Clause 62 - Further sanctions relating to unlicensed HMOs
Housing Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Matthew Green (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 286, in
clause 62, page 41, line 36, at end insert
'and
(c) section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (c.50) shall not apply.'.
This is a probing amendment designed to raise the problem that the ''no rent payable'' sanction against unlicensed landlords in clause 62, which is sensible, could result in the eviction of tenants. The stipulation that section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 shall not apply prevents landlords from using the accelerated possession procedure to evict tenants as a result of these sanctions.
The current provisions do not reflect the reality faced by tenants on low incomes, with no security of tenure, who are unable to enforce their housing rights without risking eviction. HMOs represent a scarce housing resource and the clause could result in many existing tenants being made homeless. Those with an assured shorthold tenancy will simply face possession action by their landlord if they attempt to enforce the provision relating to not paying rent on unlicensed properties. In practice, many tenants will choose not to risk losing their homes and will simply continue to pay. Tenants on housing benefits will face the withdrawal of their benefit, leaving them unable to pay their rent unless they make huge sacrifices in relation to their limited income support or other income. There is a risk of homelessness if the landlord brings the shorthold tenancy to an end.
The Minister is probably aware that in a submission to the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions, the Brent private tenants' rights group expressed its concern that
''Shorthold tenants will have no more power to refuse to pay the rent than they have power to exercise any other housing right. For housing benefit claimants, the situation is tragic, because their benefit will cease, and they will lose their homes at the earliest opportunity. Many of these tenants will be in priority need, and will have no option but to present as homeless to the local authority.''
The LGA also voiced concern. It stated:
''the idea that rent will not be payable on an unlicensed premises is of some concern to Tenancy Relations Officers (TROs) who feel that the tenant could become the target for landlord harassment and possible eviction. A rise in homelessness and the attendant resource implications . . . could be an unintended by-product of this measure.''
The Select Committee concluded:
''We are concerned that the 'no rent payable' provisions could have adverse consequences for tenants, potentially leading to their eviction. If the Government plans to retain these provisions, the final version of the Bill must include adequate safeguards so that tenants cannot be evicted because their landlord is unlicensed.''
In their response to the Select Committee, the Government made a commitment to address the concerns that were raised. They said:
''The Government accepts the principle that tenants should not be evicted because their landlord is unlicensed. However, the Government does not consider that it is appropriate that a person engaged in a criminal activity (that is, operating a property without a licence) should benefit from that activity by lawfully receiving or demanding rent. The Government accepts the need to refine the provision, especially to ensure that tenants are safeguarded against eviction for non-payment of rent, where the only reason for such failure is on account of the provision. This is a matter to which the Government is giving further consideration.''
Clearly, the results of that further consideration have
not yet made their way into the Bill. I hope that they will, because, at the moment, clause 62 does not offer tenants any greater protection from eviction than was available under clause 67 of the draft Bill.