I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker—it is my first time doing so, which makes it all the more special. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment.

In the implementation road map, published on 13 November 2025, the Government set out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases. As the first phase, on 1 May 2026, we commenced the new tenancy regime. As a result, section 21 no-fault evictions were finally abolished, all fixed-term tenancies transitioned to periodic tenancies; rent increases were limited to once a year, with new rights to challenge unreasonable rent hikes; rental bidding wars were banned; demands for large amounts of rent in advance were prohibited; discrimination against renters who have children or receive benefits was banned, and the right to request permission for a pet was introduced. In the second phase of our reforms, we will introduce our innovative database of private rented sector properties and establish a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution between tenants and landlords and avoid costly court proceedings. These regulations concern the latter measure, but do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme.

As hon. Members may be aware, the 2025 Act provides for the establishment of one or more landlord redress schemes for the private rented sector. These regulations preserve that flexibility, in case it is needed; however, the Government do not intend to create multiple schemes at launch. Our immediate intention is to establish a single designated scheme. Once further regulations are made and that single designated scheme is operational, residential private landlords will be required to join it, giving prospective, current and former tenants a route to fair, impartial and binding resolution where they have a legitimate complaint against their landlord. That will close an important gap in the current PRS regulatory landscape, where agent redress is already mandatory, but there is no equivalent mandatory route where responsibility lies with the landlord.

The regulations are therefore the next legislative step towards establishing mandatory landlord redress for the private rented sector. However, as I mentioned, they do not approve or designate the scheme. This is an enabling instrument that must be put in place before a scheme can later be approved or designated. In the interest of providing clarity to the Committee on precisely what the instrument does and does not do, let me set out further detail. In essence, the regulations set the detailed framework for how a private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated.

In practice, the regulations will mean that any future scheme must be shown to have robust arrangements around independent decision making, fair complaints handling, binding redress, proportionate enforcement, fair and transparent fees, co-operation and information sharing with other bodies, public reporting and regular reviews, continuity if a scheme closes and access for users who need to engage by post or telephone. To be clear, an approved scheme would be designated and administered by an independent body and approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of mandatory landlord redress. A designated scheme would be administered by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, who would designate it a mandatory landlord redress scheme.

The regulations also set out how a scheme may be amended, so that it can respond to changes in the sector over time—including, but not confined to, changes in landlord and tenant behaviour, operational learning and the needs of the people who use the scheme. The Government’s view is that the framework should be robust, but not so rigid that it prevents a scheme from remaining effective and fit for purpose over time. The regulations also protect continuity of redress if a scheme closes, or if its approval is withdrawn or its designation revoked. That means that there must be arrangements to support an orderly transition, including the transfer of relevant information and records where necessary, so that tenants and landlords are not left without clarity or continuity if a scheme stops operating.

I once again stress that the regulations do not approve or designate a redress scheme; that decision will come later. Their purpose is to establish the statutory conditions that any future scheme must meet, so that it can proceed only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it meets the required standard. That provides clarity for landlords on what will be expected of them, and for tenants on how complaints can be escalated once the scheme is in place.

The regulations do not require landlords to join a scheme immediately. Next steps will involve preparing and designating a scheme, and subsequently bringing forward separate regulations, specifying which landlords must join and when that requirement will take effect, once the service is ready. It is essential that we establish this framework now because, without it, a scheme cannot be approved or designated and we cannot proceed to the next stage of implementation. However, doing so will also provide clarity, certainty and confidence to the sector.

Subject to parliamentary approval of this instrument, our focus will turn to the scheme itself, ensuring that it is designed to meet the rigorous conditions set out in these regulations and that the Secretary of State can be satisfied that it is ready for designation. The Government’s intention, as I confirmed during the passage of the Bill, is for the Housing Ombudsman Service, which already administers social landlord redress, to operate the private landlord redress scheme too. The Housing Ombudsman will need enough time to develop the service ahead of launch, and we will ensure that we give landlords sufficient notice and clear guidance before any future requirement to join the scheme takes effect, including what will be expected of them in order to comply with the scheme.

To conclude, these regulations put in place the minimum standards and safeguards that the private landlord redress scheme must meet. They are a necessary enabling step towards delivering a fair, impartial and binding redress scheme for private tenants, and a clear route to resolution when things go wrong. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On this hot afternoon, the Committee will be pleased to hear that, having debated a lot of the detail underlying the Minister’s proposals in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act, the Opposition will not be seeking to trot out lengthy speeches or a long list of questions—although I hear that one or two Back Benchers may have come with 90 minutes of material prepared.

In Committee, we debated at great length the proportionality of the measures that are now fleshed out in more detail in this set of proposals, not least because, while there are some egregious examples of poor landlords, the private rented sector still enjoys the highest resident or tenant satisfaction of any form of housing tenure. It remains the view of the Opposition that some of the measures set out in the 2025 Act go well beyond what is proportionate to the experience of the vast majority of private tenants. This is a sector that is absolutely critical to providing housing, especially for younger people who are looking for more flexible housing options as they develop their working lives.

