Clause 80 - Revocation of licences
Housing Bill
3:00 pm

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 311, in

clause 80, page 53, line 43, at end insert—

'(d) where the licence holder is deemed to have committed a serious criminal offence'.

This is a fairly simple amendment, and I shall be interested to hear whether the Under-Secretary considers the Bill as drafted already to cover what it proposes. We think that the issue ought to be explored and it would be useful to have something on the record, so that the authorities that deal with the matter know the Government's intentions.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I am somewhat concerned by the amendment, because it would add a requirement without clarifying whether it reads across to part 2.

If a local authority has decided to withdraw from a landlord a licence issued under the general requirement to register houses with more than five people and three storeys, perhaps because of his criminal record, but then selectively extends a licence for other purposes—perhaps because of pressure on HMOs or low demand—and that landlord also has a house in that area, does the landlord automatically lose that other licence or is a separate procedure required? As far as the amendment is concerned, that would introduce an irregularity between those two circumstances, and would produce a non-read-across outcome. Will the Under-Secretary clarify that point, which also relates to that which the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) makes with the amendment?

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)

If I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, the answer is that separate licences will be held for different properties, so licences would have to be revoked separately if there was any concern about a licence holder not being a fit and proper person. The measures in this part of the Bill are parallel with the part that deals with houses in multiple occupation, so we would expect it to be relatively easy for a local authority to deal with a landlord who has an HMO licence and a licence in a selective licensing area.

The amendment would give a local authority the power to revoke the licence of a landlord who commits a serious criminal offence. Under subsection (2)(b), a local authority can decide whether a licence holder is a fit and proper person, and it is hard to see how someone who has committed an offence involving violence, fraud or deception could be considered a fit and proper person, so the amendment is subsumed by that subsection. We discussed this issue with officials and tried to come up with an example of a serious criminal offence that a landlord might commit, but still be considered to be a fit and proper person.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

There have been some notorious landlords, such as van Hoogstraten. People might ask whether someone like him would be allowed a licence under this system, and might think that they should not, even before a conviction.

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)

I hesitate to comment on individual cases. There are two ways in which one might think of somebody being fit and proper. The first is on their record as a landlord, and the second is on other aspects—for example, if they have committed a criminal offence involving serious fraud. One would certainly question whether such a person should be a landlord.

After considerable brain racking, the only example of a criminal offence that the officials could suggest was treason, on the basis that the editor of The Guardian has been through the courts debating treason, but that that might not affect his capability to be a landlord. Given that they decided not to put that suggestion in writing, they may not be happy to stand by that as a detailed record of their advice.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I hope that the Committee will forgive me for pressing this point, but the circumstances under which this clause reads across to part 2 are still not clear to me, inasmuch as I can

envisage circumstances such as those in the example that I shall outline.

Let us suppose that a local authority decides to withdraw a licence from the landlord of a three-storey property with eight people in, on the grounds that it is badly maintained and he is not fit to be a landlord. The local authority then extends its area to a local authority area in which there are houses that do not have three storeys and that have fewer than five people in them. It turns out that the landlord also has houses in that area and is the landlord of those houses, but has not done anything to cause the local authority to question the management of those particular houses. As soon as the local authority extends a licence by national agreement to that area, does that landlord automatically lose the licence in the area that has been so designated because he or she has had his or her licence withdrawn so far as the general scheme is concerned, or is a separate procedure necessary to achieve that purpose? Indeed, could that landlord have a licence, and continue to have a licence, in that particular area with a house with fewer than five people in it and with fewer than three storeys, even though he or she has been deemed unfit under the scheme so far as the local authority is concerned?

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

That intervention was a little long, but I let the hon. Gentleman finish.

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)

Let me try to set out my understanding of the position. Someone who was not deemed to be a fit and proper landlord to hold a particular licence under part 2 would not automatically be unable ever to hold a licence under part 3. However, one would certainly expect there to be quite a lot of read-across. If there are particular reasons why someone has not maintained a property and has let the whole place collapse, has not installed a smoke alarm or addressed antisocial behaviour in an HMO, and has not exercised their responsibilities in all sorts of ways, the chances are that they will not do so in individual properties that they might also hold in a selective licensing area. There may be certain issues to take into account when deciding whether or not someone is a fit and proper person. Equally, however, it might be possible to envisage circumstances in which one would have to justify why someone might not be able to hold a licence for one type of property, but might be able to hold one for another. It would be possible for a local authority to take a different decision on two types of licence. In practice, however, the chances are that the local authority is likely to take its experience of a particular landlord in one area as evidence of whether or not they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence in another.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington North, Labour)

To clarify the point, if a local authority were to choose to revoke or not to grant a licence to a landlord on the ground of their record in another area, would it be open to a challenge on that?

