Housing and Planning Bill

Angela Watkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Teresa Pearce]

I agree that that is a possibility, which is why we are proposing that new clause 56 would see the extension of the housing ombudsman scheme, at first through a pilot scheme in London and then potentially across the country. I believe this would help many tenants in resolving disputes.

On amendment 49, part 3 of the Bill makes provision for private landlords to recover abandoned premises from tenants without going to court. We appreciate the need for landlords to recover abandoned premises, but the measures give landlords dangerous powers to evict tenants with speed and ease. We believe the Bill does not provide safeguards for genuine cases where somebody could be away from the property legitimately, such as a stay in hospital or somebody working away from home. We believe the measures will lead to further pressure on our already stretched local authorities. As the measures stand, we believe they go against the spirit of other parts of the Bill where we have looked to crack down on rogue and criminal landlords through banning orders and a database, and to drive up standards. Instead, as they stand, the measures give the very same landlords a way to evict without recourse to the courts, and with speed and ease.

Many organisations contacted us to raise concerns about the proposed legislation. I raised their concerns in Committee, but it is worth raising them again. Crisis and Shelter have both spoken out against these clauses and recommended that they be removed from the Bill. They were particularly concerned that vulnerable tenants could be unintentionally evicted; tenants will be unable to challenge their eviction effectively; and that there is insufficient evidence that abandonment is a widespread problem and that there is existing legal provision to deal with genuine cases of abandonment. In addition, they believe that by undermining the role of courts in the eviction process, the changes will put more tenants at risk of homelessness. Further representations were made in written and oral evidence to the Committee noting concern with the proposals. Crisis highlighted that the

“Bill creates a new ‘fast track’ eviction process for landlords to reclaim possession of a property which has been abandoned”

and that there was no

“robust evidence to suggest that abandonment is a significant or widespread problem.”

Citing the Bill and the Government’s impact assessment, it also stated:

“Landlord associations have estimated that 1% of calls made to their helplines relate to abandonment. There are approximately 1.4 million landlords. From this figure the government has extrapolated that there are only 1,750 tenancies abandoned every year, which amounts to only 0.04% of private renting households.”

We heard concern from legal organisations, such as the Housing Law Practitioners Association, which was unaware of any evidential basis suggesting the need for such a power as that in part 3 of the Bill and did not understand what was thought to be defective in the existing law. It also noted that the “trigger” rent arrears in clause 50 were plainly modelled on those in ground 8 in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. If those arrears are made out, the landlord is already entitled to a mandatory possession order under ground 8. If a landlord has a mandatory right to possession already, why does he need a right to bypass the courts?

The association was also uneasy about the re-instatement provisions and had many concerns about the proposals. Others noted that they did not think the proposals were necessary at all. In fact, there is already legal provision for cases of abandonment in the form of the legal rule of implied surrender, which is where a tenant behaves in such a way that would make a landlord believe they wanted to end a tenancy, such as emptying the property of all its possessions or handing back the keys. Crucially, there has to be evidence of actual abandonment—evidence that the tenant has gone for good—and this could be evidence from neighbours or visual evidence, such as possessions being cleared. The landlord can accept this and then legally change the locks without any court proceedings being required. The question has been raised with us why the measures are being introduced, given the existing provisions protecting landlords in such circumstances.

Many of the organisations that approached us wanted the provisions to be withdrawn from the Bill altogether, but our amendment proposes an extra layer, requiring the local housing authority to confirm that it suspects that the property is abandoned before a landlord can recover the abandoned premises. Landlords could use the proposals in the Bill to secure eviction just by writing tenants a couple of letters, as an act of revenge or to kick out a legitimate tenant who is away on business or in hospital; and what would happen if a landlord says he has sent a letter but the tenant never receives it, after which the tenant goes away a couple of weeks later on holiday and the landlord evicts them while they are away?

The Bill requires the landlord only to say that the property is abandoned, rather than for it actually to be abandoned, and that could be open to abuse. That is why we would like to insert a reasonable extra layer in the proposals. Under the amendment, the local housing authority would need to confirm that it also suspects that the property is abandoned, ensuring that a landlord could not just say so. The amendment would add the voice of a local, respectable and accountable body, such as the council, to a landlord’s concerns and to the process and ensure that the measures are not open to abuse. Given that there are estimated to be only 1,750 occasions a year when such a situation would arise and that there are about 400 local authorities, it is unlikely to overburden local authorities. The clauses clearly need to be amended if they are to work, are not open to abuse and can be used appropriately on the rare occasions that a landlord requires a property back.

