Private Rented Sector

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome this debate. The important issues that are being raised are extremely relevant to my constituency, which has large numbers of people living in the private rented sector. It also has a growing number of residents living in managed blocks, particularly in the city centre. I have held public meetings and conducted resident surveys on these important issues, and I already have a considerable case load relating to them. There are many shocking cases of bad practice by letting and managing agents in Manchester Central. In raising them in the House today, I want to shine a bright light on some practices that can only be described as unscrupulous and murky, and that have left many of my residents significantly out of pocket and with little protection.

To redress the balance between tenants and owners with letting agents and rogue landlords, and between owners and residents in managed blocks and their managing agents, we need to give urgent consideration to the following measures: the regulation of letting agents and managing agents, which has already been discussed; the establishment of a national register of landlords, with local authorities including Manchester city council given the powers to improve standards; the reduction of barriers to residents getting the right to manage their own blocks; and giving organisations such as leasehold valuation tribunals—known as LVTs—real teeth, so that their decisions cannot simply be ignored.

I will explain more about those points in a moment, but first I would like to give the House my view on why I think the private rented sector needs further regulation. I believe that a huge market distortion is costing the taxpayer a great deal of money. We have all come across examples of letting agents charging fees and of people having to pay onerous deposits, which they rarely get back. Less publicised is the recent practice of asking potential tenants to provide a guarantor. That involves a legally binding arrangement whereby if someone fails to pay their rent, somebody else has to pay it for them. In addition, potential tenants have to go through credit checks, and we are now seeing a two-tier system in the rental market, in which people who do not pass the credit check and cannot provide a guarantor are consigned to living in very poor properties and paying hugely inflated rents. Those rents could buy a luxury home in a more desirable part of town, if those people were able to arrange that. I do not believe that those rents accurately reflect the risk involved to the landlords. Many of those tenants are also in receipt of housing benefit, so those extortionate rents are often being funded by the taxpayer. That is why the situation needs to be looked at urgently.

The subject of managing agents is a big issue in my constituency, and it will become a growing issue in many city centres as more and more people start to live in managed blocks. The stories surrounding some, but not all, of the managing agents operating in my constituency are truly shocking. Time and again, I have come across the following problems: high charges, along with poor service and maintenance; charges being put up erroneously without warning; retrospective payment demands for work or services that were not agreed to or were poorly carried out; and long-term service contracts being awarded to associate companies of the managing agents.

One example of that involves residents living in the Riverside block in Hulme, whose management fee has doubled since 2006 and is due to go up a further 10% in April. They are powerless to prevent that. When residents and owners try to come together to exercise their right to manage, they often face high barriers. In some of the bigger blocks, it is not always possible to find and mobilise the required ratio of owners, because of the high number of absentee landlords. Even when the majority of owners can be mobilised, and the right to manage has been won, the legal barriers are considerable. When the residents and owners of No. 1 Deansgate in the city centre won the right to manage last year, the managing agent and freeholder were told that they had no right of appeal, yet, with the help of the legal firm that they hired, they were able to get an appeal agreed by the higher tribunal. The residents and owners will continue to fight for their right to manage, but the legal process has already cost them thousands of pounds and is likely to cost them £10,000 more.

The challenges do not end when the right to manage has been won. Owners in the Little Alex block in Moss Side manage their block, but the freeholder takes out the buildings insurance with an associated company, in what can only be described as a dubious arrangement. The insurance includes a number of elements that the owners do not want. The leasehold valuation tribunal has determined in favour of the residents, yet the freeholder is continuing to charge them, and it seems the LVT has no teeth whatever. That is why we need further regulation—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I call George Hollingbery.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I take the forthcoming point of order, I am afraid that in the interests of trying to accommodate the level of interest I am going to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches, with immediate effect, from five minutes to four minutes. In that way, I hope to be able to get everybody in if people are helpful.

[George Hollingbery]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House’s business. In my speech, I omitted to alert the House to the details of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I apologise to the House for doing so and now alert it appropriately.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and the House will be too.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for securing this important debate, and for the measured way their Front-Bench team have introduced it. They have pointed to a serious and old problem. Fundamentally, it consists of a shortage of the right sort of decent, affordable property, with rogue landlords exploiting the situation, and an insecurity of tenure existing in places where it should not. I used the phrase “old problem” advisedly, because if anybody knows anything about the Communities and Local Government Select Committee in the previous Parliament, they will know that, under Phyllis Starkey, who was then the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, it concentrated fervently on housing issues. The Committee was not uncritical of Government policy and initiatives, whether talking about decent homes, empty homes, HMO regulation or pathfinders. It was rarely the case that initiatives were judged by the Committee to be an unqualified success.

We must all acknowledge the reality that all recent Governments have been slow to respond to clear demographic trends: immigration; the break-up or fracture of households, which is another pressure on households that we do not often talk about; the slow build rate, which I think the Labour party would own up to and which was not as good as Labour would have liked it to be; and the effective and deliberate termination of the role of councils in the running and provision of houses. The former Member for Sedgefield, Tony Blair, was repeatedly reminded of that deficiency at Prime Minister’s questions.

Essentially, we are left in a situation where most parties are reconciled to the idea that the housing market itself must provide—the state has, as it were, tactically withdrawn. This is simply about how to regulate, or, alternatively, how to stimulate the market. This Government like to stimulate, and fear to regulate. In fact, I think there is a rule that before introducing one regulation, they have to get rid of two. That is a nice slogan, but ultimately a slightly mad policy. If the Government do not stop regulating and the rule is applied consistently over time, the logical consequence will be that there will be only one regulation left, and then the rule itself will be become inapplicable.

The amendment warns us of “excessive red tape”. To say that excessive red tape is a bad thing is something of a tautology. I do not know whether anybody actually backs excessive red tape, although it is possible that there are some red tape fetishists out there—“Fifty Shades of Red” or whatever. However, the amendment is making a legitimate point about exercising caution. Landlords are a various bunch. Some MPs are landlords and have MPs as tenants. Some landlords are quite orthodox business men. Some people turn their pension into a flat. Some landlords are institutions, such as the Oxford colleges, the Church of England and so on; and some, as we have all acknowledged, are frankly rogues.

In preparing for this debate, I reminded myself that two of my daughters are accidental landlords, one failing to sell her house in Cardiff when moving north and another failing to sell her flat in London when moving to Cheshire—she is now both a landlord and a tenant. There is therefore an issue about how we regulate such a mixed bag and a legitimate fear that in doing so we might create something that is more costly than we intend or that actually reduces the number of landlords we have—that is, the supply. Therefore, we talk about landlords and how we regulate them, but it depends on who they are and what the local market looks like.

In my constituency, the landlords are pretty good—they have formed themselves into almost a self-policing body—but we have rogue landlords, particularly in the HMO sector. But there are some landlords—one major landlord in my area—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s time is up. I am saddened by that, as I think the House will be too.