Calls for rent caps within tenancies as landmark bill returns to Commons
Campaigners are calling on the government to allow rents to be capped within tenancies as a key bill returns to the Commons.
More than 30 MPs have backed an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill which, if passed, would restrict how much landlords can raise rents on sitting tenants by limiting percentage increases to inflation or average wage growth – whichever is lowest.
The bill, which was first proposed by the Conservatives, promises to abolish Section 21 “no-fault evictions”, the legal mechanism that allows landlords to evict tenants without providing a reason.
Section 21 notices have been identified as a key driver of homelessness by housing charities including Shelter, which says about 500 renters receive a no-fault eviction every day.
However, campaigners have expressed concern that if Section 21 notices are banned, landlords will use other means to evict tenants, including by pricing out tenants with rent hikes.
Politics latest:
Chancellor will remain until next election, Downing Street says
The most recent statistics by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that English renters paid an average of £1,362 last month, while rent prices in England increased by nearly 10% in the past year.
UK rent rises were not far behind, growing 9.1% across the year, just below the record-high annual rise of 9.2% in March.
Comparisons have been drawn with other countries in Europe, including the Netherlands, where a rent increase limit of inflation or wage growth plus 1% is in place.
Although there is a measure in the bill that would ban rent increases from being written into contracts to prevent mid-tenancy hikes, critics have pointed out that landlords would still be able to raise rent once a year at the market rate.
Analysis of government figures by housing charity Shelter found England’s private renters paid an extra £473m every month on rent in 2024 – an average of £103 more per month than they were paying in 2023.
However, the government has ruled out rent controls, saying its plan to build 1.5 million more homes will bring prices down.
The amendment on restricting rent increases has been proposed by Labour MP Paula Barker, a former shadow housing minister who said the change would “help keep renters in their homes”.
It has the support of the RMT and Unison unions, as well as the Renters’ Reform Coalition, which includes major homelessness and housing charities such as Shelter and Crisis.
Ms Barker said the housing crisis needed “immediate action” and that her proposal would prevent landlords from using “unaffordable rent hikes as de facto no-fault evictions”.
“In the long term, building more social and affordable housing will help to address the emergency – but to help renters who are struggling right now, a measure to limit rent rises would stop landlords from using unaffordable rent hikes as de facto no-fault evictions,” she said.
“By preventing landlords from raising the rent for sitting tenants by more than inflation or wage growth, my amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill would help keep renters in their homes. Which is why I am urging my fellow MPs to support it.”
Read more:
What is the bill – and will it end no-fault evictions?
Rent control battle comes to Britain – but do they work?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Bristol renters face frenzied competition
Other MPs who support Ms Barker’s amendment include Green Party MP Carla Denyer, who has put forward a separate proposal that would set up an independent “living rent” body to establish rules about rent increases between tenancies by taking into account factors such as property type, condition, size and local incomes.
Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer speaks to the media on College Green. Pic: PA
“It’s time to end the scandal of rip-off rents,” the Bristol Central MP said.
“Right now, renters are facing a wild west when it comes to renting a home – and a lack of protection has left them at the mercy of landlords who see tenants as cash cows, not people in need of a home.
“Across Europe, rent controls are a normal part of the private rented sector. The UK is lagging behind, with dire consequences not just for renters but for the economy as a whole.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Our Renters’ Rights Bill will strengthen tenants’ rights by banning section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions and while we do not have plans to introduce rent controls, we are taking action to cap rent payable at the start of a tenancy to one month, end unfair bidding wars, and give tenants stronger powers to challenge excessive rent hikes.
“This is alongside boosting supply by building 1.5 million homes as part of our plan for change.”
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
Unilever responded by selling the business to its licensee in Israel.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024