Amendments 47 and 48, also on abandoned premises, would extend the time period between the two letters needed to evict a tenant. Amendment 47 would specify that the date by which the tenant must reply must be after the 12-week period, while amendment 48 would provide longer between the first and second warnings. I spoke, on the previous amendment, about the flaws in the abandonment proposals and how they were open to abuse or error, meaning that landlords could use the proposals to evict tenants just by writing them a couple of letters.

I completely understand the situation a landlord is in when a tenant truly has abandoned a property. In Committee, I raised the need for local authorities to know not just who rogue landlords were but who rogue tenants were. Tenants also enter into a legal contract with a landlord when they take on a property, and they should not breach that agreement, just as landlords are not expected to breach their end of the agreement, yet these clauses give rogue landlords the ability to evict with speed and ease.

The Minister has already responded to the issues raised in Committee and added provision for a third wave of letters, for which I am grateful. It is still important, however, to safeguard these measures against abuse. We believe that by extending the minimum amount of time before a landlord is able to recover abandoned premises, those with legitimate reasons for absence from their property would be able to respond, which would help to safeguard against potential abuse.

One of the concerns raised about these proposals was the pressure on local housing authorities that might have a duty to rehouse tenants who have been evicted, even if just in emergency accommodation following the eviction. When faced with someone about to be evicted under section 21 notices, local housing authorities have the advantage of time in the current system to plan the resources; if they know that a resident is going to be evicted, they can try to do something about it before the date of eviction. Under the proposals in the Bill, however, residents could be evicted in haste, placing further pressure on local housing authorities.

The amendments would insert a little more time into the recovery of abandoned premises, which would ease the pressure on local housing authorities and help to avoid any abuse of the process. In addition, it would be advantageous to extend the time period between the first two letters needed to evict a tenant suspected of abandoning premises from four weeks to eight weeks, because that would safeguard against error and a landlord using the measure to kick out a legitimate tenant who is away on business, in hospital or even on holiday. By extending the time period between the letters, there is obviously less chance of that happening. That will safeguard against abuse and allow tenants more time to query the landlord or to seek housing advice. As there is no court involvement in this process, it gives the tenant more time to assess their options.

It is clear that the Bill’s proposals could affect all tenants in the private rented sector, and that all landlords will have the powers, even though they are open to abuse and abandonment accounts only for an estimated 1,750 occasions a year. Why not get this right so that it safeguards against abuse and does what it is supposed to do? That would allow landlords to recover abandoned premises and not allow rogue landlords to evict tenants with ease. Legislation on abandonment needs to be watertight, because although it affects only 0.04% of tenancies, it could be abused.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to new clause 5, which is complementary to clause 26—previously clause 22—of this excellent Bill and which relates to rogue landlords and letting agents. The new clause simply requires local authorities to add a question to their council tax registration forms seeking information about the tenure of a property. It would not only be administratively easy to implement, but the cost would be de minimis. The purpose of the new clause is to provide a database for all local authorities, identifying the owners of privately rented properties.

Currently, local authorities know who is paying council tax on a private property, but they have no way of knowing if it is owner-occupied or tenanted. Having easy access to such information would have numerous benefits for local planning authorities, environmental health departments, social services, tenants, HMRC and good landlords. The Residential Landlords Association fully supports this measure.

[Mr Prisk]

I strongly support new clause 5 and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it. Does my hon. Friend agree that one critical benefit of the new clause is the ability to use the information to track rogue landlords when they move from one place to another?

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is why it is so important that all local authorities adopt this measure; rogue landlords will have properties in more than one area.

The database would also assist local planners in measuring the size of the private rented sector in their area. That would help to develop future planning policy. Enforcement of existing regulations relating to the private rented sector would be made easier, as the landlord could be identified and contacted. Indeed, the absence of this information could alert local authorities to possible irregularities such as illegal subletting, unregulated houses in multiple occupation—this is becoming a problem in my Hornchurch and Upminster constituency—housing benefit fraud and public health issues. Finite resources could then be targeted at the most troublesome tenanted properties via the Land Registry.