Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Best

Monday 5th November 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Best]

I think we are all aware that if there is the possibility of a loophole being discovered, somebody out there will discover it. The absolute, 100% intention must be to block it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, suggested two alternative routes. One is for the costs that legitimately fall to the tenant, not the landlord or the agent, to be picked up in the tenancy deposit scheme so that you do not get so much back at the end. I wonder whether the tenancy deposit scheme is tightly defined enough and whether it is possible to take from the deposit sums relating to, for example, the cleaning of the common areas where No. 9 of the 10 flats has been up to no good or where someone has parked the car in the wrong place and so on. I am not sure whether such things can be taken out of the deposit; that is a technical question.

The other alternative suggested by the noble Baroness is that the landlord will be so fed up that they will not renew the tenancy or will evict the tenant. That is a bit harsh. It would be better to find a way to come to an accommodation with the tenant rather than take extreme measures. I will need to hear from the Minister the series of ways in which all the possible loopholes and abuses can be blocked because that must be the Bill’s intention.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 23, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has my full support. It would remove default fees from the Bill. I share the concerns expressed here today that this provision could be used as a vehicle for unscrupulous landlords and letting agents to recoup lost income resulting from the ban. We cannot allow this loophole to go unchallenged. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best; if something can be got around, someone will usually be smart enough to work it out and get around it. We should always be aware of that; it is very important to stop that.

In the Bill, the Government seek to limit default charges and fees to costs that are “reasonably incurred”, which must be evidenced in writing. However, this will prevent landlords and agents including unfair terms in tenancy agreements and trying to charge unreasonable amounts. Of course, we will come back to this issue of what is reasonable; we have come back to the issue of guidance many times. In responding to the debate, can the noble Lord explain how he believes that tenants will be protected from this unfair practice? How does the legislation, as it is framed now, protect people from ingenious people looking to get round almost anything? How can we be confident that the Bill is watertight?

Amendment 24, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, and my Amendment 25 seek to make provision for default fees to be more transparent if they remain in the Bill and, as drafted in my amendment, to be detailed in regulations setting out what is a permitted payment in this regard. This would provide a clearer, legal definition of default fees. That would prevent abuse, protect tenants, ensure that tenants understand what they could be charged for and increase confidence in challenging illegal, prohibited fees. In contrast to guidance, regulations would act as a deterrent and give tenants a statutory basis from which to challenge prohibited fees. The late payment of rent and lost keys are the most commonly cited examples; in each scenario, the purpose of the fee would be clear to the tenant, which would limit the opportunity for exploitation.

I take on board the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If we were all reasonable people, we would not need legislation at all; unfortunately, there are good and bad tenants and there are good and bad landlords. Often, we have to legislate for the worst excesses in all cases, and that is partly what we are trying to do here. However, I accept that the noble Earl has made some fair points—I am not suggesting that that is not the case. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has to say on these matters.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Best

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support, briefly, the double-headed Amendment 64A and to comment on the late news delivered by the Minister, of which more may follow, to the effect that the Government have broadly accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.

The key underlying theme of the Bill has been the desire to build more homes and to see a reversal in the decline of owner-occupation, to be accomplished, principally, by building starter homes sold at discounted prices and by enabling housing association tenants to exercise a new right to buy under this part of the Bill. The key underlying objection to both these measures has been that the very substantial cost involved—some £8.6 billion for discounts for those buying starter homes and probably a rather higher sum over the next five years for the discounts to housing association tenants who buy—is all to come through taking away resources from social housing for poorer households, including by selling the most valuable council houses. This cunning plan to spend billions promoting home ownership without the Government needing to find any new money sadly has unfortunate consequences: ultimately, someone has to bear the cost and that someone is the family in overcrowded accommodation, the elderly person, the household in desperate circumstances who would have got an affordable home to rent but will not now do.

