Lord Jamieson:

Moved by Lord Jamieson

91: Clause 65, page 104, line 21, at end insert “, whose property is not managed by an agent who is a member of an independent redress scheme approved by the Secretary of State,”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment would only require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme if their tenant does not already have access to one by virtue of the landlord using an agent who is a member of another approved independent redress scheme to avoid duplication.

My Lords, Amendment 91 would require a residential landlord to be a member of the landlord redress scheme only if their tenant does not already have access to redress through a letting agent who is a member of another approved independent scheme. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid duplication, prevent unnecessary regulatory burden, and ensure that the system remains proportionate and clear. Clarity and efficiency in regulation are not just desirable, they are essential for both compliance and effective enforcement.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“We take seriously the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication. Careful consideration will be given, during the implementation process, as to how the PRS landlord ombudsman service will interact with the agent redress provision”.—[Official Report, 14/5/25; col. 2211.]

We fully agree that tenants should have a clear and accessible route to redress, but that route must be simple, coherent and proportionate. A system that is overly complicated by parallel and potentially overlapping redress obligations could hinder rather than help. For example, if a landlord were a member of two redress schemes, which one should the tenant apply to—or both? How would liability be determined and does this not risk delay and confusion as lawyers from both redress schemes seek to argue it out?

This amendment seeks not to water down tenants’ rights but to ensure that those rights are delivered through a streamlined, efficient system that works in practice for tenants, landlords and agents alike. Clarity here is important. I hope that the Minister agrees. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will comment on Amendment 91 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. Their amendment would exempt a landlord from joining the new redress/ombudsman scheme if that landlord’s property is managed by an agent who is already a member of one of the existing redress/ombudsman schemes. I declare a past interest as chair for eight years of the Property Ombudsman, which handles complaints about agents. This amendment’s intention of avoiding duplication of membership of redress/ombudsman schemes is entirely right, otherwise the tenant is left puzzling over which ombudsman—their landlord’s or the agent’s—they should address their complaint to.

However, this amendment would not achieve the desired result. I know, from having had some responsibilities for redress in respect of managing/lettings agents, that the response from the agent to a complaint by a renter is often, “I was only doing what the landlord told me to do”. The agent may be justified in this: a renter may have requested an urgent repair and the agent did nothing, but the problem has been the landlord telling the agent that the cost is too high or the work is not needed. The intolerable delay is not the result of the agent’s negligence; it is the landlord who has held things up. These cases cannot be resolved because the landlord is not a member of any redress scheme, and that problem would persist if the landlord was exempted from having to join the new redress/ombudsman scheme.

To avoid duplication of having one redress/ombudsman scheme for landlords and one for property agents, I suggest the solution is for a single redress/ombudsman service for both. This would avoid complaints resolution being stymied and tenants being sent from pillar to post where two different ombudsman services are involved with one issue. I know the Government are still considering how best to introduce the new redress scheme for landlords in this Bill, and I recommend one port of call for tenants with a complaint. The position is already confusing, with the Housing Ombudsman providing a redress service for a few private landlords— as well as for all social landlords—and the Property Ombudsman and the separate Property Redress Scheme both providing redress schemes for property agents. Bringing in the new mandatory redress scheme for complaints about private landlords will add to the confusion for the consumer and the renter. This is a good moment to rationalise and consolidate the arrangements, but not by excluding the landlords who use an agent, which would not solve the problem.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best. In fact, one of my lines says that there should be only one port of call. If one of the main planks of the Bill is to drive up standards, it is critical that landlords are mandated to be part of the ombudsman scheme. It should be a catch-all. Unfortunately, this Amendment would allow landlords to opt out of the government redress scheme and, as has been explained, deny tenants access to redress via the national private sector ombudsman that the Bill intends to set up.

To make this advantageous move, all landlords would need to do is use a letting agent that is signed up to one of these alternative schemes. This would create a significant loophole in the legislation and deny such tenants access to redress for issues that lie solely with the landlord and not the managing agent, such as damp and mould caused by structural issues. Generation Rent’s polling found that one in three tenants has had maintenance issues in their home that they have reported but the landlord has not dealt with. This is quite a widespread problem. If we want to drive up standards, we want to make it easier for tenants to complain and landlords to comply.

In addition, if this amendment were to pass it would create more confusion, as there are currently multiple independent letting agent schemes that compete with each other, arguably creating a race to the bottom on standards. This phenomenon arguably exists to some extent with deposit protection schemes—which, incidentally, are also chosen by landlords or agents, not by renters, so the landlord will choose the one that thinks like they do or favours the way they work.

The system as proposed in the Bill seems to be the correct way forward, as making membership of an ombudsman scheme mandatory for landlords who use managing agents will mitigate a situation where a good agent—and there are good agents—tries to remedy a complaint but is reliant on an overseas landlord who refuses to engage. As well as these advantages, one ombudsman can tackle the root cause of problems, address systemic issues, provide feedback and education to all interested parties, and offer support to vulnerable consumers. Amendment 91 would dilute all these potential good impacts of the new ombudsman, reducing tenants’ ability to hold bad landlord practice and behaviour to account. I cannot think why anybody would want to do that.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her Amendment on the landlord redress scheme, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.

Our new private rented sector landlord ombudsman will ensure that tenants are able to seek redress against their landlord when they have a legitimate complaint about the landlord’s action, inaction or behaviour. We are clear that landlords who use letting agents cannot delegate responsibility for their own actions or behaviours. Landlords almost always retain some responsibility for their property that cannot be passed on to agents—for example, making structural repairs in buildings. Tenants should be able to access redress if they experience issues such as this, regardless of whether their landlord uses an agent. That is why we think it is essential that both landlords and agents can be held to account for their individual responsibilities.

For landlords who have already voluntarily joined a redress scheme, once a mandatory private landlord ombudsman service is in place it will be tailored to the specific needs of the private rented sector, and those landlords will have to move to it. This will work better for the private rented sector, rather than having it mixed up with social housing. Landlords will be required to sign up to the new landlord database, and we are exploring how to align the sign-up process for this with the landlord ombudsman. That will help make it simple for landlords who are already members of an existing redress system to join the new landlord ombudsman service.

We are committed to ensuring that private residential tenants know where to complain and enjoy consistent standards of service and outcomes. Having private residential landlords as members of the same service will support this aim. We also want to ensure that, where it is not clear which scheme a tenant should complain to, there is no wrong access point for tenants. The schemes will be expected to work together to ensure that, regardless of where a tenant raises a complaint, it is effectively triaged and referred on to the right body with minimal input from the complainant.

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about duplication, but we will work closely with the new ombudsman and the property agent redress schemes, support them to work effectively together and ensure that the process works smoothly for both tenants and landlords. For the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw the noble Baroness’s amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking on this important topic. I think we all agree that we want a system that works and is clear and easy to understand, although we seem to have some slight disagreements on how that might be best achieved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his agreement that the current system is confusing. I am also grateful to the Minister for her response and for engaging seriously with the concerns that have been raised.

While I appreciate the Government’s recognition of the risks of duplication and their commitment to addressing them during implementation, we remain of the view that greater clarity is essential to ensure that the redress scheme works smoothly and fairly for all. The key issue is triage—how the different schemes will work together—and we very much look forward to the Minister bringing forward proposals and guidance that we can all see and can be clear to both landlords and tenants on how they will go through the system. I think we are all in agreement that we want it to work and we have a real concern about duplication. So, although I will not press this Amendment, we will continue to hold the Government to account on this issue as the Bill becomes law. With that, I beg to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

Clause 67: Financial penalties

Amendment 92 not moved.

Amendment 93 not moved.

Clause 76: The database