The Renters’ Rights Bill returned to the House of Lords today for its second Committee Stage sitting, with peers turning their attention to the fine print. While the Bill’s overarching aim is to modernise the private rented sector and strengthen tenant protections, it’s in the detail—particularly the grounds for possession where the real debates are unfolding. One provision that took centre stage was Ground 6B, a technical but impactful ground for eviction that highlights the tension between landlord logistics and tenant security.
What is Ground 6B?
Ground 6B is a newly introduced ground for possession in the Renters’ Rights Bill. It allows landlords to recover possession where:
”The tenancy has become unauthorised because the superior lease under which the landlord held the property has come to an end.”
In other words, this applies in situations where a landlord (often an intermediate leaseholder or subletter) no longer has the legal authority to let the property because their own lease has expired or been terminated.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe put forward an amendment requiring mandatory compensation for tenants evicted under Ground 6B. She argued that it is unfair to expect tenants to face displacement due to legal issues completely outside their control—particularly when they may have had no knowledge of the landlord’s leasehold position.
As she put it:
“A tenant should not lose their home without financial redress just because the landlord’s superior lease has ended. Leaving this to the court’s discretion provides too little certainty.”
The proposal would mirror compensation requirements already included in other parts of the Bill.
The concern raised is that Ground 6B, as drafted, could become a loophole. Without clear safeguards or compensation, a landlord could technically regain possession with no obligation to the tenant, simply because a higher-tier lease arrangement changed. A situation which has the potential of being manipulated.
Other Debates on the Day
The debate on Ground 6B came alongside other proposed amendments:
– Grounds 1 and 1A (Landlord intends to move in or sell): Peers suggested requiring a statement of truth or formal proof (such as a solicitor’s letter) to guard against misuse of these grounds.
– Clause 21: Concerns were raised over inconsistent definitions of “family member” used across the Bill. Baroness Grender called for a harmonised definition to avoid confusion.
– Agricultural Tenancies: Amendments were tabled to ensure consistency with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, protecting farming tenancies from inadvertent overlap or exclusion.
– Government Amendment – Clause 3 Removed: The government deleted Clause 3, relating to transitional provisions for superior leases, stating it was unnecessary and legally unclear.
What Happens Next?
The Committee Stage continues on Monday 28 April, when peers will revisit remaining clauses.
