Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 7:43 pm on 13 October 2020.
I'm grateful to the Minister for her statement today and for consideration of the general principles of this Bill. I'd like to place on record my thanks to the committees that reported on this Bill. The reports are balanced and interesting.
Once again, I'll declare an interest. I am what I call an accidental landlord—I inherited my father's house and I now rent the property out to a local family. By doing so, I am partly providing for my old age and topping up my pension. I know that others rent out inherited properties solely to pay back care home fees owed to councils. I've registered with Rent Smart Wales, the property is managed by an agent, the fees went up by 1 per cent when the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Act 2019 came in. I have to fill in a tax return. It's a real responsibility and it feels too often like a millstone. I'm telling you this, because I get the feeling that policy makers and some in this Chamber have a view of landlords that is stuck somewhere in the 1970s and 1980s—rich, uncaring people who are happy to count their money while their tenants live in squalor. That's definitely not the case in a lot of circumstances.
But, over a couple of decades now, ordinary people have been told to save for their old age and many have seen fit to invest their money in property. And then austerity arrives and landlords are taxed and regulated, they pay more and have to jump through more hoops than ever. So, for the owners of just one buy-to-let property, it's really quite onerous and becoming less and less attractive as an option. It may be different for, you know, portfolio holders.
I won't labour here now how messy this suite of legislation is, with amendments being made to the housing Act that is yet to come into effect; both committees have raised this point with you. I do think it's worth making the point, though, that people need to have confidence in the legislation being developed here in this Senedd and in its intention and effect. I've got no difficulty in taking steps to enable tenants to feel more secure and to be more secure in their rented homes. As Delyth said, you know, they are their homes. They pay for the privilege of living in that property; they ought to have some security of tenure. And I understand how difficult it can be when a landlord needs the property back and there are family ties to the areas and schools to take into account. I have to admit, though, that I read with some consternation that any human rights infringement of the landlords' rights is deemed okay and their needs and rights are deemed subservient to those of the tenant. I'll give you two examples: constituent A forms a new relationship and moves in with her new partner. She rents out her house. Her relationship breaks up, she cannot gain access to her own home because of this law. She's homeless until she has served the relevant notices. Example: constituent B is diagnosed with a terminal illness. He wants to liquidate all of his assets to do all of the things on his now very urgent bucket list. He can't because he needs to serve relevant notices. That poor man may die while he's waiting. How is this fair?
You mention in your evidence to a committee that the majority of landlords are good landlords, so what are you trying to fix here? Also, the premise of the Bill seems to be biased on anecdotal evidence, as previously said, largely through constituency casework. I do find that very worrying. The Bill appears predicated on a model tenant paying their rent and looking after the property, when we all know that this is not always the case. I've seen quite a few cases like that, thankfully not on my own property but through my agents. Many landlords have had to deal with rogue tenants who pay nothing or wreck the property, or refuse to leave when they are supposed to. This sort of thing can ruin people's lives. So, I'm glad that consideration of court processes has taken place. Renting out property is looking more and more like one-way traffic, with all the rights with the tenants and all of the liabilities with the landlord. This does not make for a vibrant private rented sector, so I think it's imperative that some goodwill is shown and that where court or tribunal processes are needed, that this is quick and efficient. So, I think a better balance can and could be struck, Minister. If not, private landlords, as also said before, will vote with their feet, and more pressure will be brought to bear on an already struggling housing market if they leave that market. Thank you.