Member

I turn now to Amendment 116. In the Bill’s provision, the landlord is under a duty to hand over the tenancy of the premises being rented out before the first month’s rent is paid. That is a completely onerous and ill thought-out provision. Why should not the landlord collect the first month of an agreed rent prior to the tenant moving in? Why should not the landlord have the right to prevent the tenant moving in when he has not paid the first month’s rent? If the tenant has not paid it, he goes into the premises and then the landlord cannot bring any proceedings against him until he is three months in arrears of rent. The landlord then has to face up to taking possession proceedings and proceedings for payment for the unpaid rent. The landlord is stranded in a position in which he should not have been placed.