Clause 2 - Responsibility for marketing a property which is on the market
Homes Bill
9:45 am
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I apologise to you, Mr. Gale, to the right hon. Gentleman and to the entire Committee for wasting time with tautological phrases. I will try to do better.
The chap goes to the pub regularly. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Eastbourne and others asked what would happen if, during conversations in the pub, the chap announced that he planned to sell his house—74 Acacia avenue. I had hoped that you would select amendment No. 17, Mr. Gale, which states:
after `action', insert `excluding casual conversations in premises licensed for entertainment or for the sale of intoxicating liquors'.
However, you selected amendment No. 26, which would insert
`The seller does not become responsible under subsection (5) by marketing the property to an individual who is known to him or by virtue of any informal conversation with any individual.'.
That stands whether that conversation takes place in a pub or elsewhere.
Our concern is that there remains a lack of clarity as to when it can be deemed that the sale process has begun. Once it is deemed that the sale has begun, clause 3(2) states:
The responsible person shall have in his possession, at all times during that period, a seller's pack for the property which complies with the requirements of any regulations under section 7.
That means that if the occupier of 74 Acacia avenue indicates in a casual pub conversation with somebody who is not a friend or relative or is little known to him that he intends to sell his property, he is not only covered by the Act but, more importantly, must have a copy of the seller's pack in his possession. If the conversation involved more than one person, presumably the occupier would have to have more than one copy on his person. As he is such a gregarious character, and might speak to many people in the pub, he would have to possess numerous copies.
This is a probing amendment that seeks clarification from the Minister on the point at which clause 2, and the rest of part I, will come into effect. As it stands, the wording is seriously ambiguous, which will affect its interpretation. Failure to comply with the Act will lead to criminal prosecution, so it is a very serious matter and we need to be clear about precisely when the sale is deemed to have started.
Although the Minister may not be prepared to accept amendment No. 26—I suspect that he would have preferred amendment No. 17 with its direct reference to the pub—I hope that he is willing to provide much greater clarity on the issue.