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)
The Minister gives some reassurance, but our debate on the clause has not dealt fully with the concerns raised. At this time of the day, I will not pursue the matter further. However, the proof will be in the testing and, unfortunately, some tenants may suffer as a result or may be bullied by their unlicensed landlord into paying rent by being told that they will lose their tenancy agreements if they do not. It will be difficult for tenants to know what their rights are and how to deal with such a situation. The Government might have the letter of the law on their side, but the difficulty lies in the spirit of the law and the means by which tenants will know what their rights are.
I suspect that the Government may need to return to the legislation in a couple of years, because this area could prove to be problematic. I understand the Government's reasons for saying that they are happy with the clause as it stands: a legal framework already surrounds the tenancy agreement, and the tenancy agreement would be invalid. The problem, however, is that not many tenants will know the details of the Housing Act and will not necessarily know that they
should not pay rent; or that the landlord may say that if they do not pay rent, they will not be granted an agreement when the building is licensed. If the agreement is invalid, it is invalid from both sides. I can therefore see people being forced to pay money. The Government may have to reconsider this issue. For the moment, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 and 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.