Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I hope I have reassured my noble friend that we want to look not just at the content of these two amendments to address these and related issues—the Minister, my noble friend Lady Williams, has been nodding her head. It is also clear from this short debate that we are not in total agreement on how these matters should be tackled. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Kennedy, had some views and I respect the views of my noble friend Lady Gardner, but it tells us that we are not ready to rush into legislation on these important matters. I hope my noble friend will agree that it is right to take these matters outside the Chamber and have a thorough discussion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Is my noble friend saying that it might be possible to deal with these issues through variations in regulations? If so, is he prepared to look at that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I did not say that and I would not want to give any guarantees before Third Reading, but I have guaranteed to meet my noble friend the Minister outside the Chamber to look into these issues.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
It sounds as if there is a bit more interest than there often is on this subject. People have been excellent in clarifying and supporting this. We heard the technical side from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which is very valuable—think of what you would pay for his professional opinion on that; we have had the benefit of it for nothing. The Minister is well intentioned, as was my noble friend in responding. On that basis, this is too big an issue to try to put into the Bill, which is already enormous, but it must not be overlooked. We must come back to it. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, this is an important subject of which I have had direct personal experience. I have found that the tenancy deposit schemes are extremely thorough, rapid in dealing with matters, and fair—or perhaps even anti the landlord in my case. My situation involved a solicitor who sent in 17 pages of issues he had raised, although he had been there for five years. He was Australian and cantankerous. It was a bit of a trial of strength, but it did convince me that the present system is working very well indeed.
The other reason this issue is important is that some cunning tenants do not pay their last month’s rent. They pay all the rent until they get to the end of the tenancy and then do not make the final payment. Therefore, the deposit might be the only thing you have to pay that rent. I have often seen that happen, so the amendment really is not a good idea.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, if agreed, Amendment 35 would require a review of the tenancy deposit scheme under Sections 212 to 215 of the Housing Act 2004. The tenancy deposit schemes in England are currently protecting more than 3 million deposits on behalf of tenants, helping to raise standards in the private rented sector and ensuring that tenants are treated fairly at the end of the tenancy. Carrying out a review of the schemes would be a resource-intensive and costly exercise which would duplicate the department’s ongoing and regular governance role in monitoring and reviewing the schemes. This is not the most effective way to spend taxpayers’ money. We are satisfied that all three tenancy deposit protection schemes are providing high standards of service to tenants and landlords—and I appreciate hearing about the experience of my noble friend Lady Gardner in this respect.
Let me give some further detail. If tenants have complied with all their obligations, they will receive their deposit back within 10 days of the scheme administrator being notified of the end of the tenancy. If the landlord and tenant disagree on the amount to be returned, they can either use the alternative dispute resolution service offered by the schemes or go to court. Of the 11.5 million deposits which have been protected since the launch of the scheme, less than 2% have gone to adjudication. On average, 27% are awarded to tenants, 17% to landlords or agents—and, interestingly, 56% are split between the two sides.
Alternative dispute resolution cases are handled by independent, impartial and qualified adjudicators and decisions are made on the basis of the evidence provided by both parties. The tenancy deposit schemes are required to deal with disputed cases within 28 days and they have regularly met this performance target. I am also satisfied that the tenancy deposit protection schemes awarded contracts for new custodial schemes which commenced on 1 April have the necessary dispute resolution processes in place to ensure that tenants will continue to be treated fairly. This was a key evaluation criteria in our re-procurement exercise carried out last year.
I hope that in setting out some detail, this explanation will assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and other noble Lords that tenants’ deposits are and will continue to be returned to them fairly and quickly at the end of the tenancy. However, I would be happy, along with my noble friend the Minister, to speak with noble Lords outside the Chamber about any specific issues they may have about the fairness of the scheme.
Property: Shared Ownership
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Indeed, this is the very thinking behind our policy, which is to enable those who do not earn too much to get a hand on the housing ladder by buying a share. This would include the very people who the noble Baroness has mentioned, such as teachers and particularly those who work in the very important healthcare and NHS sector. It is exactly what the policy is about. It is obviously more expensive in London—we have had many discussions on that in the housing Bill—but we believe that it is possible. If someone bought a 25% share of a two-bedroom house in London the deposit they would put down would be £3,800, which I understand could still be quite high, but is possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Will the Minister clarify the position with regard to the actual term “lodger”? Even the Revenue now has a special provision and has increased the amount you can have if you have a lodger. I would have thought it logical that everyone would want people to be able to afford these properties. Can he therefore explain the position, and whether the point to which he has just referred will be amendable in the housing Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I mentioned that people who take a share in a house in a shared ownership scheme can take in a lodger, but I will answer the noble Baroness’s question by saying that there is no statutory definition of a lodger. The term is known in case law, where the test as to whether someone is a lodger or a subtenant is determined by the degree of control retained by the householder over let rooms.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not have details of the fines, but I shall be more than happy to write to the noble Lord with them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Could the Minister comment on whether this would cover the instances that I have spoken about of invisible rogue landlords who give their tenants no rent books, nor anything of any sort? Would a criminal offence not have a bit more impact on them, and encourage them to be fair to the people living in their properties?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I was answering the points raised by noble Lords, and the main point is that we think it disproportionate to use both regimes. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question. I am now able to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about fines. The answer is: up to £30,000.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I note the noble Lord’s point but point out that the lease is a matter between the leaseholder and the landlord.
