Tenants in London turned up at Housing Secretary Angela Rayner’s office to hand her a cheque for £20,001, with campaigners accusing her of listening to the property industry rather than tenants.

About 20 tenants from London Renters Union protested outside the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. They accused Rayner of accepting a £20,000 speaking fee at the Propertymark conference only weeks before dismissing rent controls and urged her to listen to the evidence in support of rent control, rather than taking large sums from the property industry.

London Renters Union says Propertymark lobbied against a rent freeze when it was reported that Rachel Reeves was considering the measure earlier this spring. Then in June, the estate agent body paid Rayner £20,000 for a two-hour speaking event.

Conflict

“It’s a clear conflict of interest that the housing secretary is taking large sums from the property industry and then acting to protect the profits of landlords, developers, and estate agents,” says spokesperson Jae Vail. “Rayner must listen to renters rather than carry out the bidding of rich lobbying groups. If this government really wants to make a break with ‘40 years of neoliberalism’, then it has to put a stop to the exploitative rent hikes pushing us out of our homes and communities.”

Nathan Emerson, CEO of Propertymark (pictured left), tells LandlordZONE that the Propertymark One is a self-funded annual conference, with all costs met through delegate ticket sales, sponsorship and exhibition income from industry suppliers.

Explains

He explains that at the time, the Labour Government under Sir Keir Starmer remained in office and Rayner was not serving as a government minister – and nor was there any indication or expectation that she would return to government.

“Ms Rayner’s contribution provided an important opportunity to explain the tenant voice and the reasons behind the UK government’s approach to renters’ rights,” says Emerson. “This direct dialogue was particularly valuable to a sector that had legitimate questions and concerns about the direction of policy and allowed delegates to better understand the rationale behind the legislation rather than simply hearing about its implications.”

‍