Amendments made: 33, in clause 14, page 26, line 12, at end insert—

“(ha) any matter arising under paragraph 12A of Schedule 1 (reduction of rent under intermediate leases on grant of an extended lease), including what rent under an intermediate lease is apportioned to the house and premises;”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 73.

Amendment 34, in clause 14, page 26, line 41, at end insert—

“(5A) In relation to paragraph 12A of Schedule 1—

(a) if the landlord under a qualifying intermediate lease cannot be found or their identity cannot be ascertained, the appropriate tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit, including—

(i) an order dispensing with the requirement to give notice under paragraph 12A(3) of Schedule 1 to that landlord, or

(ii) an order that such a notice has effect and has been properly served even though it has not been served on that landlord;

(b) the appropriate tribunal may make an order appointing a person to vary a lease in accordance with paragraph 12A of Schedule 1 on behalf of the landlord or tenant;

(c) if the appropriate tribunal makes a determination that a notice under paragraph 12A(3) of Schedule 1 was of no effect, it may—

(i) determine whether another landlord or tenant could have given such a notice, and

(ii) if it determines that they could have done so, order that paragraph 12A of Schedule 1 is to apply as if they had done so.

(5B) The variation of a lease on behalf of a party in consequence of an order under subsection (5A)(b) has the same force and effect (for all purposes) as if it had been executed by that party.”

This would give the tribunal jurisdiction to deal with cases where landlords cannot be found or identified, to appoint a person to execute a variation of a lease (eg. if a party to the lease is absent or unco-operative), and to enable the Schedule to continue to apply if the notice given was of no effect.

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 14, page 27, line 15, at end insert—

“21ZA Jurisdiction for other proceedings

(1) This section applies to proceedings—

(a) relating to the performance or discharge of obligations arising out of a tenant’s notice of their desire to have the freehold or an extended lease under this Part, and

(b) for which jurisdiction has not otherwise been conferred under or by virtue of this Part.

(2) Jurisdiction is conferred on the appropriate tribunal for proceedings to which this section applies.

(3) But jurisdiction is instead conferred on the court where a purpose of the proceedings is to obtain a remedy that could not be granted by the appropriate tribunal but could be granted by the court.

(4) If, in proceedings before the court to which this section applies, it appears to the court that—

(a) the remedy (or remedies) sought could be granted by the appropriate tribunal, it must by order transfer the proceedings to the appropriate tribunal;

(b) a remedy sought could be granted by the appropriate tribunal and another remedy sought could only be granted by the court, it may by order transfer the proceedings to the appropriate tribunal insofar as the proceedings relate to the remedy that could be granted by the appropriate tribunal.

(5) Following a transfer of proceedings under subsection (4)(b)—

(a) the court may dispose of all or any remaining proceedings pending the determination of the transferred proceedings by the appropriate tribunal,

(b) the appropriate tribunal may determine the transferred proceedings, and

(c) when the appropriate tribunal has done so, the court may give effect to the determination in an order of the court.

(6) Rules of court may prescribe the procedure to be followed in a court in connection with or in consequence of a transfer under this section.

(7) A reference in this Part to the jurisdiction conferred on the appropriate tribunal or the court includes that conferred by this section.

(8) This section does not prevent the bringing of proceedings in a court other than the county court where the claim is for damages or pecuniary compensation only.”

This amendment moves the provision that would have been inserted into the 1967 Act as section 21C. It also includes a new subsection (8) to clarify the effect of the new section.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 36 to 38.

Clause stand part.

Clause 15 stand part.

Government amendments 41 and 42.

Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.

Government amendment 43.

Clause 18 stand part.

These are minor technical amendments to support the changes that we are introducing—to the jurisdiction of the county court and the property chamber of the first-tier tribunal respectively—to simplify dispute resolution so that leasehold enfranchisement and right to manage cases sit all in one place and in the hands of experts. Amendments 35 and 38 work together to amend and replace a new section to be added to the 1967 Act, which lays out the jurisdiction of the court and the tribunal in relation to particular matters. This section will move to earlier in the Act, as following sections will rely on this provision, and so it is clearer for it to be featured earlier.

Amendment 36 changes the 1967 Act to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries of the county court and the tribunal. Specifically, it clarifies that a party cannot go to the court for an order for compliance with enfranchisement obligations unless their application is linked to other proceedings in that court, and for which the court has jurisdiction. It increases conciseness and clarity.