However, damage limitation is possible. This amendment seeks to ensure that where vacant council houses must be sold, before the proceeds are dispatched to central government to pay for discounts elsewhere, funds from the sold homes are used to replace those lost on a one-for-one basis—one new home for every old one sold. The amendment adds that, where appropriate, the replacement should be like for like—a rented family home replaced by a rented family home, not a one-bed starter home. The Minister, thanks to the Secretary of State approaching this issue in a very open and helpful manner, has I think been able, first, to accept that one-for-one replacement should be in the Bill and, secondly, to go a long way to accepting that like-for-like replacement can be agreed wherever the local authority makes a convincing case for it. We need to see the actual wording of the Government’s alternative amendment but I hope that, if not tonight then at Third Reading, we will all be sufficiently satisfied with this. If so, I am grateful to the Minister and to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State, for listening to your Lordships and—I think and I hope—for acting accordingly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are concerned with the payments to the Secretary of State and the deductions from those payments of sums of money to build replacement properties on a one-for-one basis. I am supportive of both the amendments in this group. As I said in Committee, the clauses concerning the high-value levy and the sale of high-value council properties are a very damaging mechanism to deliver government policy. They make local councils foot the bill and risk having a devastating effect on council housing stocks. Both these amendments seek to put in the Bill that the payments to government must be made after the deduction of the costs of replacement on a one-for-one basis.

Amendment 64A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, signed up, would add a further clause giving the local authority the ability to set out to government what specific types of local housing are needed in their area. Again, this seems to be within the principle of localism and should not really cause the Government any problems at all. I understand we will hear from the Minister that they understand the issue and are sympathetic to the points raised by the amendments. I am very pleased to hear that: it is very positive news and very welcome. I will not say much more than that, but I am delighted that the Minister and other colleagues have listened. Until we see the text of the amendment concerned, we of course reserve our position, and may bring our amendment back at Third Reading, but from what I have heard I am very pleased and I thank her very much.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Best

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best]

Once again the House of Lords consideration of this Bill has led to a really sensible change to the legislation. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Newton—I have supported these amendments all the way—on persuading the Minister who I know has handled this with great distinction. On behalf of all the organisations which have been extremely worried about this and all the people whose complaints will now be better handled, I thank the Minister very much.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendments. They are a work in progress. I also thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for her amendment which would reduce the period before referral from eight to six weeks. I hope that the Government will accept my noble friend’s proposal.

I never really got to the bottom of why it was such an issue for the Government. Looking back to the debate on Report, it was not only Members from the Labour Benches who expressed such concerns but Members from all sides. I have always thought that the democratic filter would do nothing to improve the process of enabling tenants to resolve their complaints. The Government’s proposals allow a tenant with a complaint direct access to the ombudsman after going through a process or on the refusal of a designated person to send it on.

When the noble Baroness responds to the debate, will she say how the ombudsmen satisfy themselves that either of the two conditions for direct referral have been met? I hope that that will be something very simple, such as the copy of a letter or an e-mail confirming that the complainant has gone through the process and the period of time has elapsed, or the refusal of a designated person, as I do not want to see added burdens on the complainant.

At this point, I would like to add my thanks to the Minister, other noble Lords on all sides of the House and the Bill team as we draw to a close on this Bill. This is the first Bill on which I have contributed to your Lordships’ House’s discussions from the Dispatch Box. It has been an interesting learning curve for me. I hope, in particular, that I have been of assistance to my noble friends Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Beecham. I again thank the Minister for bringing these amendments back. They are very welcome.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Best

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I offer my support and that of the Opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as I have done on a number of occasions on Report. He has identified a problem that needs to be addressed. It involves real people with real concerns. If the matter requires further work, as he says, and it can be done—I hope that the Minister will comment on that—the issue may be sorted out. Given that we are discussing a charity, I understand that the issue may be more difficult than it at first seems, but I hope that the government Front Bench will give a positive response.

Amendments 65 and 67 in this group stand in my name. Amendment 65 would ensure that a parent company of a group of housing associations can be registered even if it owns no housing itself. This would allow the regulator to regulate group members via the parent rather than directly if he thinks that that would be more effective. Amendment 67 concerns the appointment of members to housing association boards. The law as it stands allows the regulator to make unlimited appointments to a registered provider’s governing body provided that they remain a minority. For a 10-member board, it would allow the regulator to make nine appointments. My amendment limits the number of appointments the regulator may make to no more than four. This is a proportionate number of appointments and would enable the regulator to strengthen the board by adding members with sufficient skills and abilities to deal with any concerns that they may have about the board’s performance. However, the number would not be too overbearing as this sort of appointment would be of a temporary nature to help the housing association board discharge its duties more effectively.

