|
Mr. Davey: I certainly appreciate what the Minister is saying and the Government's intentions. If a tenant is in danger because of a category 1 hazard, one must take action. However, homelessness might be more damaging to a person's well-being than staying for a short period once the hazard has been brought to their attention. What would happen to that person and their family while the process was going on? What provisions do the Bill, a notice or a local housing authority make to ensure that families are not made temporarily homeless? That might be even worse than the hazard.
Keith Hill: If the local authority thinks that it would be safe, it can allow longer for the work to be carried out than the 28-day minimum period, if the occupants have a problem with that. An improvement notice will not always require the vacation of the premises; indeed, that would be an unusual situation. There is no universal prospect of large-scale homelessness. Indeed, consider experience heretofore of the application of the fitness standard. If interventions by local authorities were leading to significant levels of homelessness, we would all have heard about that as constituency MPs.
In all circumstances, the occupier will get a clear copy of the notice and the time scale under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1. If the work is so substantial—I come to the hon. Gentleman's point—that it cannot be carried out without great difficulty, it may lead the authority to prohibit the use of the dwelling altogether and consider alternative accommodation for the tenant. We intend to address that point in the guidance. It would be inappropriate to lay on the local authority the kind of obligation the hon. Gentleman refers to; there are a variety of responses to such a situation. There may be circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for the authorities to provide temporary accommodation for a particular type of occupant. There must be flexibility for the local authority to vacate the premises in a small number of cases where it might be necessary. We will deal with that in the guidance.
Amendment No. 224 is unnecessary. There is nothing to prevent the authority from displaying a copy of the improvement notice in the residential premises, although it will not absolve them of the duty, in paragraph 5 of schedule 1, to serve a copy of the notice on the occupier. In light of my response, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Davey: The Minister's answer was helpful. I am glad he was not too cruel with me.
The guidance will be crucial to this effect. Can the Minister give the Committee the assurance that if a tenant is asked to vacate a property quickly, as in the prohibition order—which we will come to—even though it may not be in statute, they will be provided with accommodation? Will he assure us that the guidance will make it clear when rehousing would be appropriate for a housing authority?
Column Number: 114
In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
suspension of improvement notices
Mr. Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in
clause 12, page 9, line 42, leave out (b).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 191, in
clause 12, page 9, line 44, at end add—
'(6) An improvement notice shall be suspended where the occupier of the premises impedes or obstructs a landlord from complying with the notice. Such suspension shall continue until the tenant allows the necessary work to proceed unimpeded or the landlord acquires vacant possession.
(7) An improvement notice shall be suspended where following the service of the notice, the landlord has put in hand measures to cause the property to revert to single household occupancy'.
No. 192, in
Mr. Hayes: The amendments bring us back to the issues, debated a few moments ago, about proper protection for landlords, a much-maligned minority—although not by the Minister, who has previously given a balanced view on these matters. It is vital that we strike a balance between the proper expectations of tenants and the important role of landlords. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said in relation to his amendment to an earlier clause, we must build into this legislation a range of measures to protect landlords from the behaviour of irresponsible tenants. We know the picture is mixed. Some elements of the Bill deal specifically with the repercussions of the irresponsible behaviour of tenants. All members of the Committee would acknowledge that tenants are not always perfect. My amendments, particularly those that would amend clause 12, go some way to ensure that landlords receive appropriate protection.
11.15 am
Amendment No. 191 is at the heart of the group. It is designed to clarify the position of landlords faced with obstructive or unco-operative tenants. The landlord would not be liable for incomplete work if they were prevented from undertaking it by the tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole described a situation where tenants and landlord might be in dispute over a matter unrelated to the job in hand of work stipulated by the authority and the tenant might use that opportunity to pursue an unreasonable case against a landlord.
Column Number: 115
Proposed new subsection (7) in amendment No. 191 is an attempt to clarify the status of improvement notices should the property revert from multiple to single occupation. That is to ensure that if a notice were issued to complete improvement work, but the state of the property were to change in the interim—should the property change hands or, as is more specific to the amendment, should the landlord cease to rent out the property and decide to change it to single occupancy—the authority could issue a fresh notice that was applicable to the property under its new status, and the status of the original improvement notice would be revised. Both suggestions are not unhelpful, and they go some way to redress the balance in favour of landlords. That should be an important aspect of this clause.
I conclude my remarks in the expectation that the Minister will once again recognise the common sense of the amendments and embrace them. I am sure that had he thought of them first, he would have included them. If he will embrace them, we can move swiftly ahead with the whole Committee supporting the amendments.
Keith Hill: In response to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to embrace his amendments, in the immortal words of Evelyn Waugh:
''Up to a point, Lord Copper.''
Clause 12 would provide for an improvement notice to be suspended at the discretion of the local authority. For example, a notice may be suspended until such time as the current occupier ceases to occupy the premises. The notice may specify an event that will trigger the end of the suspension. Guidance on the use of suspended notices will be issued under clause 8.
I turn now to amendment No. 190 on the suspension of improvement notices, which was moved eloquently if not entirely persuasively by the hon. Gentleman. An ordinary unsuspended notice comes into operation 21 days after it is served by virtue of clause 14(2), and there are then seven further days before remedial works can be required to start by virtue of clause 11(3). The reason for the inclusion of clause 12(5)(b), which amendment No. 190 would leave out, is that in the case of a suspended notice the extra days can be dispensed with, because advance warning of the date on which suspension ends has already been given in the notice itself.
The first limb, as it were, of amendment No. 191 would relieve the person on whom an improvement notice is served of the responsibility to comply with it if he is obstructed in carrying out the necessary remedial works. Two issues are involved. The first is that the action required by the improvement notice is suspended for reasons that the local authority has already taken into account, following its assessment of the hazard and its likely impact on occupiers. It is not a reaction to an event occurring later. The second issue is that it cannot be in anyone's interest that enforcement action, which the authority will have
Column Number: 116
embarked on for good reason, should be deferred simply because the person on whom the notice is served has run into some difficulty.
Clause 28 makes it an offence to fail to comply with an improvement notice that has come into operation; but, of course, in any proceedings it is a defence if the person on whom the notice was served had reasonable excuse for failing to comply with it. In my view, that is the right balance. We need to bear in mind that the improvement notice is served to deal with a hazard from which people need protection.
Mr. Hayes: I am surprised at the Minister. Earlier, he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Poole of being pedantic, but surely he is himself dancing on the head of a pin. The Minister is saying that, in law, it will be entirely possible for a landlord to use as a proper defence the fact that he could not reasonably comply with the notice because tenants were obstructing him and preventing him from doing so, yet he is not prepared to accept an amendment that anticipates that situation before it gets to law. Under the amendment, the local authority could say that it had properly served the notice because of the definition of the hazard, as the Minister described, but that it was impossible for the landlord to comply with its instructions because of his circumstance in respect of tenants. Surely that is simply a way of making the process fairer and easier, instead of causing the matter to go to law.
|
