Water Bill

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord De Mauley

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I too would have put my name to the amendment had I known about it in time. I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for not being in my place when he introduced it, but I understand a great deal about the background to it from previous discussions with him. Whatever we do with the cut-off point between what is in Flood Re and what is outside it, it is important that it is reliable, consistent, transparent and fair. The outcome must not be capricious or so asymmetric that people lose trust in it, because I am a believer that credibility is at the centre of Flood Re’s success.

One thing in particular stands in stark contrast with that. The commonhold units’ owners do not themselves own the fabric of the building: it is owned by the commonhold association. I asked myself, if there is a difference in personality, in legal entity, why is it that long leaseholders of the conventional sort in a similar building—with the freehold being the common parts and the fabric of the building owned by someone else—should not benefit? Why is there a blanket inclusion of commonhold but a blanket exclusion of leasehold? I find that difficult to understand, particularly because, under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, the intention was to try to get leasehold nearer to freehold, to remove the segregation between the freehold interest and the leasehold interest which for years has dogged the sector and allowed all sorts of abuses to occur and produced all sorts of disadvantage in funding, growth and reward for that investment.

It seems to me that the convenience of insurers is being put ahead of the public interest. There probably has to be a cut-off point somewhere in the system. It is not for me to speculate on what the actuarial approach would be to that, but it seems that where it is being placed at the moment defies objective analysis on the points of consistency and transparency that I mentioned. I am very inclined to support the amendment.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to discuss the eligibility of leasehold and tenanted properties for Flood Re. In Committee, I said that we would take more time to look at the issue for lease- holders with the ABI and that we would provide further information on the scope of Flood Re.

We have developed with the ABI a briefing note that sets out the scope of Flood Re and covers proposed new subsection (1) in the noble Lord’s Amendment 89B. In summary, the note, which is available online, confirms that domestic contents policies will be available to all under Flood Re, regardless of whether properties are leasehold or freehold, rented or owner-occupied, except those properties in band H and those built from 1 January 2009.

Leasehold houses will also be in scope of Flood Re, provided that the leaseholder lives in the property and purchases the buildings insurance in his or her own name. Flats will be eligible, provided that there are not more than three flats in the building and that the freeholder, or one of those with a share of the freehold, lives in the building and takes out the cover. Setting the eligibility to a maximum of three flats reflects the general limit that the insurance market is willing to cover under a domestic or personal lines policy. There is already a competitive market for insurance for properties with four or more units, which we expect to continue. As I have already said, we and the ABI will monitor the market to ensure that that remains the case. We believe that a significant proportion of the leasehold sector will be in scope of Flood Re, but I should emphasise here that we expect most properties will not need to be in Flood Re and will find better prices through normal routes.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggests that that is all very complicated and does not go far enough. We have looked carefully at that with the ABI. Flood Re should be available only to those who need it. Indeed, in an earlier debate the noble Lord to some extent agreed with that. The ABI has assured us that the same systemic issues relating to availability and affordability do not exist for larger-scale leaseholders and commercial managing agents as in the domestic home insurance market.

The insurance industry has recently written to assure the Government that it does not expect there to be widespread issues over access to the insurance market for those parts of the leasehold sector which will be out of scope of Flood Re, which I am sure that noble Lords will agree is very welcome reassurance. The industry is clear that there is plenty of capacity to continue to provide insurance on a competitive basis.

I turn to the tenanted sector. As we discussed at some length in Committee, landlord insurance is out of scope for Flood Re for buildings cover. Landlord insurance is classified by the insurance industry as commercial. However, again, we have been assured by the industry that the majority of landlords will be able to find a more competitive rate outside Flood Re.

I emphasise that the proposed scope was not developed on the basis of cost: it is the nature of the policy which is key. The Government are clear that it would not be appropriate for landlords, who gain commercially from renting properties, to benefit from a subsidy on other households.

