|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. There is currently no regulation on how these sums are held by landlords or agencies and the money is often put in an agency's general office account or in a landlord's own personal account. All too frequently this leads to tenants failing to get back their deposit--as my noble friend has said--at the end of the tenancy, in some cases because the limited liability company has folded, or more commonly because the landlord simply claims there has been some damage or wear and tear to the property, or that professional cleaning is required. In other cases no reason is given and tenants are left with the feeling that the landlord clearly never had any intention of returning the money. We are not dealing here with the many good large landlords, but the small, rogue landlords. We are not dealing with great letting agencies and estate agents such as those one sees in Berkeley Square or Belgravia, but with small, fly-by-night, bucket shops which are often on the verge of bankruptcy and often disappear with the deposits. There is absolutely no protection at all for the tenant.
The problem is compounded by the fact that few tenancy agreements give any indication of the grounds on which a deposit may be withheld or of the cleaning and redecorating responsibilities which will be demanded at the end of the contract. There are also rarely any indications of the timescale within which a deposit should be returned. My noble friend has mentioned a scheme which seems to be working well in New South Wales. I gather that it has also been taken up by other states in Australia. I hope that the Government will study that and see how they can introduce a similar scheme over here. If it is working so well in Australia, why should it not work over here? I hope therefore that the Government will treat this suggestion with sympathy and consider some of the
Lord Monson: My Lords, in comparison with Amendment No. 144, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a few minutes ago, the issues at stake here are much simpler and less controversial. Any action taken by the Secretary of State--were this amendment to be agreed to--would be smaller in scale and effect, as well as being unlikely to have any adverse, unintended consequences. I should be happy therefore to support this amendment were the noble Lord to put it to a Division.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment to which I have added my name. Recently I received a document--I imagine other noble Lords may have received such a document--from the director of trading standards of Suffolk County Council. The document refers to problems identified during the council's anti-poverty strategy. The trading standards department had undertaken a monitoring programme of accommodation within the county and reported that there were some 60 agencies operating, most of them entirely satisfactorily. However, the letter states:
The lack of any safeguards as regards how deposits are held to me contrasts starkly with the stakeholder arrangements with which solicitors are used to deal in the transfer of property. To allow deposits to be put into a normal bank account undifferentiated from other funds gives obvious scope for problems. As has been said, those who may lose their deposits--either because the landlord has misused them, or refuses to return them, or because an agency holding them goes out of business--are not well placed to withstand such losses. Given the intention to increase the occupation of the kind of property and tenure for which deposits will often be payable, this is a matter that is worthy of the Government's attention.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I believe I first referred to this matter at Committee stage when I tabled an amendment on similar lines. Since then I have received a letter from the Small Landlords Association. That body has statistics on the New South Wales experience which indicate that it is a great failure. That was interesting. The Government should consider this matter carefully, as I do not know the facts. I only repeat what I have heard from that association. In an earlier debate I said that on the whole the people in New South Wales seem to be reasonably satisfied with the scheme. The Government should check whether there is strong evidence one way or the other.
We also need to check the cost of running such a scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the scheme in New South Wales is linked to various other services. Unless it was linked to other services, it might
I strongly support the principle of ensuring that a tenant's deposit is not lost through the vanishing of the deposit or of the person holding the deposit. To that extent I support the amendment. But the matter should be considered carefully in terms of what the Small Landlords Association said about the failure of the New South Wales system. Perhaps the Government will look into that matter before Third Reading to check whether or not the claims are accurate.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I have had some experience of this issue over the years. I have great sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. However, the problem does not stop at deposits. Many of us know of the recent experiences of tenants of blocks of flats in Westminster and elsewhere where the agent did a bunk taking tens of thousands of pounds that had been collected for maintenance charges. The two issues are connected. I do not believe that it will be possible to legislate for that situation in this Bill. But I hope that the Minister will consider the general picture with a view to further legislation in due course which will cover both aspects.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that questions arise not only about rental deposits and sinking funds, but the problem of someone running off with the money. However, the administration can be complex. Where does the money belong--the sinking fund or the rental deposits? What is its purpose? Its purpose is to pay for expenditure which may be incurred genuinely in order to bring a building up to scratch or to clean it after rental.
