The Social Housing Bill: Second reading debate briefing (House of Commons)

The bill sets out provisions to complete the reform of RtB that the government has previously announced and will align the Right to Acquire with the reformed RtB, to ensure consistency between the two schemes.  However, the (lower) discounts for the Right to Acquire will remain the same. 

The government has recently acknowledged a problem of a loss of social housing via disposals by housing associations. This bill amends the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 so that registered providers must notify the local authority and other registered providers before social homes are sold to maximise opportunities to retain homes in social housing.  A registered provider must not sell a dwelling before four weeks after the notice has been served.  The notice lasts for a year.  This is “to ensure, where possible, stock is retained within the social housing sector”.  

Recommendation:

We recommend that the notice period is extended to at least eight weeks to ensure there is sufficient time for councils and other RPs to respond and that the government both encourage better earlier engagement and partnership working as well as consider a targeted funding programme to help meet the gap many councils face when looking to buy these homes.

To enable councils or smaller RPs to buy these homes where appropriate we are asking the government to designate a fund that would bridge the gap between the existing use value for social housing (at social rent level) and an independently assessed open market value for these homes (effectively providing a grant to purchase them and make the purchase viable).  This would enable the RP to still sell their property at full market value so there is no constraint on their independent asset management decisions but the buyer - a council or another RP - only has to find the existing use value portion, with the government funding covering the rest. This should work well alongside the mandatory notification and waiting period in the Bill, giving councils or a smaller, local RP a realistic financial route to act within that window, rather than more time with no way to afford to use it. 

The fund could be targeted for rural social housing, areas with demonstrated high need in their own housing strategy and adapted or Disabled Facilities Grant funded homes. We would be happy to work with government and other council sector stakeholders to help develop a workable programme.  

The bill aims to provide more stability and security to tenants who are victims of domestic abuse by putting in place measures to allow domestic abuse survivors to remain in their homes, or to move to suitable accommodation and for the perpetrators to be evicted.  Part 2 introduces a framework to enable landlords to protect survivors of domestic abuse. This framework is set out in Schedule 1.

When the bill was going through the House of Lords, the Chartered Institute of Housing, King’s College London and Shared Health Foundation supported Baroness Neate tabling amendment 76 to exempt domestic abuse survivors from housing-related debt, which can deprioritise them or make them ineligible from social housing.

The amendment attracted cross-party support but was not moved due to the government’s belief that “guidance is the right route, rather than a rigid rule in primary legislation for an area that is inherently complex and case-specific, which could give rise to unintended consequences.” MHCLG Minister, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, agreed “that victims of domestic abuse should not be denied access to social housing due to the circumstances they find themselves in because of that abuse, including any housing-related debt they have incurred because of it.” And she committed “that we will pursue changes to regulations, should the review of statutory guidance show that to be necessary” and will communicate the guidance once they publish it. The minister also said that “if guidance proves insufficient, we have the option of making regulations to amend the legislation—we have the powers to do that—as we did to exempt domestic abuse survivors from local connection tests.”

The government has subsequently published a call for evidence on the statutory allocations’ guidance, which is open until 2 October, and will be followed up by a consultation in early 2027.

Whilst we welcome this work, recent research by Professor Katherine Brickell at King’s College London shows that most local authorities cannot adequately report on the true impact of these policies on domestic abuse survivors as they do not know how many domestic abuse survivors living in temporary accommodation are subject to these rules. Therefore, the government will be unable to effectively monitor any changes that the renewed statutory guidance may have.

Recommendations

• That the government implement reporting requirements for local authorities now on how many homeless households living in temporary accommodation or refuges are ineligible or deprioritised on their housing register by housing-related debt
• Set a target for sufficient improvement by local authorities in this area
• Put forward a timeline from the implementation of the updated guidance that this target needs to be met before secondary legislation is brought forward.

The bill will be used as an opportunity to ‘clarify the statute book’ and Part 3 repeals the un-commenced or un-initiated clauses of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and associated clauses within the Housing Act 1985, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Local Government Act 2003. These provisions will abolish the following:

• Duty to sell vacant high value dwellings
• Higher rents for high income social tenants (pay to stay)
• Phasing out of secure tenancies for life and changes to succession to the law about succession to secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies.

It will also reduce bureaucracy for councils by streamlining housing consents.

Social housing landlords have an increasing number of health and safety statutory duties to fulfil as part of their landlord role, as the government has sought to strengthen the regulatory framework post the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. At the same time, we are hearing from members that it is becoming more difficult to gain access to some tenants' homes for basic health and safety checks such as the annual servicing of gas boilers and electrical safety checks.  

This is a growing problem for social housing providers and is very costly. It can leave tenants and neighbours facing potential dangers to their health, and in the worst-case scenario, lives, and leave landlords open to regulatory failure and possible criminal prosecution.  Due to conflicting judgements in recent county court cases, the currently legal routes are unclear and social landlords have lost confidence in the time consuming and costly process.  Persistent “no access” cases are a major barrier to:

• Gas safety compliance
• Electrical safety checks
• Fire safety checks including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks.