[Lord Best]

Amendment 67 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. It concerns the appointments made by the regulator. It is important to note that this amendment relates only to appointments made by the regulator where the housing association has not failed in any way. It is not a disciplinary measure but constitutes a voluntary helping hand for the organisation. In a number of cases that I know well additional members have been appointed by the regulator as new members of the board and have been very helpful. However, there are limits to the number of appointments that the regulator ought to make to the board. We suggest that these be limited in future to a maximum of four. In my experience three new people are usually appointed to strengthen a board that has become weak—four is quite enough. We are trying to protect the independence and sovereignty of these organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best]

This amendment is about the new powers for the ombudsman to apply to a court to make its rulings legally enforceable—in other words, to insist, having made a judgment through the courts, that the landlord complies with the ombudsman’s decision. This is quite a big jump from the current scheme, which is based on informality. At the moment it is an inexpensive scheme. It is very accessible to complainants and people do not come with their lawyers. It is not part of the legal processes. It is feared that the new scheme will rather change the nature of the way in which the ombudsman works. It also carries the same risk that I have been harping on about today, that housing associations will slide into the public sector and become indistinguishable from public sector agencies, which has the effect thereafter that all of their borrowing will become part of the public sector debt, which I know the Government are very anxious to avoid. There is a risk that if housing associations are subject to legally enforceable decisions based on the opinion of a public authority—the ombudsman—they may not be regarded as being outside the public sector. That would be a calamity.

Once again, this is about trying to retain the independence and non-statutory nature of the sector. The removal of these new legal powers would be helpful in sustaining that independence and the success of the ombudsman’s scheme to date, without making the ombudsman’s rulings legally enforceable.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 75 and 76. They would ensure that the ombudsman’s service is not damaged by unintended consequences. What is wonderful about the ombudsman’s service is that compared with the courts, proceedings are informal, inexpensive and accessible. It is respected as its rulings are complied with by registered providers. The Government are proposing to solve a problem that noble Lords on this side of the House do not believe exists. We should be careful not to undermine the service. Will the Minister tell the House where the proposal has come from? Who has asked for it? How has it arrived here?

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Best

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments is probably the most important that we will consider today as part of our deliberations on the housing section of the Localism Bill. If passed, it would give Parliament the opportunity to reflect on the changes after they become law and a period of three years has elapsed. They would then only be renewed if affirmative resolutions were passed by both Houses.

The changes in the Bill are significant. There is widespread concern about them. When the Government make such changes, they should always be prepared to listen and to be aware of the law of unintended consequences. By passing this amendment, Parliament would have the ability to review the decision it has made in a simple way that would not require lots of parliamentary time. I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept this group of amendments.

It is important that we remind ourselves of what the Government propose and then reflect on the benefit of what I am proposing to your Lordships’ House today. Clause 134 amends Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to enable local authorities to discharge their duty to homeless households by offering private sector accommodation. Individuals concerned lose their right to give their consent to the arrangement. Clause 136 gives a two-year safety net. We have to examine that in the light of the fact that that may not be long enough.

Organisations working closely with homeless households are most concerned by these proposals. The chief executive of Shelter, Campbell Robb, said recently:

“It is unbelievable that at a time when every two minutes someone faces the nightmare of losing their home, the Government is proposing to reduce the rights of homeless people who approach their local authorities for help”.

The charity Crisis has an equally concerned view of these proposals. Both charities, along with many other respected organisations, have a unique understanding of the problems faced by homeless people and we should listen to them carefully.

If the proposals are further considered with the impact of the changes to housing benefit then the risks of homeless households being placed in a difficult, downward spiral are all too apparent. These are the reasons why we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to correct the situation, in case the reality turns out to be much less welcome and more damaging than the intention of the proposals in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, my name is against this amendment, in support of the sunset clause coupled with a report on the position of homelessness three years from now. The Minister said earlier that one of a local authority’s most important duties is towards the homeless. A pretty fundamental change in the way that that duty is to be discharged means that it must be a good idea to pause for thought three years down the line and see whether these quite important and significant changes have made a big difference.