I hope, however, that my responses have reassured my noble friend that landlords of residential blocks and local authorities can take action to tackle overcrowding and problems associated with flats. With these assurances, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this debate, but I do not think that anyone has any idea what goes on under the surface. In the particular block that I am speaking about, the head lease should have been made available to all leaseholders in the block. However, a loophole in the law allows someone to set up a sister company with the same directors and, after two years, to sell it to any outsider. This is what happened—the head lease was sold over our heads to an outsider. The outsider then has to decide whether or not they are going to be a good landlord. The tenants and residents tend to believe that the intention is to make the place so uninhabitable that we will all happily sell our bit of it, because it is a post-war block built in the 1950s, when building materials were scarce. It is not a glamour block, but next door three tiny houses have been demolished and a fabulous block has been built. It is nothing to do with the man who owns ours, but it is a private enterprise venture, and the cheapest apartment was £6 million. So the site must be hugely valuable. To the people living in the place it is no more valuable than when we bought it for, by comparison, pretty well nothing, but it changed our thinking completely: it is why we have gone for the right to manage, so that we can upgrade the conditions and protect the block.
I do not know whether that answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made. Would he like to respond on that?
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
We have gone into this legally in great detail over many years, but the answer is no, you cannot amend anyone’s lease unless everyone agrees to that. That is why I would be quite happy with the 100% if one could be sure of replies from 100%. However, if the replies do not come one way or another, it is very fair that the action should be deemed to be not opposed. They would be given ample time. They would be able to produce—this happens in Australia and everywhere; it is very simple management—a contact or someone who could attend any meeting as a proxy. They can authorise a party. There is no reason why they should not be able to reply in some way. They either deliberately wish to be obstructive or they are uninterested. Either way, it can have a disastrous effect on everyone else in the block. You need only one person to be obstructive.
In the description I gave, the landlord himself—the head lessee—has now bought one. He is happy to take on every flat that comes up if anyone wants to leave. He is always offering to buy mine. The point is that to get that 100% is acknowledged to be impossible. Certainly it is very difficult. Even when you agree on the works to be done and everyone is prepared to pay their money, there are always a few who have to be taken to court and works never start until all the money is available to pay the contractor. This means that terrible deterioration can happen during that period. Of all the points that are in these two amendments, to me, that concerning the leaseholder who fails to participate in the vote is the most important. In that instance you are being deliberately manipulated or controlled by people who do not have enough interest to bother expressing their views.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for her amendments. I agree that, as indicated in Amendment 84E, it is important to ensure that sufficient funds are available for the repair and maintenance of leasehold blocks, and that sinking funds built up over time can indeed play an important role in mitigating large one-off service charge demands. However, while well-intentioned, the amendment is unnecessary. It would cause conflict and confusion with the existing requirements and responsibilities under the terms of the lease, and does not address a range of important issues covered by the existing legislation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with his great knowledge, for being helpful in this regard.
The existing legal contract between the freeholder and leaseholder, which, as we all know, is called the lease, already provides for the collection of service charges for the upkeep and maintenance of a block. In a growing number of cases, provision is also made for an amount to be collected called a sinking fund. Importantly, where a lease does not already provide for a sinking fund, legislation makes it possible to seek a variation of the lease to do so.
It is sensible, clear and workable for the person responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the building to also be the person responsible for any sinking fund. To require the creation of a separately held and managed sinking fund administered by someone other than the person with legal responsibility for maintaining the block would create conflict and confusion with the existing lease, as would trying to dovetail it with the existing arrangements. For instance, if major work were required to the roof of the block, how would responsibility for the work be determined and how would any shortfall in the funds needed to carry out the work be dealt with? Who would be responsible for arranging the repairs? The current arrangements keep responsibilities and accountabilities clear, and do not fall foul of any legal obligations and responsibilities.
Importantly, legislation enables the freeholder to be held to account on service charges, including any sinking fund. Leaseholders have the right to challenge the reasonableness of service charge amounts being sought, whether for day-to-day use or towards a sinking fund. Existing legislation governing service charges also provides for a wide range of important issues, including the protection for service charges by deeming them to be held in a statutory trust, and that the money may be deposited only at a financial institution specified by the regulations. Under the amendment, it is unclear how the leaseholders would determine who held and administered the sinking fund, or how contributions would be determined and spent. The existing arrangements, in contrast, provide protection and a route to challenge the freeholder.
I say again that I recognise the important role that sinking funds can play, and that where the lease does not already provide for a sinking fund it is possible for either leaseholders or the freeholder to seek a variation of the lease to do so. This is the most appropriate route for creating sinking funds, avoiding unnecessary confusion and ensuring that appropriate protections remain in place. I hope that with this explanation my noble friend will agree to withdraw her amendment.
I turn to Amendment 84F. The leasehold right to manage is a right for leaseholders to take on specific responsibility for the management of their individual block from the landlord, by which I mean the freeholder, where they meet the qualifying criteria. That right can be exercised where a majority of qualifying tenants agree. It does not require or allow variations to leases. I understand my noble friend’s concern that once a right-to-manage company has been set up, the company needs 100% agreement from the members of the right-to-manage company before anything can be done. However, I am pleased to reassure her that this is not the case. In taking over responsibility from the freeholder for the management of the block, the right-to-manage company is required to carry out the repairing obligations under the lease, for the benefit of the leaseholders and the freeholder. This is the same as the freeholder would be required to do where they are responsible. Failing to do so could result in a breach of the lease. There is a requirement to consult on major works, but there are no particular restrictions that require 100% agreement before the right-to-manage company can carry out their obligations.
On top of this, the company is subject to company law in general, and the decision-making process, voting arrangements and appointment or termination of directors are set out in the prescribed articles of association. These are the RTM Companies (Model Articles) (England) Regulations 2009, which set out the objects of the Company. These generally require a quorum and a majority, but certainly do not require 100% agreement. I hope that this somewhat protracted explanation allays my noble friend’s concerns.