Protection racket

Yet for a slightly older generation – those in or approaching retirement – renting privately was always a long-term option. Tens of thousands are protected tenants, with tenancies taken out before the deregulation of the sector in 1988.

The property they rent is where they have put down roots, brought up their families and expected to live out their lives.

Protected tenancies were increasingly undermined during the 1990s. Many tenants found that their ‘fair rents’ started to escalate as others started paying more after the 1988 Housing Act.

This was due to the increased willingness of those who set fair rents – rent officers and rent assessment committees – to use market rents as the benchmark. By the time the Labour government was elected in 1997, the situation for many protected tenants was desperate. Rents had increased in many instances by several hundred per cent over just one decade. Protected tenants, 60 per cent of whom are retired, were being forced to find thousands of pounds more a year to stay in their home. Some were forced out altogether.

In early 1998, I secured a debate in parliament to urge the government to take action before the trickle of home losses became a flood. The government later introduced regulations, based on Section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, to impose a rent cap. Whilst still allowing rises well over inflation – 7.5 per cent in the case of initial re-registrations – the cap did assure tenants that their rent would not be doubled or worse. But that confidence was dashed this January, when landlord Spath Holme successfully challenged the government in the courts and the capping regulations were set aside.

Since then, landlords have rushed forward with applications for massive rent increases. One couple in their 70s recently wrote to me to say they faced an immediate 150 per cent increase, on top of a similar hike two years ago.

Another pensioner couple, who have lived for 30 years in a property they have personally maintained and modernised, have seen their rent rise from £500 a year to £12,500. After the Spath Holme judgement, the rent will rise again by another £3,000 a year. Another constituent who has lived in her home for 48 years, pointed out to me that she has spent £150,000 on her property over the years, believing her fair rent was a mutually accepted trade-off against these improvements.

The Spath Holme judgement could cause financial ruin for tens of thousands of mostly elderly tenants. Many will lose their homes, placing a demand upon scarce social housing. And the housing benefit bill will rise by an estimated £15 million. The financial costs are fairly easy to quantify. The costs in anxiety and stress are not.

Although the initial rent-capping regulations were opposed by the Conservatives, we are now closer to a cross-party consensus on this. I suspect the speed, and indeed greed, with which some landlords acted in the aftermath of Spath Holme may have had its effect, prompting howls of outrage across many constituencies.

When I secured my second debate on this subject last month, junior housing minister Chris Mullin responded to my plea for urgency. He assured me that the government was anxious to deal with this situation. We now await the outcome of a petition to the House of Lords, seeking leave to appeal the decision. If this is granted, we must hope the case is heard soon. If not, the government must act to introduce primary legislation.

Karen Buck is Labour MP for Regent's Park and Kensington North