Contribution
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 60 of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and will speak to my Amendments 165 and 166. But, before I do, I have two apologies to give to the House. The first apology relates to my failure to speak at Second Reading, although I did speak at the Second Reading of the last Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. The reason I was unable to speak at Second Reading is that I was, unfortunately, in and out of St Thomas’ Hospital, which looked after me very well, but I was unable to come to the House at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill.
My second apology is for my absence on Tuesday of this week, the first day of Committee on the Bill. My wife had booked a short Easter holiday on the Isle of Wight, not expecting the House to be sitting immediately after Easter Monday. Rightly or wrongly, I took the favour of the family rather than the first day of Committee. I think my noble friend the Minister has forgiven me for this—at least I hope she has. Happily, however, my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, who sits behind me, agreed to be in the House for the first Committee day and to move any of my amendments should they be called. Even more happily, none was.
I should declare interests which are recorded in the register. My wife and I are the landlords of five sets of tenants in one-bedroom flats in the house next door to our own. While we as landlords and our tenants will be subject to the new provisions contained in this Bill, there is nothing contentious relating to our five tenants—or to ourselves—that I will be raising during the passage of this Bill.
Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, which I support, has been grouped among a variety of amendments relating to orders for possession. Most of them have little contact one with the other, but they are all grouped together in this same list. That certainly applies to my Amendments 165 and 166.
I shall say a general word before I go on to the specific argument concerning these amendments. This Bill is, most rightly, directed to redress the balance between the landlord and the tenant in the private rented sector. This is very right, because since the Housing Act 1988, the balance has swung far too far towards the landlords—particularly rogue landlords—which has caused great distress to many innocent tenants. However, we must be sure now that we are getting the right balance between landlords and tenants. Yes, there are rogue landlords, but there are also rogue tenants.
Originally, in Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, notices for possession for arrears of rent would not become effective until the rent was overdue for 13 weeks, relating to weekly or fortnightly rentals, or three months, relating to monthly rentals. This was altered in some subsequent legislation, and this Bill now seeks to go back to the provisions of the 1988 Act. What is the reason for this? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could address it. What is the evidence that shorter periods of eight weeks and two months had been causing any problems?
We need to look at the practical side. The maximum deposit that a landlord is now permitted to collect is calculated against five weeks of rent. The effect is that the landlord is covered for the first failure of paying rent but is not covered during the subsequent two months of non-paid rent. More than that, it will take up to two more months before the landlord is able to get a hearing in the county court for possession and unpaid rent. This means that the landlord will be without rent for at least four months. Even if the landlord succeeds in getting an order for possession and an order for the unpaid rent, the chances are that he will never get back the unpaid rent. The question that I put to the House, and indeed to my noble friend the Minister, is whether this is fair and balanced.
I turn to Amendments 165 and 166, which are directed to the time in which the landlord is not permitted to put the property on the market when he has gained possession on the grounds of family need or other need specified in ground 1 or 1A of the Housing Act 1988. I adopt all that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said in his argument that this period under which the landlord is not permitted to put the property on the market—a period of 12 months—is quite excessive and quite wrong. I need not repeat the noble Lord’s arguments.
The Minister was very kind to see many of us in meetings before Committee. I had the privilege of a meeting with her, at which she explained that there is an abuse by some rogue landlords in using the instrument to remove a tenant from the property, let us say, for members of his family or other persons as specified in ground 1A of the 1988 Act. She described the 12 months as a deterrent against this abuse—a means, so my noble friend said, for the rogue landlord to raise the rent. What about the genuine situation of a landlord getting possession of the accommodation, say on family grounds, to accommodate grandparents, and then one of the grandparents has a severe stroke which prevents both of them taking up the accommodation? Why should the landlord then be left with the property when he was genuinely seeking to accommodate members of his own family for 12 months? The question is: is it fair or right that the landlord is prevented for a whole year from letting out his property? That is a matter that I again address to my noble friend the Minister.