The Minister has set out a little bit of his thinking. I think it would be helpful if he could touch briefly, in summing up, on how the Government propose to ensure that that level of proportionality will be maintained when this scheme translates from a set of legislative proposals into reality. In particular, could he address how we will ensure that the costs to landlords—and indeed the costs that would thereby be passed on to tenants—remain within reasonable limits? How do the Government propose to ensure that the cost of any financial awards arising from these measures is met? Will that be a cost taken out of, in effect, the collective fees paid by landlords, or by tenants through their rent, or through some other arrangement?

It would be helpful if the Minister could touch on the points made about the reliance on local authorities using powers that they have gained under the Renters’ Rights Act to carry out enforcement where breaches are identified. One point that we raised in Committee was that local authorities already struggle to carry out enforcement on issues such as trading standards and environmental offences, partly because of resourcing and partly because of the burden of proof. We were not satisfied at that stage that the proposal for levying significant fines would result in a significant additional level of resource to carry out that work. We drew attention to the experience in Wales, where a slightly different version of the same system operates and where those concerns remain live issues for local authorities charged with this responsibility.

In summary, while we all agree with the principle of making effective and practical redress available to people who are tenants in the private rented sector, we do not want to see an overly complex and costly bureaucracy that does not make it straightforward for people to seek the redress that they need and deserve.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the parent Act to this instrument, the Liberal Democrats campaigned in favour of ending no-fault evictions, and we were pleased to support the Bill to bring that about and bring those to an end. We support the principle of the landlord redress scheme, although we did push for the Government to go further on protecting renters and on the private rental database, including more records of landlords, on rent smoothing and so on. We believe that the redress system should extend to providing redress against excessive rent increases above and beyond the pertaining Bank of England rate of interest. That is in our rent-smoothing proposals. None the less, we support the draft enabling regulations for the redress scheme.

Will the Minister say a little more about the kinds of landlords that the draft regulations will apply to, which he said will come out in due course? Is the metric to do with the scale of the landlord or a type of landlord? It would be helpful to know a little more on that front. Otherwise, we are willing to support the statutory instrument.

I thank both the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, for those questions. I will seek to answer them each in turn, beginning with giving the Committee a sense of when things will change for landlords and for tenants.

I made it clear that the draft regulations set out the framework for the redress scheme to come; they do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme. Much of the detail will follow in regulations. The draft regulations do not themselves create an immediate live complaints route for private tenants and they do not yet require private landlords to join a scheme. As I said, further regulations will be needed before membership becomes mandatory, once the service is ready to go live.

The shadow Minister asked about fees. As we debated at length in the Bill Committee, landlords will be required to pay for the scheme. That is in line with established practice across the sector. The draft regulations require a scheme to include provision for fees, but they do not themselves set fee amounts. The intention is that the scheme document will outline the approach to setting and calculating membership, while details of the fees will be published elsewhere. That will allow administration and membership fees to be managed proportionately, without requiring the scheme to be amended whenever fee levels change. The Secretary of State, however—this is the important point in response to the shadow Minister’s question—will retain oversight of fees, including any increases, to ensure that they remain proportionate and represent value for money.

Again, to respond to the point that the draft regulations do not set out the actual scheme, broadly, the PRS landlord ombudsman will consider complaints from tenants about actions, inactions or behaviours by their landlord that have caused harm or inconvenience. Those may include, for example, complaints relating to property standards and repairs, the landlord’s handling of requests or inappropriate behaviour by a landlord. We have deliberately not set out an exhaustive list on the face of this instrument, however, because the ombudsman will need discretion to consider the facts of individual cases and to respond to a change in the rental market. Again, as the designated scheme comes forward, we will see more detail and more examples of how that will work.

To answer the shadow Minister’s question about fees and compensation, hon. Members will have noted that the draft instrument sets a compensation cap of £25,000 to align with the established cap for mandatory property agent redress. That helps, we think, to support consistency across the housing redress landscape, but the Government will of course keep the operation of the scheme, including the cap, under review as part of our wider governance monitoring and evaluation arrangements, with an initial review required within five years of the scheme being approved or designated.

The shadow Minister touched on local authorities. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman is intended to provide a quicker, cheaper and less adversarial route to redress, where that is appropriate; it is not intended to replace either the courts or local authority enforcement. We have debated local authority enforcement at length on many occasions. He knows what we are doing about new burdens funding coming forward. Also, there is the ability for local authorities to levy fines and to use the proceeds of those fines to fund their enforcement work—we have recently switched those powers on, perhaps even today, although the exact date escapes me. Local authorities will continue to enforce regulatory requirements, with the ombudsman focusing on investigating complaints and, where appropriate, awarding redress to put things right.

I touched on the point about landlords, which the Liberal Democrat spokesman asked me about. The draft regulations themselves do not mandate membership. A separate set of regulations will be needed to specify when landlords must be members of the scheme. We will have a chance to debate what kind of landlords are covered at that point, and I expect he will have a series of questions in that regard at that stage. We will, however, ensure—I think this is important—that landlords have clear guidance and sufficient notice before any membership requirement takes effect.

I think I have answered all the questions. To conclude, while the draft instrument creates a legal framework for future private landlord redress schemes, it does not yet require landlords to join a scheme or create a live complaints route. It is, however, a critical step in delivering the private rented sector landlord ombudsman and our wider reforms to empower tenants. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.