similar positions it would seem that once we reach this stage in our careers we are often seen as a “risk” rather than an asset. 

We bring decades of knowledge and the ability to make things better, but instead of being embraced, we are perceived as intimidating. 

Our self-assurance, honed through years of hard work, can unsettle interviewers who are more accustomed to hiring younger, more malleable candidates—those who will accept without question, who will adapt rather than challenge.

It’s no secret that confidence in women is often mistaken for arrogance, while in men, it’s seen as leadership potential. The double standard is alive and well in hiring decisions. 

When an experienced woman walks into an interview, she isn’t just competing against other candidates; she’s battling against societal expectations of how women should behave in professional settings—accommodating, agreeable, and deferential. 

As a woman who speaks her mind, who points out inefficiencies, who proposes real solutions rather than just working around issues, I disrupt the comfortable status quo.

The Problem with “Culture Fit”

Many hiring managers lean heavily on the concept of “culture fit.” While this can be beneficial in ensuring a cohesive work environment, it is often a thinly veiled excuse for rejecting candidates who don’t conform to the existing corporate mould. 

As a confident, experienced woman who knows her worth I don’t fit neatly into a team that has been trained to accept things as they are.

Instead of hiring someone who could elevate the company, businesses often choose the easier path: candidates who will integrate seamlessly without disrupting existing dynamics. The irony is that companies claim to value innovation and efficiency, yet shy away from hiring the very people who could bring those qualities in abundance.

The Cost of Overlooking Experience

By rejecting experienced women for being too knowledgeable, too confident, and too capable, businesses are actively undermining their own potential for growth. 

There is immense value in hiring people who can identify inefficiencies and propose real solutions. 

I have a wealth of experience that doesn't just bring skills, I bring foresight, resilience, and a level of competence that can only be gained through time.

Instead of viewing me as a threat, businesses should recognise I am an asset. I am the mentor the younger workforce needs, the problem solvers who can streamline operations, and the leaders who can bring fresh perspectives without being hindered by corporate politics.

The corporate world needs to rethink its approach to hiring. The refusal to embrace strong, experienced women is not just a loss for the individuals affected but a loss for businesses as a whole. Companies that truly value growth and success should welcome these women with open arms, not shy away from them in discomfort.

It’s time for businesses to recognise that experience isn’t a liability—it’s an asset. And that women who have spent their careers honing their skills shouldn’t have to make themselves smaller to fit into a corporate world that fears their competence.

Cash for Keys: The New Word on the Street

 More and more landlords are opting to reach agreements with their tenants to vacate a property in exchange for a financial incentive rather than endure the stress and cost of formal court action.

Commonly referred to as ‘Cash for Keys,’ this approach is gaining momentum, especially ahead of the Renters Rights Bill. But is it really the easy solution it appears to be? Let’s explore the pros and cons and, crucially, how to do it correctly.

What is Cash for Keys?

Cash for Keys is not a new concept. It has long been used by landlords, agents, and mediators to encourage tenants to vacate a property without the need for court proceedings. However, the newly coined phrase itself is gaining traction across social media, sparking discussions about its legitimacy and effectiveness.

The process is straightforward:

1. The landlord and tenant agree on a move-out date.
2. The tenant signs a Deed of Surrender, formally ending the tenancy.
3. The landlord pays the agreed incentive once possession is returned.

This arrangement avoids the lengthy, costly and stressful legal process associated with possession claims, allowing both parties to move on with minimal stress.

But is it really that simple? Let’s look at where things can go wrong.

Potential Pitfalls of Cash for Keys

1. Paying the Incentive Too Soon

One of the biggest mistakes a landlord can make is paying the tenant before they have vacated. The payment should always be made only when the tenant hands over the keys. With modern banking apps, an instant transfer can be completed on the doorstep once possession is confirmed.

2. Tenant Doesn’t Move Out

While rare, there are instances where tenants accept the payment but doesn’t leave. This is why having a signed Deed of Surrender is crucial.

Under Section 18 of the Distress for Rent Act 1737, once a tenancy has legally ended, a tenant who remains in occupation is liable to pay double rent.

However, landlords must communicate this early and ideally include it in the Deed of Surrender to deter non-compliance.

 

3. Claims of Harassment or Illegal Eviction

Some landlords have reported that solicitors have warned them Cash for Keys could constitute harassment or illegal eviction. However, this is misinformation. As long as the agreement is mutual and free from coercion or threats, it is entirely legal. Harassment and illegal eviction claims arise when a landlord forces a tenant out unlawfully, such as by changing the locks or cutting off utilities. A properly executed Cash for Keys agreement is a voluntary surrender, not an eviction.

4. Councils Advising Tenants Against It

Another common issue is local councils advising tenants not to accept a Cash for Keys offer, claiming they will be deemed intentionally homeless and ineligible for housing assistance.

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of homelessness law. A tenant who agrees to end a tenancy because it is no longer affordable or suitable is not intentionally homeless. Spending rent on non-essentials, knowing eviction will follow, is intentional homelessness—but accepting a fair financial settlement to leave is not.

Why Cash for Keys is More Relevant Than Ever

With the abolition of Section 21 on the horizon, courts are expected to become overwhelmed with possession claims.

At the same time, councils will struggle to cope with an increase in homelessness applications.

