The Social Housing Bill: Second Reading Debate Briefing

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. 

CIH view

We are very pleased to see these measures come forward as quickly as they have. We have long called for the measures outlined to deliver on commitments around RtB reform which will significantly reduce the loss of social rented homes and give councils more confidence to invest in new homes.

The bill amends the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 so that registered providers (RP) must notify the local authority and other RPs before social homes are sold to maximise opportunities to retain homes in social housing. RPs must not sell a dwelling before four weeks after the notice has been served. The notice lasts for a year.  

CIH view

We welcome measures to ensure RPs provide notice to councils and other RPs before they sell off much-needed social housing.  However, we are concerned that four weeks will not be sufficient time to allow councils and other RPs to respond and potentially retain the homes within social housing.  We are particularly concerned about this time limit in rural areas, given the additional problems they encounter providing vital social and affordable housing for residents.

Recommendation

We recommend that the notice period is extended to at least eight weeks in most cases, and in rural areas at least 12 weeks, to ensure there is sufficient time to respond.

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.

CIH view

We very much welcome the commitment to address legal pathways for domestic abuse survivors to remain in their homes. This is a complex issue that survivors and housing providers alike have campaigned to address for a long time. 

We understand the need for the high thresholds outlined in the bill, given these are powers to take away a secure tenancy. In implementation we are asking the government to work with the domestic abuse sector to ensure that guidance to landlords and the courts is designed with survivor safety and provider ease in mind. 

This bill can go further in improving outcomes for survivors of domestic abuse. We would like to see the government use this opportunity to include a provision in the bill to exempt domestic abuse survivors from housing-related debt rules included in local authority allocations policies.

These can act as a barrier to securing social housing, leaving many survivors stuck in unsuitable and costly temporary accommodation. (For further information see this report.) 

CIH has been pushing for regulatory change based on the recommendations in the report since late last year alongside researchers and co-authors Katherine Brickell, Mel Nowicki and Shared Health Foundation, co-secretariat of the APPG for Households in Temporary Accommodation.  

The government’s National Plan to End Homelessness, published in December 2025, alludes to changes to statutory guidance in the future on this issue. However, this bill presents a historic opportunity to firmly address this injustice. And so, we urge the following amendment drafted by Nick Bano from Garden Court Chambers to be added to ensure debts accrued due to abuse no longer further disadvantage survivors and their children.  

Recommendation

To add the following amendment:

“In schedule 1, change paragraph 3 to sub-paragraph 3(1), and insert sub-paragraphs 3(2) and 3(3):

(2) After subsection 160ZA (11), insert:

"(12) In deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons under sub-section (7), a local authority shall not have regard to any debt that was accrued by an applicant for housing accommodation, or by a member of his household, where that debt was accrued in connection with domestic abuse.

(13)  For the purposes of sub-section (12), “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021".

 (3) After subsection 166A (14), insert:

"(15) In determining priority for allocating housing accommodation under this section, a local authority shall not have regard to any debt that was accrued by an applicant for housing accommodation, or by a member of his household, where that debt was accrued in connection with domestic abuse.

(16)  For the purposes of sub-section (15), “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021".

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 (high value assets)
• 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.

CIH view

We argued against the implementation of these provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 at the time, and we are pleased to see this opportunity being used to strike them off the statute book for good.  This will help to protect both the future of social homes and security of tenure for council tenants and is a very welcome step.

Social housing landlords have an increasing number of health and safety statutory duties to fulfil as part of their landlord role as government has sought to strengthen the regulatory framework post the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. At the same time, we are hearing from members that is it becoming more difficult to gain access to tenant’s 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, leaving tenants and neighbours facing potential dangers to their health, and in the worst-case scenario, lives and leaving landlords open to regulatory failure and possible criminal prosecution. Due to conflicting judgements in recent county court cases, the current 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.

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.  

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

Due to the speed with which the Social Housing Bill has been announced and introduced to parliament we have not yet been able to draft a suitable amendment, but we hope to do so during the course of the bill.  

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 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 they still cannot get the tenant to let them in.  

For housing associations the tenancy terms are laid out in s16 of the Housing Act 1988 which states that a tenancy which is an assured tenancy shall be treated as such, 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 council’s 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. They 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 they 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 won’t give access, but mental health difficulties are often cited, including hoarding behaviour. Others struggle with appointments or with the complexity of their lives. 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 body 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.

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