Tenant Fees Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 6, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would amend Clause 8, which is concerned with financial penalties. The amendment adds paragraph (d) to subsection (4), which lists those situations where a financial penalty may not be imposed. The amendment, which I am happy to support, stops an enforcement authority imposing a fine where the relevant person has recovered funds through an application to the First-tier Tribunal. It seems to address an omission on the part of the Government and it is a sensible proposal.

Also in this group are Amendments 7 and 8, which I think would strengthen the Bill. Amendment 7 provides for the First-tier Tribunal to order the landlord or lettings agent to pay up to three times the sum of the prohibited payment that they improperly collected. There is no provision in the Bill for any form of compensation when a prohibited fee is charged and that in my opinion is a serious omission on the part of the Government. We believe that compensation will undoubtedly be appropriate in many cases given the likelihood that charging prohibited payments will cause tenants significant financial hardship.

Compensation would also act as an incentive for tenants to recover illegal fees where the enforcement authority is unable to enforce the law and would be appropriate recognition of the time and effort that it takes for an individual to enforce their rights through the courts. Compensation is an established principle in the consumer industry where one party is entrusted with another person’s money, in addition to enforcement penalties where rules or laws have been breached. This includes all sorts of bodies such as train operators, travel agents and lawyers. The idea of being paid compensation where the consumer has not been well served is well understood, and getting the money back is important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said.

My amendment is consistent with other legislation governing the private rented sector. I do not accept that compensation should be sacrificed in support of the Government’s aim that enforcement will be funded exclusively through fines. Amendment 8 seeks to add a further restriction on the termination of the tenancy. I believe this is a very important addition that brings a further element of fairness.

Section 21 notices have undoubtedly been abused in the past, to the considerable detriment of tenants. It would be a complete travesty if, having stood up for yourself and your rights, and having taken action to recover the money that was improperly taken from you, you are then punished, in effect, and served with a Section 21 notice to leave your property. This amendment seeks to ensure that that does not happen and that the victim—here, the tenant—cannot be treated in that way. I do not see why we would allow rogue landlords or letting agents to behave in this way. My amendment seeks to ensure that they cannot, by implementing that six-month cushion.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder whether my noble friend will address the point raised by the noble Baroness when she referred to the number of letting agents that did not obey the law on their websites. I have found that in many areas—including modern slavery, an issue I am particularly interested in—a number of people just do not obey the law. It seems to me that it would be odd if we left it to the local trading standards officers. What is the arrangement? If you find such a case, who in government is supposed to enforce it? This also is a piece that might be dealt with in this legislation. If it is true—I assume that it is—that 17% of letting agents do not even obey the law of having to say what their fees are, that is outrageous.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Bill proposes a number of enforcement measures that offer a strong deterrent to irresponsible agents and landlords. It also makes provisions to enable tenants and other relevant people to recover unlawfully charged fees, if other attempts have failed, by going to the First-tier Tribunal, which will order reimbursement to the tenant of money that should not have been paid. Of course, tenants should get back any unlawful payments in full, whether that is direct from the landlord or agent, via their enforcement authority or through an order of the First-tier Tribunal. However, in certain instances, we think it is also appropriate for the landlord or agent to be issued with a financial penalty, as well as ensuring that the tenant receives their money back. This is to deter future non-compliance.

Amendment 6 prevents an enforcement authority imposing a financial penalty under Section 12 if the tenant has got their money back. We think that giving a power to impose financial penalties for breaches of the legislation is an important tool for enforcement authorities. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment 6. However, the enforcement guidance will stress that enforcement authorities should take account of the landlord’s and agent’s conduct and past behaviour when considering the level of financial penalty to charge, if any. This includes whether the landlord or agent has reimbursed the tenant quickly when asked to do so.

Turning to Amendments 7 and 8, while we think it is right that agents and landlords should be issued with a financial penalty, we do not think it is appropriate for the tenant to receive further compensation in addition to repayment of the money owed. To add compensation risks penalising agents and landlords multiple times for the same breach, which we do not believe is fair; for example, it would not be right to ask a landlord who has been fined up to £5,000 for an initial breach to also pay three times the amount of a prohibited payment to a tenant. This would in effect be two financial penalties for the same breach. The deterrent effect, mentioned by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks, would of course be secured by the fines under the Act.

It is also worth noting that Clause 17 already provides further protection to tenants by preventing landlords recovering their property via the Section 21 procedure in the Housing Act 1988 until they have repaid any unlawfully charged fees. This approach is in line with legislation that already applies; for example, where the How to Rent guide has not been provided or where a landlord has not secured the required licence for a house in multiple occupation. Further, Clause 4 ensures that any clause in the tenancy seeking to charge a prohibited fee is not binding on the tenant.