But there are complications. If the money is placed on deposit in a bank, to whom does the interest belong? Is that interest taxable? I have raised these issues previously. The administration can be extremely complex and costly.
If we introduce a further element of protection involving the Secretary of State, or registration, it causes even more costs. In most cases we are not talking about large amounts of money relating to individual blocks but of amounts often involving only a few thousand pounds. Your Lordships will be aware that these days the professional classes of this country have a tendency to charge relatively large amounts of money for each hour
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for having put down the amendment. It has stimulated an interesting debate on a complicated subject. It is one on which the Government do not have firm views and convictions.
There is a problem here which ought to be addressed. The difficulty is how best to address it. The issue was considered in Committee. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes tabled an amendment to allow a local authority or a body authorised by the local authority to register and hold rent deposit moneys. We have considered that but have come down against the proposal because it is likely to complicate and slow down arrangements which, in the case of the majority of landlords, are already working satisfactorily. It could also impose a considerable burden on local authorities. I know that a number of your Lordships shared this concern.
The noble Lord's amendment leaves open the question of who should oversee and operate such schemes. Presumably it could be a local authority, or it could be an independent public body as is the case with the Rental Bond Board of New South Wales, to which a number of noble Lords referred. Quite heavy costs are associated with that scheme which effectively deprives both the landlord and the tenant of any interest accruing on the deposited moneys. That is one of the points my noble friend Lord Selsdon made. Who gains the interest? If one is not careful, the interest goes on administration. But someone has to be the beneficiary of the interest, and someone has to pay the tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the proposal had universal support, but the Small Landlords Association opposes the introduction of a scheme such as the one which operates in New South Wales. So it does not have universal support.
A criminal offence would need to be created if the scheme is to work properly. It is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred. Is that the right kind of provision to have in secondary legislation?
Other options have been presented to us as well. The Association of Residential Letting Agents favours bonded schemes run by recognised letting agents. However, there are also disadvantages with that proposal. Only about a third of lettings are organised through an agent, so the majority of lettings would not be covered by bonding. Since most landlords operate only on a small scale, it would not be practical for them to join bonding schemes individually and the requirement to hold deposits jointly would impose unwelcome burdens.
What I am saying is that this is not a straightforward or easy matter and there are a number of complicated issues to be resolved. First, there is the question of whether the problem is sufficient to warrant the cost and the bureaucracy of setting up such a scheme--and there will be both elements.
Secondly, the main problem with rental deposits is disputes--to which my noble friend Lord Selsdon referred--over who has the best claim to the money at the end of the tenancy, and the interest on it during the tenancy. The key problem is finding a speedy and effective means of resolving who has the best claim. There will be cases where the landlord has a legitimate claim to some or possibly all of the deposit to cover theft or damage. In other cases, the tenant will have every reason to expect the full deposit back.
I am not clear whether we are to give schemes powers to act in lieu of the courts. I cannot see how that would be appropriate. If we do not give the schemes powers to act in lieu of the courts, I am not clear what benefits the scheme would bring. The small claims court--it was argued that it was not working well--offers a cheap and relatively simple way of dealing with disputes of this nature. If the claim is not contested, there is no need for a court hearing. If it is contested, the amount in dispute is likely to be sufficiently small for the hearing to be dealt with under the informal small claims arbitration procedure.
I understand and share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others who have spoken, that a small minority of landlords or agents should not be allowed to misappropriate their tenants' deposits. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish made clear in Committee to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that the Government will look at schemes in other countries to see whether they have any advantages for our own situation. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness say that she has discovered since she made her remarks in Committee that not everyone in New South Wales likes that scheme. It might be surprising if everyone did. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, seemed to think that the scheme was so good that it should be employed everywhere in this country and that everyone would enjoy it.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page