At the moment, the local authority must find the family or householder a secure and affordable place in the social housing sector. In the future, they will be able to fulfil the requirement placed upon them by seeing that family into a place in the private rented sector. That, by definition, is not going to be secure in the long term. Understandably, landlords may wish to have the property back and security of tenure over the long term cannot be offered. It may be that that property, after the reforms to housing benefit and the local housing allowance, will prove to be unaffordable. There is a gap between what the tenant pays in rent and the amount that they receive in benefit, and the private rented sector option may not work out.

It may be that the dire warnings that we have heard from Shelter, Crisis, Homeless Link and others do not work out in practice, but there is a danger that those warnings prove to be entirely timely. We had a lot of discussion on these provisions earlier in the House. The noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Rix, Lord McKenzie and Lord Kennedy, the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Greengross, and others all spoke on this matter in Committee. There is a great deal of concern about the fundamental changes to the duties upon local authorities.

I hope that noble Lords had a chance to look at Hansard over the summer. As I have said, noble Lords should regard reading the last debate as a bit of a teach-in on all the aspects of homelessness that we ought to think about. We were not able to secure all those different aspects as a whole series of amendments to the Bill but the Government have, in trying to ensure that accommodation is suitable in the private rented sector, come up with a code of guidance. That has some very good things in it. It does not go all the way down the line, but perhaps that will lead to a successful outcome for those who are placed in the private rented sector. This sunset clause would ensure that after a period of three years a thoroughgoing report is placed before Parliament, and that unless the Secretary of State revives these measures by order, those measures will fall.

Earlier this year I moved a Motion on the housing benefit regulations asking the noble Lord, Lord Freud, the Minister responsible, whether he would over the months and years ahead put in hand a fundamental reform along the lines of the housing benefit reforms in order to see what impact they had on homelessness, families, poverty, people’s incomes and the local authorities themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, not only agreed to do that and to have a review, which is now under way and which will report in three stages over the next 18 months, but did it in a way that, I am pleased to report back to the House, met entirely with my approval and indeed that of others interested in these matters. He has brought together Professor Kemp from the University of Oxford and Professor Cole from Sheffield Hallam University; he has Ipsos MORI doing surveys and the IFS looking at the macroeconomics. It is a real, thoroughgoing review of the impact of these changes, which is just what we asked for and just what this House required. A comparable exercise to look down the line at how things are going would again be a triumph for the Government and a thoroughly commendable and useful exercise, which would provide the evidence and inform a decision on a sunset clause three years from now. Let us do it again. I strongly support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has the full support of the Opposition. I concur in particular with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Whitty. This amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the curtailed Committee stage on the last day before the Summer Recess. As the noble Lord explained, the amendment concerns the flexible tenancy regime proposed in the Bill. It is supported by both Crisis and Shelter and seeks to provide protections for certain vulnerable groups by excluding them from the proposals. The groups to be exempt are of people for whom, through a variety of circumstances, flexible tenancies are not appropriate. The groups include older people aged 60 or more, households where one or more member has a long-term illness, and tenants who need more secure forms of accommodation.

What worries me most about this section of the Bill is the reliance that the Government have placed on words such as “in most cases” or “of course, the social landlord will take into account the needs of the vulnerable”. This is all too risky for the people most in need of additional help and protection. I hope that the Minister has had time over the summer to reflect on the proposals, and will be able to give us some welcome news today, and assurances that at least things will be tightened up. If that is not the case, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will press his amendment and test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word. I moved an amendment along these lines just before the Committee stage finished, and received many helpful reassurances about the way in which the policy might work. Perhaps it would help the House if the Minister, in responding to the question about where the policy leads, would agree with me that a fundamental part of the policy is that no opprobrium will fall upon any council or housing association that decides not to deploy flexible—that is to say, fixed-term—tenures. The Hanover Housing Association, which I chair, houses only older people. We are a retirement housing organisation. We have absolutely no intention of giving anybody a two-year or five-year tenancy: the idea is absolute anathema. People who move in to a sheltered flat or a retirement apartment will be able to stay there for the rest of their life: that is the deal. Some local authorities may take the view that the families whom they are housing—just like the older people in my case—should have security on a permanent, long-term basis. I invite the Minister to confirm—I think that she will be able to do this—that if a social landlord, be they a council or housing association, does not wish to take advantage of flexible tenures and fixed-term tenancies, that will not in any way rebound on them.