New Clause 15 - Notices to quit by tenants under assured tenancies: timing

Part of Renters (Reform) Bill – in the House of Commons am 4:45 pm ar 24 Ebrill 2024.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Photo of Wera Hobhouse Wera Hobhouse Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Transport), Liberal Democrat Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Energy and Climate Change) 4:45, 24 Ebrill 2024

Before I start my remarks, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

My amendments—amendments 39 to 41—all refer to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I have raised this issue with the Government for the past two years, after one of my constituents, who is a lecturer in law at Bristol University, came to me with his concerns. To be fair to the Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Felicity Buchan, had a meeting with that group of academics, but then I heard nothing, which was a little bit disappointing. I have, just this afternoon, received a reply from the Minister. I thank him for that, but it was dated yesterday and only sent to me today. I will look at it very carefully, but it is still important that I raise here what I have to say.

There are two parts to amendment 39, which relates to the law on harassment of a residential occupier. At the moment, the law is complex and confusing, particularly for lay people, and difficult to enforce. I have glanced over the response from the Minister. The Government believe that there is currently enough power of enforcement. As I understand it, the 1977 Act is quite unknown. Local authorities and the police do not know enough about it. I wonder how we can work in that space to ensure that any unintended consequences brought in by the new legislation will not allow rogue landlords, or those who do not want to do the right thing, and refer them to other pieces of legislation.

First, the amendment would change the law so that everyone who is harassing a residential occupier to try to get them to move out of the property is subject to the same law. Currently, if a criminal landlord is harassing the tenant, the law is fairly clear. However, it might be another individual who is harassing the tenant to get them to move out. In this case, the local authority has to try to find out whether the person doing the harassing is an agent acting for the rogue landlord.

There is also often deliberate obscurity about the identity of the landlord. Investigating the relationship between individuals to establish their precise legal relationship is time consuming and unnecessary, where the aim of the legislation is to protect residential occupiers from harassment. The amendment changes the law to make enforcement easier for local authorities. The change will not affect the position of landlords. They will continue to be subject to the same law. It is only the local authority that can prosecute this offence, and it would still need to prove that a rogue landlord, their agent or any other person knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that their actions would have the result of causing the occupier to leave.

The other thing that the amendment would do is clarify the law. Currently, if a rogue landlord interferes with services that are reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a household, that can constitute harassment. However, it is not clearly stated what those services are—I can think of essential services, such as electricity, cutting the water off or even changing the locks—so it is important that we take that into consideration. We are not talking about decent landlords, as I have always made very clear. It is about getting to those landlords who are clearly not doing the right thing.

As I said, it is not clearly stated what the services are. Amendment 39 sets out a list of such services, including water, gas and electricity, as well as access to “electronic communications networks and services” as defined in section 32 of the Communications Act 2003.

Amendment 40 deals with three issues. First, the law on whether certain occupiers are protected by the legislation on illegal eviction is very complex, and it can be very difficult to establish. That is because some occupiers—for example, those who live with the landlord—are excluded from the protections in the law and can therefore be evicted without a notice or court order. That creates an incentive for sham arrangements whereby a rogue landlord might pretend to live with a tenant to circumvent the protections in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The amendment reverses the burden of proof, placing it on the landlord, who must establish that an occupier is not protected by the law. It is based on the idea that everyone has the basic protection of the law unless they are in an exclusionary category for a good reason. The presumption should be that they are protected.

Secondly, one of the biggest problems faced by residential occupiers and prosecutors is identifying the landlord. The current law encourages behaviour that obscures the identity of landlords, and the Bill does not address that. Proposed new section 4A would amend the 1977 Act so that there is a “rebuttable presumption” in any action under that Act that the person to whom the residential occupier pays rent is the landlord of the property. The words

“other payments in respect of occupation of a dwelling” are taken from the Housing Act 2004.

There have been extensive complaints from local authorities and others that police ignorance of the law does not assist, and at times obstructs, the effective prosecution of offences under the 1977 Act. Proposed new section 7A would amend the Act to require police officers who become aware of potential offences of illegal eviction and harassment to notify the relevant local authority. It also adds a power for police to assist the local authority in its investigation and prosecution of offences under the Act.

Amendment 41 seeks to amend the Housing and Planning Act 2016. It would lower the standard of proof required for making a rent repayment order relating to illegal eviction or harassment. In other rent repayment applications, proving the offence is much more straightforward: for example, the landlord may not have a licence. Proving illegal eviction or harassment is considerably more challenging for applicants, and as a result of that difficulty, applications for repayment orders for breach of the 1977 Act often fail. The amendment would bring that test into line with the test used by the county courts to determine damages for illegal eviction or harassment.

All this is pretty technical and legal stuff that I took up because I thought that my constituent had a very fair point. The Minister has now sent me a response, for which I thank him. I will study it carefully in deciding whether I want to pursue this issue, and whether the amendment should be tabled in the other place.