Water Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

161ZA: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Duties of landlords
(1) In this section—
“landlord” means—
(a) where the relevant premises are occupied under a lease, the person for the time being entitled to the reversion expectant on that lease or who, apart from any statutory tenancy, would be entitled to possession of the premises; and
(b) where the relevant premises are occupied under a licence, the licensor, save that where the licensor is himself a tenant in respect of those premises, it means the person referred to in paragraph (a);
“lease” means—
(a) a lease for a term of less than 7 years; and
(b) a tenancy for a periodic term; and
(c) any statutory tenancy arising out of a lease or tenancy referred to in paragraph (a) or (b),
and in determining whether a lease is one which falls within paragraph (a) above—(a) any part of the term which falls before the grant shall be left out of account and the lease shall be treated as a lease for a term commencing with the grant;
(b) a lease which is determinable at the option of the lessor before the expiration of 7 years from the commencement of the term shall be treated as a lease for a term of less than 7 years;
(c) a lease (other than a lease to which paragraph (b) above applies) shall not be treated as a lease for a term of less than 7 years if it confers on the lessee an option for renewal for a term which, together with the original term, amounts to 7 years or more; and
(d) a “lease” does not include a mortgage term;
“relevant premises” means premises or any part of premises occupied, whether exclusively or not, for residential purposes (such occupation being in consideration of money or money’s worth) under—
(a) a lease; or
(b) a licence;
“statutory tenancy” means a statutory tenancy within the meaning of section 6 of the Rent Act 1977 (dwelling-houses let with other land) and section 7 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (discretion of court giving possession);
“tenant” means a person who occupies relevant premises being—
(a) where the relevant premises are so occupied under a lease, the person for the time being entitled to the term of that lease; and
(b) where the relevant premises are so occupied under a licence, the licensee.
(2) Every landlord shall ensure that they hold suitable buildings insurance against damage from flood for the relevant premises.
(3) A landlord shall notify a tenant if the relevant premises appear on the register maintained under section 61.
(4) A record of the insurance held under subsection (2), or a copy thereof, shall be made available upon request and upon reasonable notice for the inspection of any person in lawful occupation of the relevant premises.”

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment on the rights of tenants and the problems that can arise if there is no adequate buildings insurance in place. Reputable landlords will take out insurance as a matter of course. However, there is no compulsion for landlords to do that, and tenants can be particularly vulnerable if their landlords do not take out buildings insurance. They may not be covered for the cost of moving out or for temporary accommodation in the case of flood. Of course, it is understood that tenants must provide their own contents insurance. The amendment does not relate to contents insurance.

The amendment would give tenants the right to know all the facts about an insurance policy on the property that they are renting, including whether there is one at all. The solution to this problem is to make it mandatory for landlords to take up buildings insurance that includes flood risk insurance; to require landlords to tell a tenant if a property is on the register of premises subject to greater flood risk as defined in Clause 61; and to show a copy of the insurance policy to a tenant on request.

I fully understand that landlords will not benefit from the FR scheme. However, landlords pay income tax, and I understand that they would be able to offset the cost of insurance against income tax. I should be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation of that and to know whether, therefore, the Government could support an amendment on Report that protects the rights of tenants, as proposed in this amendment. I beg to move.

[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.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful for the two contributions. I am reassured in part by the Minister’s reply. This is about tenants who have an entitlement to know whether or not they are in a high-risk area; indeed, we have already had discussions today about how people find that out. Tenants in private residential properties are often on low incomes, and it is reasonable that they should be told formally if they are renting a property in a high-risk area. That seems to be a basic entitlement if someone signs a lease. It is right that they should know and be given a copy of the buildings insurance with flood cover that the landlord has, so that if the landlord does not have that then the tenant is aware of that fact.

The amendment is not about contents insurance; I fully understand the law in that respect. However, we need to be very careful if there is going to be a rising incidence of flooding that means that some private tenants find themselves flooded but do not have contents insurance because they did not think they were in a high-risk area or were not aware of it, or thought that the landlord would cover it even though the landlord would not be responsible for their contents insurance. With this amendment I am seeking better clarity, given that there have been cases in recent months where flooding has occurred and tenants have in practice had a cost to bear. Of course there are costs involved in moving out that fall on the tenant, not the landlord, unless the tenant is prepared to sue the landlord. They could do that but it is very complicated for a private tenant to do.

I note the Minister’s concern and will think further about this. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 161ZA withdrawn.