We do not consider that further provision is needed along the lines proposed by Amendment 8. For example, it is not fair if a landlord who appeals against the imposition of a financial penalty, and this appeal is upheld, is then restricted from using the no-fault eviction process for six months. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, this would be the case—although that may not be what he intended. We firmly believe that our existing approach restricting a landlord’s ability to serve a Section 21 notice strikes the right balance and offers a serious deterrent to non-compliance. I hope the noble Lord will not move his amendment.

I suspect the short answer to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Deben is: the trading standards officer. I would like to write to my noble friend setting out in more detail what is being proposed, under both this and existing legislation, to prevent misleading information appearing on websites and tenants being misled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her imaginative use of Clause 21 in the Bill. She explained the story behind the amendment; I know that the Minister, who was so involved and helpful in getting client money protection on to the statute book, will understand it.

I will not repeat the wonderful arguments made by the noble Baroness but the principle behind this has always been that client money protection was operated voluntarily by 60% of the market. It was the 40% who did not cover themselves voluntarily that we had to deal with. Against the background of what has happened in the department in putting this situation into practice, it seems that we are covering the 40% but are in grave danger of losing the 60%, who will not want the situation outlined by the noble Baroness.

There is a problem because large firms and organisations deal with large sums of money going through their books, in their bank accounts and in their clients’ accounts. Therefore, such firms are exposed. That is how the department has come to the figure of £200 million for cover; it feels that the firms need to be insured to cover that exposure. With respect, the department has not looked at the real world, where the large firms and organisations described by the noble Baroness reduce their exposure by placing funds in custodial TDP schemes, thus reducing the amount that they hold. So, you do not need insurance to such levels because, to use an analogy, the firms will do what the betting industry does in laying off bets and what the reinsurance industry does in laying off their insurance risks on others in the industry.

Therefore, in very simple terms, without repeating anything she said, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I hope the department will look into not having a vast £200 million cover because it is not needed. It will frighten off the 60% who already cover themselves voluntarily under client money protection. There is no need for this large sum. Everything else in the Bill is right; we have made great strides in client money protection. The noble Baroness mentioned the status quo; we should let sleeping dogs lie so that we can get CMP operating properly and not frighten off large firms. They may be unduly frightened but they can take action by putting money in custodial funds. I support the amendment.

[Lord Deben]

I wonder if I can help the noble Lord. I know he always worries when I get up and say that I am going to be helpful, but on this occasion I might be. I remind the Committee that I am chairman of the organisation that represents independent financial advisers and those who deal with wealth management. Therefore, I understand a lot about the parallel circumstances referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, when she pointed out the protection accorded to bank accounts and the different sorts of protection in the financial services industry. What I really want to say is that I hope my noble friend will think very carefully about this because we have seen the huge difficulty that people now have—even the most excellent of firms—in getting proper protection from the insurance industry.

The noble Baroness made an important point about being proportionate as to what the real risks are. I want to make a point about the dangers of not being proportionate. This is an industry of great importance and I am absolutely excited by the Bill because it does a whole lot of things that need to be done. However, we have to be very careful about importing into it those things that will result in unexpected and unwanted additional results.

I am not sure that civil servants are always as expert in these detailed aspects of insurance as those who deal with them daily. All the advice is that there really is no need to protect any more than the kind of protection that ARLA and RICS already provide. You do not really need that advice: the fact is that they have run the system very effectively up to now. I remind my noble friend that the party he represents is always very much in favour of free enterprise and people getting together to organise things on their own. Would it therefore not be a good idea for us to be very careful about not taking that advice?

We know that the 40% that do not belong to these organisations are, by nature, either not very careful or painfully close to the edge of the law. There is a real range. But I remind the Committee of the last speaker, who rightly said that we do not want to enfranchise the 40% by disfranchising the 60%. That does not seem a sensible answer. I hope my noble friend will take the advice of those who have had to deal with these things in other areas: that it is extremely dangerous if you get yourself into a position in which you lay too heavy a weight of insurance when it is not necessary. I have a long history of defending the consumer, but I do not see how consumers are better protected by excluding from the market the two organisations that have so far dominated it—if that is the right word.

The last thing I want to say is this: I have often spent time trying to encourage ARLA to become a more professional body. One of the successes of recent years has been precisely that, and we ought to be encouraged by what ARLA has done. It would therefore be a great pity if, on this occasion, we ignored its experience, which has come about through its own change from its history to today, or indeed the 150 years’ experience of RICS.

[Lord Best]

I want to offer my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who has done so well in getting us to this point with CMP. It is so disappointing for those of us who have supported her efforts to hear of this last-minute significant hitch. The reason that a number of us were very supportive of CMP being introduced was not because of the 60% but because of the 40%. It was not just to make sure that the 40% had some insurance so that landlords’ and tenants’ money was properly protected. It was rather more sinister than that: it was to drive out that part of the 40% that just would not be able to get insurance, because when their accounts were viewed by those providing insurance, they would be told, “I’m sorry, we’re not insuring you”. This was, and I hope still will be, a way of weeding out the fly-by-night agents who set up shop and who we do not need in this business.