Clause 261 - Certain family intervention tenancies: termination
Housing and Regeneration Bill
10:30 am
Lembit Öpik (Shadow Minister (Housing), Department for Communities and Local Government; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 261, page 108, line 2, at end insert—
‘(1A) In an action for possession of a family intervention tenancy, the court shall have power to—
(a) postpone the date for possession; or
(b) stay or suspend execution of the order
on such terms as it thinks fit.
(1B) The court shall not have the power referred to in subsection (1A) where the notice in subsection (1) was served on the basis that the tenant or a member of his household has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality.’.
What concerns us is that the legislation, as it is currently drafted, means that the 28-day notice period for a FIT can be issued for any reason and not solely one linked to antisocial behaviour, for example due to rent arrears caused by housing benefit delays, and so forth.
The test as to what behaviour would merit possession, or—to be more frank about it and use common parlance—eviction is, in our view, simply not robust enough. That is what the amendment attempts to correct. The purpose is to allow the court to retain its discretion, which it has in the case of a secure or assured tenancy, to dismiss a claim for possession, or to grant a suspended possession, where the reason for the landlord’s action is not antisocial behaviour, but something else, such as rent arrears. The amendment would ensure that fast-track eviction proceedings available for family intervention tenancies could be used for antisocial behaviour reasons only.
The process for family intervention projects and tenancies has been laid out by the Government, which hopefully we all understand. However, under the Bill, if the landlord decides to continue with proceedings for possession after following the process for family intervention tenancies, the county court cannot examine the reasons for doing so. We are concerned about the inflexibility there, and the lack of discretion to refuse an order raises alarm bells for us. We seek the Minister’s perspective on that, because we cannot believe that it is right, nor the Government’s intention, to create a process so inflexible that it could be a breach of natural justice for the tenant. Although landlords could use the provision in many ways, it goes against the spirit of what I think the Government are trying to do with this legislation. Shelter feels the same, and on its behalf I ask the Minister to share his perspective and to take on board what I think is a fairly common-sense modification to this part of the Bill.