We are also hearing from tenants that not all social landlords are following best practice and the reality of the resident experience is that the quality and accuracy of landlord and contractor processes vary, requiring improvement in some cases.  Residents that we spoke to raised issues that frequently arise from communication failures, inaccurate data, vulnerability, safeguarding considerations, contractor and sub-contractor performance or practical life circumstances rather than a deliberate refusal to engage.  

This is a growing problem for both tenants and social housing providers.  When not handled well, the whole process can create tension in the landlord-tenant relationship. At its worst, it can leave tenants and neighbours facing potential dangers to their health, or lives, as well as leaving landlords open to regulatory failure and possible criminal prosecution.

Recommendation

We are therefore calling on the government to use the opportunity of the Social Housing Bill, under the bill's stated aims of tenant protections and regulation, to clarify the law and provide a clearly defined and properly safeguarded statutory route for forced access when needed for prescribed safety checks and works.  

We are also calling on the government to develop good practice guidance that landlords need to have regard to in relation to their policies, practices and behaviours in gaining access for safety checks.  

We believe this combined approach will help clarify the process for landlords and tenants alike and help lead an improvement in practices across the sector.  

This amendment, which Devonshires has drafted, could provide for the Secretary of State to set out clear notice requirements, prior reasonable engagement and strict safeguards around proportionality and purpose.  

This is a time limited opportunity for parliament to make clear that the safety of tenants and their homes is of paramount importance and for the government to provide social landlords with a safeguarded, clear, affordable and quick route to obtain access where all other efforts have failed.  We would therefore appreciate you raising the issue and asking that the government bring forward an amendment to provide for this.  For further information on this issue please see Appendix 1.  

Last year, to help tackle the problem of no access for social housing landlords, CIH, alongside local authority sector partners, commissioned HQN to investigate the issues and produce a good practice guide to improve the way in which landlords work with tenants to support necessary access to their homes. We are continuing to work with partners across the social housing sector to promote and share this good practice as the first approach a landlord should take.  

However, for a small minority of cases there comes a point at which no amount of effort on the landlord’s behalf has helped and enforcement action is required.  In these cases, social housing landlords rely on the tenancy terms to get access and can seek a county court access injunction.  They can ask for a forced access injunction at that point or go back to court at a later date for forced access if needed.  

For housing associations, the tenancy terms are laid out in s16 of the Housing Act 1988. The actstates that a tenancy which is an assured tenancy shall be treated as including a term allowing the landlord, or any person authorised by them in writing, to enter the dwelling-house at all reasonable hours of the day, after giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the tenant, for the purpose of viewing its condition and state of repair.

For councils' secure tenancies there is also an implied convent in s11(6) of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985 that the [tenant], or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease agreement for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair.

However recent county court judgements have created confusion over whether landlords are able to force access into the property when all other avenues have been exhausted to carry out overdue health and safety checks such as the annual serving of gas boilers.  The two judgements point in opposite directions and are detailed below.  

Sovereign Housing Association Ltd v Hall [2024]

Sovereign obtained an injunction for access to their tenant’s property, requiring them to provide access. The tenant did not comply with the order and Sovereign then applied for an order which could allow them to peacefully force access to the property, under a combination of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 25.1(c) and (d)).

This was rejected by the district judge, who held that the court lacked jurisdiction under the civil procedure rules and that the correct approach was to pursue committal proceedings for non-compliance.

Sovereign appealed this decision on the basis that the court did have the jurisdiction to grant an order for forced access, under their general case management powers and enforcement of compliance with orders (CPR 3.1(2)(m) and CPR 70.2A). The circuit judge in the county court noted that CPR 25.1(c) and (d) could potentially allow for an order authorising forced access and was persuaded that an order for forced access could be made under CPR 70.2A.

This demonstrated that social landlords may rely on CPR 70.2A in order to force access to a property in instances where an access injunction has already been obtained.  However, Southern Housing v Emmanuel took a contrasting view.

Southern Housing v James Emmanuel [2025]

Southern Housing sought permission to force entry into the flat of its tenant, after the tenant failed to comply with an earlier access injunction requiring them to allow a gas-safety inspection. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The landlord argued that the court could grant forced entry under the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly rules 70.2A, 25.1 and 3.1(2)(p).

The district judge rejected that argument, holding that no judge has the power to authorise forced entry into a home unless Parliament has expressly provided for it. Forced entry, the judge said, interferes with a tenant’s right to exclusive possession and long-recognised common-law protections of the home. The court’s procedural rules cannot override those substantive rights.

Southern Housing argued that rule 70.2A allowed the court to enforce an earlier injunction by appointing someone to carry out the “act required”, even if that necessitated forced entry. The judge disagreed, finding that the “act required” was the tenant permitting access, and that allowing a landlord to break in was a different act entirely, not one contemplated by the rule.

The court emphasised that tenants are still required to comply with access injunctions. If they refuse, landlords may pursue contempt of court or, in persistent cases, possession proceedings. But the court cannot grant landlords the right to break in. This decision therefore pushed back against the use of CPR 70.2A to justify entry.