For landlords and tenants alike, Cash for Keys presents a practical alternative:

• For landlords, it avoids legal fees, court delays, and the uncertainty of enforcement.
• For tenants, it provides financial support for relocation without the stress of an eviction process.

While Cash for Keys is not without its risks, it remains a viable, legal, and often mutually beneficial solution when handled correctly.

Ensuring a signed Deed of Surrender, withholding payment until possession is returned, and clear communication are key to making it work.

As the rental landscape shifts, expect to hear more about Cash for Keys—because for many, it may soon be the most practical way forward.

Protecting a Tenants Deposit: A Legal Obligation for Landlords

I regularly see a concerning number of landlords still question whether a tenants deposit must be protected. 

The answer is unequivocally yes.

Since 2007, it has been a legal requirement to protect a tenants deposit in one of three government-approved schemes:

Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS)

 Deposit Protection Service (DPS)

 MyDeposits

Deposit Protection Rules and Deadlines

A landlord must protect a tenants deposit within 30 days of receiving it, not from the tenancy start date. Additionally, prescribed information (PI) must be issued within the same 30-day timeframe. PI informs the tenant where their deposit is held and how it will be managed.

Importantly, PI cannot be issued before the deposit has been protected as confirmed in Siddeeq v Alaian (2024). 

Many Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) agreement have PI embedded into them, landlords mistakenly believe giving this to the tenant when they sign the AST before the depoist is protected is adequate, but it isn’t as it does not comply with Paragraph 2(1)(g) of the Prescribed Information Order and Section 213(6) of the Housing Act 2004. 

To remain legally compliant, PI must always be issued after the deposit has been protected.

Deposit Protection Options: Custodial vs. Insured

Each deposit protection scheme offers two options:

1. Custodial Scheme: The landlord transfers the deposit to the scheme, which holds it for free. This option provides greater legal protection, especially when the tenancy is renewed or becomes periodic.

2. Insured Scheme: The landlord retains the deposit while paying a fee for the scheme to insure its value. However, protection under this model ends when the fixed term expires, unless the landlord manually updates the details in the scheme portal.

Consequences of Failing to Protect a Deposit

Failing to comply with deposit protection rules can have serious repercussions:

1. Inability to Serve a Section 21 Notice:  A landlord cannot issue a Section 21 eviction notice unless they first return the deposit to the tenant in full.

2. Financial Penalties of Up to Three Times the Deposit Per Tenancy: Courts can impose a penalty of up to three times the deposit value for each tenancy.

If a landlord repeatedly fails to protect a deposit when renewing an AST (e.g., every 12 months), penalties apply separately to each renewal.

Some landlords have been liable for penalties up to 12 times the deposit amount after failing to protect deposits over multiple six-month AST renewals.

Statutory Periodic Tenancies: A Common Pitfall

When a fixed-term tenancy expires, it automatically becomes periodic. There are two types:

Contractual Periodic Tenancy: Arises if the tenancy agreement includes a continuation clause. Deposit protection remains intact if custodial protection has been used. If insured then deposit will need updating to maintain protection 

Statutory Periodic Tenancy: Occurs if the agreement is silent on continuation. Legally, this creates a new tenancy, Superstrike v Rodrigues, requiring the deposit to be re-protected. Failure to do so can result in additional penalties

A tenant has up to six years to bring a claim for non-protection.

Debunking Misconceptions

None of the three government-backed schemes are scams, at risk of collapse, or capable of losing deposits.

The Renters Reform Bill will not remove deposit protection requirements. 

Instead, failure to protect a deposit will prevent landlords from serving a Section 8 eviction notice, in addition to invalidating a Section 21 notice.

For landlords, compliance with deposit protection rules is essential to avoid legal and financial risks. Properly protecting deposits not only meets legal requirements but also provides security for both landlords and tenants throughout the tenancy.

Deductions for rent arrears from Universal credit unlawful without notice

 No Deductions Without Prior Warning: Roberts v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

A High Court ruling in Roberts v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions found the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) policy on Universal Credit rent deductions to be unlawful due to procedural unfairness.

The DWP’s Policy

1. Diversionary Payments: For social landlords, rent payments were made directly to landlords without prior notice to the tenant. Tenants were notified only after the decision and could request reconsideration (taking over 50 days).

2. Recoupment Payments: For both social and private landlords, deductions were made to cover rent arrears. Again, tenants were informed after the fact and allowed reconsideration.

The Court’s Findings

While deductions were deemed beneficial for maintaining tenancies, tenants were entitled to be notified of landlords’ requests beforehand. This allowed tenants to dispute the arrears or address issues like rent disputes or housing disrepair claims. Withholding rent in such disputes, the Court noted, could be a tenant’s only leverage.

The policy of notifying tenants only after deductions was ruled procedurally unfair. The Court declared the DWP’s approach under the 2013 Regulations unlawful.

Commentary

The judgment highlights the significance of tenant rights in rent disputes, including withholding rent in housing disrepair cases—a surprising acknowledgment from both the Court and the DWP. However, housing lawyers caution tenants against withholding rent, as it risks possession claims.

Ultimately, the ruling underscores the need for fairness in decision-making processes and the importance of legal guidance in housing disputes.

Full article here on Nearly Legal

. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2025/01/no-deductions-without-prior-warning/