Water Bill

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to make any comment on this, but perhaps I ought to. I have one or two problems with the amendment. First, it appears to refer to any type of property, so it could be residential or non-residential. It appears to cover any type of tenure. The definition of “relevant premises” includes,

“any part of premises occupied”,

which presumably includes the garden. The requirement is for the landlord to hold insurance regardless of risk.

I declare an interest in that I am a landlord of a residential property that is let. It is not itself at risk of flood, but a stream crosses part of the garden. That does not put the property itself at risk, but if it was perceived by an insurer on the basis of the postcode lottery principle that it was somehow at risk and that ratcheted up my insurance premium—which, of course, I should be delighted to cover for all normal risks—I see that there might be a needless requirement to cover for a risk that was not there.

I do not know how that provision sits, because the terminology for “landlord” is wide and the amendment would probably include other properties without any streams in the garden that I might happen to let on a holiday letting, or something like that. I can see that tenants need to be protected in some way, but let us look at what the protection might mean in practice. There is a flooding event; there is insurance cover. Let us say the interior—the inhabitable bit—of the premises is rendered incapable of occupation, not only because of the effect of the flood-water, but also because of the filth and everything else, causing damage to fittings, de-lamination of kitchen units and all the other horrors. It will need a thorough clean-out, with bits replacing, probably a renewed kitchen, and certainly redecoration and drying out. That takes time. The tenant is inevitably going to have to move out. He is going to move to somewhere else. The consequential losses presumably do not cover the loss of the tenants; they only cover the damage to the property. If it needs shoring up then that is a consequential loss.

So with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am not sure that this amendment achieves what it sets out to do. Maybe I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, but the landlord’s insurance does not enure for the benefit of the tenant. If you look at a commercial lease, for instance, it normally has a cessor of rent clause which causes the rent to stop being payable at a point where damage occurs beyond a certain level, so the property is no longer fit for occupation. But if it is not reinstated within a certain period of time, the tenant has the option to move out and determine the lease. The tenant, in the mean time, whether it is a business that needs to continue its business occupation, or a tenant in residence who actually needs a roof over his head, is going to have to move, so I am unclear about the mechanics of how this would really work in practice, because I do not see that it protects the tenant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 161ZA from my noble friend Lord Shipley seeks to make it obligatory for landlords to hold buildings insurance, including cover for flood risk. I can confirm to him, in answer to his question, that the cost of insurance premiums can usually be offset against profits for tax purposes. I am sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment although I am not sure that this Bill is the right vehicle for this debate.

I note that while this amendment refers specifically to flood cover, buildings insurance includes protection against a range of perils including, for example, fire and theft. Although there is no legal requirement for property owners to take out insurance for their properties in the UK, owner-occupiers and landlords generally choose to do so in order to benefit from the financial protection that insurance offers. In addition, and importantly, most mortgage lenders specify buildings cover as a mandatory requirement for providing a mortgage on a property.

The Government agree that it is very sensible for landlords to take out insurance, but are conscious that the decision is a matter of individual choice, based on a commercial decision to protect an investment made in property. We are concerned that making insurance compulsory across the board could create a regulatory burden, which could deter investment in the private rented sector. I strongly encourage tenants always to check with a prospective landlord that appropriate cover is provided for the property.

If I might pause specifically on the issue of support for tenants in the event of a flood, we appreciate the concerns raised recently by the National Flood Forum and others that tenants of properties not covered by insurance might be left homeless following a flood. I note that some insurance policies have an “alternative accommodation” provision, but I would also like to assure noble Lords that, even if this is not the case, tenants do have protection. All local authorities are required to provide accommodation for households who are eligible for assistance, homeless through no fault of their own, and have a priority need for accommodation—into which category flood victims would clearly fall.

As part of its role in promoting flood awareness, the Environment Agency strongly encourages landlords to make a flood plan and to make their tenants aware of what to do in a flood. I also remind noble Lords that all residential contents policies will be eligible for cover through Flood Re, including tenants of rental properties, so long as they are not in properties built after 2009 or in band H or their equivalents. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.