Clause 12 - suspension of improvement notices
Housing Bill
11:15 am
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
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.
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.
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.