HC Deb 12 April 1938 vol 334 cc1029-32

Where a dwelling-house let at a rent which includes payments in respect of the use of furniture is a sub-let part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply, those Acts shall not cease to apply to the sub-let part by reason of its being so sub-let.—[Mr. Ammon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Ammon

I beg to move,"That the Clause be read a Second time."

Under Section 12 of the 1920 Act, the furnished sub-letting of part of a controlled house places the part so sub-let outside the Act. The purpose of this Clause is to bring such a sub-letting back within the Act, that is to say, to create the position which obtained prior to the 1020 Act. The Clause goes a little further than that, since it endeavours to prevent the proverbial coach and four being driven through an Act of Parliament. Many hon. Members will know that it is not an uncommon thing for people, under the pretence of letting a furnished room, to put just a few sticks into a room, and by that means to escape the control and so to charge an increased rent over and above that which they would legitimately be entitled to charge if the rooms were let empty to a tenant. Again and again I have had brought to my attention cases where, in controlled houses, rooms which did not even contain a bed have been let as furnished rooms, and the people who have let them have been able to charge a very much higher rent than they would otherwise have been able to charge. It is to prevent that, and to bring these sublet parts back under the Act, that I have moved this Clause.

8.38 p.m.

Sir K. Wood

I am advised that this new Clause would, in fact, reverse the decision of the House of Lords in 1932 which confirmed a Court of Appeal decision of 1931 in the case of Fordree v. Barrel, in which is was decided that where a controlled tenant sub-lets part of his house furnished, he loses that protection in respect of the part so sub-let, and the landlord is entitled to regain possession.

Mr. Ammon

Does that mean that the superior landlord regains possession?

Sir K. Wood

Yes. In this connection, I would like to refer to the report of the Marley Committee, which dealt with this case, and stated in paragraph 84: We think, however, that the position as regards furnished rooms in controlled houses may be considerably eased by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Fordree v. Barrell, which has now made it clear that where a statutory tenant sub-lets rooms furnished he creates against himself new dwelling houses outside the scope of the Acts, and the landlord is entitled to an order for possession of the rooms so sub-let. We think it probable that the effect of this decision will be to reduce considerably the scope of the problem by discouraging statutory tenants from this form of sub-letting. I am advised that the new Clause which the hon. Member has moved would reverse that decision, which I think is generally acceptable to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss this with me or my legal advisers, because I do not think that he quite apprehends what the effect of this Clause may be. That being the position, I do not think it would be in the interests of anybody that this proposition should go further.

Mr. Johnston

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, since this appeal in the case of Fordree v. Barrell, there has been any protection for the tenant in a controlled sub-let house against an extortionate rent being charged to him, not by the landlord, but by the tenant who has sublet a portion of the house with alleged furniture in the rooms? Is there any protection?

Sir K. Wood

The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that, in connection with the Rent Restriction Acts generally, the question of letting with furniture was left out of the Acts on the ground that, in a very large number of cases, it was an excuse for charging very high rents. Therefore, as far as it concerns the subletting of furnished premises, my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is "No." I think it has been generally regarded as being in the public interest that this kind of sub-letting should not be encouraged. Moreover, there is a penalty for charging excessive rent in the case of furnished lettings. I would like to discuss the technical side of this matter with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ammon

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.