These two cases were both heard at county court level and so do not create any precedent over each other.  Currently each application turns on its own facts and judicial discretion, meaning that landlords have no confidence in the outcome of any case.  

The other route that the judge in the Southern Housing case suggested was to serve a Notice of Seeking Possession and start possession proceedings, but we believe that is disproportionate in the circumstances when all the landlord wants to do is to complete the gas servicing and check that the tenant and the property are both safe.  

We know from members that there are many varied reasons why a tenant does not grant access, but issues such as hoarding, poor mental health or concerns about the condition of the property are often cited. In these situations, the tenant needs help and support, not eviction.  The only other legal options are also disproportionate and/or unhelpful in resolving the critical safety issue – the landlord can ask the court to commit the tenant to prison or fine the tenant.

We are not the only ones calling for change - the Association of Safety and Compliance Professionals (ASCP) are also calling for urgent legal reform to help keep people safe in social housing. The ASCP’s new white paper, Safety Can’t Wait Outside, supported by CORGI Technical Services, highlights evidence indicating there may currently be:

• More than 200,000 social homes with “at risk” or “immediately dangerous” gas installations
• More than 90,000 homes with a C1 electrical danger present.

We believe the amendment below, drafted by Devonshires, provides for clear notice requirements, prior reasonable engagement and strict safeguards around proportionality and purpose.

Draft Amendment to Part 3

After Clause 12, insert the following new clause— Access to dwellings for registered providers of social housing to comply with relevant statutory safety duties.

(1) This section applies where:

(a) A registered provider of social housing makes a request of an occupier to enter relevant premises;
(b) The purpose of the request is to comply with a relevant statutory safety duty

(2) In this section “relevant statutory safety duty” means a duty imposed on a landlord by or under any of the following:

(a) Regulations 36(2) and (3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998;
(b) Regulation 3 of the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020; and
(c) Regulation 4(1)(c) of the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 as amended by regulation 5 of the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendments) Regulations 2022 

(3) Upon an application by a registered provider of social housing under this section, the court may make an order as it considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling the registered provider of social housing to comply with the relevant statutory safety duty, including:

(a) Authorising entry to the relevant premises;
(b) Authorising the use of reasonable force to gain entry, if necessary, and;
(c) Authorising the carrying out of specified inspections, testing or works

(4) The court shall not make any order unless the registered provider of social housing has, in the three-month period prior to the date of the application, served on the occupier the relevant requests for access complying with sections (5) – (8) below (“the Requests”). The requests shall comprise of an initial request, a final request, and a breach notice. 

(5) The “Initial Request” shall:

(a) Outline the relevant statutory safety duty or duties to be complied with;
(b) Outline the inspection, testing or works to be carried out;
(c) Provide the date and time, or period, during which the registered provider of social housing requests entry to the relevant premises for the purpose of complying with the relevant statutory safety duty; 
(d) Provide a period of at least 14 days prior to the date and time, or period, provided in accordance with (c) above during which the occupier may contact the registered provider of social housing in order to make an appointment for access to the relevant premises; and
(e) Provide the contact details of the registered provider of social housing so that such an appointment for access can be made by the occupier of the relevant premises

(6) The “Final Request” shall:

(a) Be served at least seven days after the ending of the period in 5(d);
(b) Outline the relevant statutory safety duty or duties to be complied with;
(c) Outline the inspection, testing or works to be carried out; 
(d) Provide a date, time and duration when entry to the relevant premises is required, which must be at least seven days after service; and 
(e) Provide the contact details of the registered provider of social housing where an alternative appointment for access can be made by the occupier of the relevant premises.

(7) The “Breach Notice” shall:

(a) Be served not less than three days after the date in 6(d);
(b) Provide the details of the occupier’s failure to comply with the initial request and final request;
(c) Specify a date, which must be at least seven days from service, after which the application for an order under subsection (3) will be made; and 
(d) Provide the contact details of the registered provider of social housing where an appointment for access can be made

(8) An order under this section must:

(a) Specify the purpose for which entry is authorised;
(b) Limit entry to what is reasonably required to achieve that purpose, and;
(c) Specify the period during which entry may take place, which may not be longer than 3 months

(9) Subsection (4) does not apply where the registered provider of social housing reasonably considers that there is an imminent risk to the health or safety of any person arising from:

(a) A gas installation or appliance,
(b) An electrical installation, or;
(c) The absence or failure of a smoke alarm or carbon monoxide alarm,
and in such a case the court may make such order as it considers just

(10) In this section—

a) “Registered provider of social housing” has the meaning given by section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008;
b) “Occupier” means a person in possession or with a right to possession of the relevant premises, including a tenant or licensee;
c) “Relevant premises” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling

(11) Nothing in this section limits any right of entry which a registered provider of social housing may have apart from this section.

If you would like to discuss the recommendations in more detail, please contact Chloe Fletcher, head of policy and external affairs at Chloe.Fletcher@cih.org.uk