Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026.

My Lords, as part of the Renters’ Rights Act, a transforming set of reforms to bring more protections and security for tenants in the private rented sector, we are introducing a new landlord redress scheme. The service will resolve issues for tenants where their landlord has failed to address a legitimate complaint. It will provide impartial and fair resolution, giving tenants access to redress outside the court.

The Government recognise that most landlords are looking to provide a good service to their tenants. The new landlord redress scheme will support landlords to do just that, by providing guidance and tools to help them handle complaints locally and early in order to prevent escalation. This new service will close a key gap in housing redress, providing private rented sector tenants with enhanced consumer protection rights which tenants in the social rented sector already benefit from. It will help to raise standards in the sector by equipping landlords with tools and information on what best practice looks like.

These regulations are the first legislative step towards establishing landlord redress for the private rented sector. They set out the framework for how a mandatory private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated. An approved scheme would be designed and run by an independent provider, while a designated scheme would be designed and administered by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State. The regulations also set out how such a scheme may be amended, allowing the service to adapt to emerging changes in the sector, and provide for continuity of redress by ensuring an orderly transition if a scheme closes or approval is withdrawn.

The regulations do not themselves approve or designate a redress scheme, nor do they impose an immediate requirement on landlords to join one. Rather, they set out the statutory criteria that any future scheme must meet, including requirements relating to governance, complaint handling, types of redress and enforcement of decisions, information sharing, reporting and review. They provide clarity and assurance for the sector on what can be expected of the service once it is established and in operation.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this SI. To be clear, we support the principle that tenants should have access to effective routes of redress when things go wrong. The overwhelming majority of disputes between landlords and tenants should not require lengthy, costly and stressful court proceedings when there is a fair and independent alternative. That is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward our own proposals for a private rented sector ombudsman.

The question is whether this scheme is proportionate and workable in practice. This needs to be done in the context of a housing crisis, with too few homes available for rent. We need a private rented sector that works for tenants but also for responsible landlords who provide those essential homes for millions of people across the country. A successful regulatory framework should protect tenants from poor practice without driving landlords out of the market or imposing burdens that ultimately increase costs for renters. I recognise the Government’s objective in establishing a mandatory landlord redress scheme, as there is a clear logic in ensuring that tenants have access to a system capable of providing independent, binding resolutions where complaints cannot be resolved directly.

We do, however, have a number of concerns. How will the interaction between landlords and managing agents be addressed? Many landlords employ agents to manage their properties; those agents are already required to belong to a redress scheme. Under these regulations, landlords will also be required to join such a scheme, which we raised during the passage of the Bill. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to avoid duplication where a complaint relates to actions involving both a landlord and an agent? If a tenant complains about property management repairs, communication failures or other issues where responsibilities overlap, how will the scheme determine who is accountable? What safeguards exist to prevent multiple investigations into the same complaint and conflicting outcomes being reached by different bodies?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments and his very thoughtful questions, as ever, in relation to this instrument. I completely agree with his comment that it should be proportionate and workable in practice. He made a number of points around housing supply. We have made the biggest investment in a generation into affordable and social housing, and even yesterday there was talk of even further investment in that regard. It is important that we continue to focus on the housing supply question—he is quite right that we need to do that to make sure that the market is functioning effectively.

On the issue of driving landlords out of the market, we have been very careful, as we have gone through the process of creating the regulation that was needed, to always undergo consultation. The noble Lord put this question to me a number of times during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill. I know that some organisations are putting forward alarming figures, but the work we have done shows that there would be only a negligible impact on the availability of rental property. We will see how that works out over time.

On the issue of driving landlords out of the market, we have been very careful, as we have gone through the process of creating the regulation that was needed, to always undergo consultation. The noble Lord put this question to me a number of times during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill. I know that some organisations are putting forward alarming figures, but the work we have done shows that there would be only a negligible impact on the availability of rental property. We will see how that works out over time.

The noble Lord raised a number of concerns—first, on the interaction between landlords and managing agents and the possibility of duplication, which is a fair point. Of course, these regulations are intended to close the gap that existed between the redress system for agents and making sure that there is some redress to landlords. These regulations specifically concern the landlord redress issues and schemes for people in the private rented sector. They do not alter the existing legal requirements that apply to letting agents, including the requirement to be a member of one of the approved agent redress schemes.

It is intended that this new framework will fill the gap faced by private renters, specifically where the responsibility for an issue lies with the landlord rather than the agent. It is not right for a landlord to be able to get away from their responsibility because it is the agent that is part of a redress scheme. We expect co-operation between the new service and the existing agent redress scheme where appropriate.

The noble Lord asked me about the intention for the Housing Ombudsman Service to deliver this new scheme. Our intention is for the Housing Ombudsman Service, which currently delivers the social landlord redress, to operate this private landlord redress scheme too, subject to final assurance on deliverability. I met with the social housing ombudsman last week, and plans for delivering this service are well advanced. I know that they are working towards the practical delivery of this scheme. The expectation is that, ultimately, a single organisation will administer redress across both private and social rented sectors. As I think the noble Lord recognised, that provides a much more coherent and accessible service for all renters.

It reflects the Government’s clear direction of travel that the Housing Ombudsman Service remains the preferred provider. Of course, there is still work to do before an administrator can be officially appointed. At this time, no alternative routes to delivery are being considered in this Parliament. I would like to reassure the noble Lord that I am responsible for arm’s-length bodies in the department. Performance measurement and monitoring are key to that role, and I will continue to do that if the Housing Ombudsman takes on this new role.

The noble Lord also asked me about the compensation cap of £25,000. This has been designed to align with the established cap for mandatory property agent redress, helping to support that consistency across the housing redress landscape. Of course, tenants will still be able to seek a remedy through the courts if they believe a higher award is justified. We will keep the operation of the scheme, including the compensation 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. This will inform any future decisions on whether changes to the cap are necessary.

When the further statutory instruments relating to this come forward, there will be a full impact assessment of them. An impact assessment was done on the Renters’ Rights Act, which covered this aspect to a certain extent, but I appreciate that we need a further impact assessment on this part of the Act when the full SI comes forward.

To conclude, the instrument establishes the legal framework for future private landlord redress schemes, but does not introduce a requirement on landlords to join a scheme or establish a live service. I will just echo the noble Lord’s comments about good landlords: I said throughout the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act that good landlords had nothing to fear from it; it is the rogue operators who not only make life difficult for their tenants but undermine and undercut the work of those good landlords. We want to support both good landlords and tenants, and this is a necessary first step in delivering the private sector landlord ombudsman.

The Minister once or twice mentioned the biggest investment in social and affordable housing ever; I am curious about that. I know that the investment has been announced, and my understanding is that applications are now going through. It would be very much appreciated if the Minister could update us, either in written form or today, on when that money will actually be out of the door and being used.

I am very happy to do that. The applications closed at the end of March, I think—somebody will correct me if that is not right—and are being considered now. As soon as the announcement is made, I am happy to update the House.