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)

It is always open for landlords to appeal. There is a tribunal process that allows landlords to appeal, and it is right there should be one. However, the local authority would have quite a lot of evidence to produce in its favour. The landlord

would have to explain why their behaviour had completely changed since they lost their previous licence, whenever that was, or why there was such a massive difference between their ability to manage one type of property and their ability to manage another. In the end, the tribunal will have to decide, but if a local authority has considerable evidence of the fact that someone was unfit to manage one type of property, it is in a relatively strong position to argue that that person is therefore not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. That does not automatically follow, however, simply because individual licences need to be held for individual properties. Equally, however, the fact that measures in both parts of the Bill are so similar would very much allow local authorities to offer the same sort of evidence in both cases.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

The Under-Secretary needs to address two points. First, having established that it is very difficult for someone to be fit and proper if they are a criminal, but that they can be unfit and improper without being a criminal, we end up in the situation that began to emerge from the intervention made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), namely that it is quite possible for a landlord to be a fit and proper landlord in one place, but a very bad one in another. Secondly, given the high level of discretion that the Bill affords local authorities, it is entirely possible for different local authorities to take different views about what constitutes fit and proper conduct. That brings us back to the issue of consistency, which is the issue that I have constantly argued is of fundamental importance. Would the Minister like to reflect on this and come back to the Committee at a later stage?

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but it would simply not be possible for the Bill to proceed differently and in a way that would provide improvements. Whether someone is a fit or proper person to hold a licence for a particular property is in part going to depend on the kind of property. Somebody may be able to argue—this is why there is no automatic link—that they have the expertise to manage a small terraced property whereas they do not have the expertise to manage a large HMO. They may be able to put a case to the effect that they are a fit and proper person, with the skills or ability to do one and not the other. Local authorities will want to take into account all the evidence and make a judgement on that basis.

These cases need to be argued on their individual merits, rather than our attempting to prescribe in legislation either, for example, an automatic read-across from one to another, which does not give local authorities the flexibility to determine the cases separately, or, trying to define every aspect of what being fit and proper means, in the Bill or in guidance, when again it will depend on the individual circumstances.

Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)

Forgive me for being so assertive, Mr. Pike, but I am not sure the Under-Secretary is right. The guidance would be helpful in this respect, because

what the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) are beginning to tease out is that unless there is sufficient consistency in this area, it may well be that there could be a successful legal challenge. One of the classic bases of legal challenge is that someone has not been treated equitably, that they are being treated in entirely different ways in what could be cheek-by-jowl circumstances. This might be an area where the Bill needs to be tightened, at least through guidance—I put it no more strongly than that. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have a valid point, and it explains why my hon. Friend the Member for Poole was right to raise this issue.

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)

The need is to decide whether cases are precisely similar or whether there are different circumstances. That is why the judgment needs to be taken on the individual cases at stake. First, it is right for the local authority to be able look at the merits of the individual case and decide whether they are similar, relevant or different. Secondly, there should be an appeal to an independent tribunal, which can decide whether there are huge inconsistencies in the way local authorities are approaching this or are not taking account of relevant evidence about the differences. It would then be up to the independent tribunal to come to a different conclusion. Equally, where the local authority can demonstrate perfectly relevant information in taking into account people's experience managing other properties, the independent tribunal is likely to find in its favour.

The problem arises when we try to anticipate every possible local example and to solve those problems in this Committee. A system should be set up that allows local authorities the flexibility to take sensible decisions dependent upon those local circumstances, and for there to be an appeals process for landlords who feel unfairly treated. On that basis, I would ask the hon. Member for Poole to withdraw amendment No. 311.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for explaining so that even I start to understand what we are trying to do. Putting that on the record is useful. I am extremely tempted to press to a vote what has been described as our Guy Fawkes amendment, as Her Majesty's Opposition are very keen that traitors should not be residential landlords or managers. However, I have been dissuaded from doing so because of the lateness of the hour. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.