Amendment 37 is consequential on the amendments that I have set out and serves to ensure that both the Bill and the 1967 Act continue to make sense. These are minor and technical amendments, as opposed to material policy changes. I hope that they will not be contentious and commend them to the Committee.

Turning to clause 14, we have been clear repeatedly today that we want to make it cheaper and easier for people to extend their lease or buy their freehold. However, it is equally important that people can effectively seek redress or launch challenges where needed. Clause 14 will move all enfranchisement disputes to the tribunal so that these matters are dealt with in one place. That will not only make the system simpler to understand but save leaseholders money. They are less likely to need legal advice just to understand the process, and it reduces cases where money is wasted because challenges are launched incorrectly.

On top of that, the new system will ensure that these complex matters are dealt with by those with the right experience, knowledge and expertise at the tribunal that is best equipped to handle these matters. The clause also gives the tribunal important new powers so that it can effectively deal with disputes in its new, expanded jurisdiction. These include requiring parties to comply with duties under the Act, such as payment of compensation to a leaseholder, appointing someone to complete a conveyance, or ordering leaseholders to pay the price due to extend their lease or acquire the freehold. Taken together, these measures simplify and strengthen the system for dispute resolution, and I commend clause 14 to the Committee.

Turning to clause 15, currently some disputes that arise during the enfranchisement process for leasehold houses can be resolved in the first-tier tribunal in England and the leasehold valuation tribunal in Wales, but others must be resolved in the court, which creates a complex situation and causes confusion and additional costs for all parties involved.

The clause addresses that problem by transferring the jurisdiction for dealing with specific matters from the courts to the tribunal. This will result in the majority of enfranchisement disputes for leasehold houses being dealt with and resolved solely by the experienced tribunal. The clause will also allow for payments that would normally be paid into court, such as the premium payable when there is a missing landlord, to be paid into the tribunal. That will mean that the process for resolving enfranchisement disputes for leasehold houses will be easier to navigate and reduce the number of claims that need to go to the courts and the tribunal, which will save time and legal costs. The measures will ensure that the process for resolving disputes is simpler, quicker and cheaper.

Amendments 41 and 42 are also minor technical amendments that support the changes we are introducing. Amendment 41 to clause 16 changes the 1993 Act to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries of the county court and tribunal. Specifically, the amendment clarifies that a party cannot go to the court for an order for compliance with enfranchisement obligations unless their application is linked to other proceedings in the court where the court has jurisdiction. Amendment 42 is consequential on amendment 41. It ensures that both the Bill and the 1993 Act continue to make sense.

Clause 16 makes changes very similar to those made by clause 14, but in relation to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which applies to flats rather than houses. The clause will move a number of matters from the county court to the tribunal so that they are all dealt with in one place. The costs rules in the tribunal, where each side bears their own costs, are also favourable to leaseholders in many cases, while in the county court the loser pays the other party’s litigation costs. The tribunal has the knowledge and experience to deal with those matters best. The clause gives the tribunal the powers it needs to deal with disputes in its new jurisdiction, such as apportioning rent in some cases and requiring parties to comply with the requirements of the amended Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act.

Clause 17 addresses jurisdiction for disputes during the enfranchisement process for leasehold flats. It does this in a similar way to clause 15, which relates to leasehold houses. As is the case for houses, some disputes that arise during the enfranchisement process for leasehold flats can be resolved in the tribunal, but others must go to court. The clause will address that problem by transferring the jurisdiction to the tribunal. It will also allow for payments that would normally be paid into court to be paid into the tribunal.

Amendment 43 is another minor technical amendment to support the changes that we are introducing to the jurisdiction of the county court and first-tier tribunal. It simplifies dispute resolution and places things in one place, in the hands of experts. The amendment works together with amendments 35 and 38 to amend and replace a proposed new section to be added to the 1967 Act, which lays out the jurisdiction of the court and tribunal in relation to particular matters. The proposed new section will be moved to earlier in the Act, because following sections rely on it. Again, it is a minor and technical change.

Finally, I turn to clause 18. The current division of power to deal with enfranchisement disputes between different courts and the tribunal creates complexity. Furthermore, High Court cases are much more expensive than the tribunals. Leaseholders often have more limited resources than landlords, and landlords may use the threat of going to the High Court in future as a tactic to place pressure on leaseholders. The clause complements clauses 14 to 17, which shift jurisdiction for most enfranchisement matters to the first-tier tribunal and the leasehold valuation tribunal in Wales.

Clause 18 prevents parties from using the High Court as an alternative forum to the tribunals for determining enfranchisement matters in the first instance, but it does not prevent a party from appealing a decision of the tribunals or affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider judicial review claims in respect of the tribunals. The tribunals have the skills and expertise to deal with all aspects of an enfranchisement dispute, including complex questions of valuation, and they are well placed to take over enfranchisement claims. The measure should help to reduce costs and inconvenience, and ensure that disputes are handled by judges with specialist knowledge.

We take no issue with any of the Government amendments in the group. I rise to speak briefly in relation to clauses 14 to 17, which, as the Minister has said, concern the jurisdiction of the county court and tribunals.

The current law divides the responsibility for resolving enfranchisement disputes between the county court and the tribunal, but there is considerable evidence that this creates complexity, can cause confusion and additional expense for the parties, and creates discrepancies due to the differing powers of the county court and of the tribunal to order one party to pay the other’s litigation costs. The workaround that has been attempted—namely, the increased deployment of tribunal judges as county court judges and vice versa—has not overcome the inherent tensions regarding the division of power in this area.

As the Minister has said, clauses 14 to 17 variously amend both the 1967 and 1993 Acts to transfer jurisdiction from the county court to the first-tier tribunal for a number of matters and provide the FTT with the necessary additional powers to exercise its expanded jurisdiction. We welcome these sensible clauses, which enact recommendation 82 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement. Although it is our hope that a number of measures in the Bill will have the effect of reducing the frequency with which disputes arise during enfranchisement claims, a great many still will. It is sensible to give a single body responsibility for them, and for that body to be the FTT, given its skills and expertise.

We welcome these clauses, but I want to probe the Minister on the issue of the first-tier tribunal’s ability to deal with all enfranchisement disputes. The tribunal’s present caseload is not unduly onerous, but, following the end of the pandemic, it has reported a gradual increase in its leasehold management work—in particular, challenges relating to service charge costs—as well as more applications for rent repayment orders. In addition, it now has responsibility for resolving the vast majority of disputes arising from the Building Safety Act 2022, including those concerning remediation orders and remediation contribution orders under part 5 of that Act.

The Government are proposing to increase the tribunal’s workload through the changes that they are making through the Renters (Reform) Bill, which is still making its way through the House. In particular, the new statutory procedure for increases of rent that that Bill provides for, with an expanded right for tenants to challenge, is likely to see the level of market rent referrals that the tribunal deals with rise. Now the Government are proposing, through this Bill, that the tribunal also be given responsibility for resolving all enfranchisement disputes. As I said, although we welcome the proposal to do so, the obvious risk of enacting this combination of further and expanded jurisdictions for the tribunal, in the absence of additional funding, judges and court staff, is that it will result in backlogs.

We therefore seek reassurances from the Minister that the Government are thinking seriously about how they will ensure that the first-tier tribunal will be adequately resourced to effectively and efficiently discharge all its new and proposed responsibilities, including in relation to this Bill. Could he tell us what additional resources the Government are proposing to allocate to the property tribunal, and what initiatives are being considered to ensure that it has the relevant skills and capacity to guarantee that it can do that?

I welcome the support from the Opposition. As the hon. Gentleman also indicates, these are sensible approaches to take. He is right to highlight his very valid point about capacity within the first-tier tribunal; I am glad that we agree on the principle. He is absolutely right that there is a practicality element, should it survive the continuation of the processes in both this House and the other House. It would be subject to a justice impact test, which, as I understand it, includes a review of capacity, and it would be considered at that point, should it progress through to legislation.

I welcome those reassurances from the Minister.

Amendment 35 agreed to.

Amendments made: 36, in clause 14, page 27, line 27, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—

“(3) An application may not be made under subsection (1) to the court unless the application relates to proceedings in respect of which the court has jurisdiction under or by virtue of any provision of this Part (including section 21ZA).”

This amendment provides that applications under section 21A of the 1967 Act may be made to the county court only if the court is dealing with related proceedings under the 1967 Act.

Amendment 37, in clause 14, page 28, line 5, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 36.

Amendment 38, in clause 14, page 29, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.—(Lee Rowley.)

This amendment removes provision that is reproduced by Amendment 35.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.