HC Deb 02 June 1954 vol 528 cc1356-8
The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 25, line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 5, and to insert: (1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where a dwelling-house is let under a controlled tenancy or is occupied by a statutory tenant; and. This and the next two Amendments, and the one to page 25, line 35, are linked together, and it would be convenient if we could discuss them together.

The Clause as it stands enables the landlord to increase the rent only in respect of services he has contracted to provide. The Amendments will enable him to claim an increase not only in respect of a rise in the cost of the services he is obliged to provide under the terms of his contract with the tenant, but also in respect of any other services he provides to the tenant. The Amendments seek to overcome the difficulty which would otherwise arise, where the landlord provides these services for his tenants although there is no agreement in writing to that effect. The safeguard to the tenant is provided by the last of these Amendments, which enables the tenant, if the landlord ceases to maintain a service, to treat that as an additional burden under the Rent Acts, and to withhold a portion of the rent accordingly.

Mr. McInnes

What portion?

The Lord Advocate

A portion of his rent according to the value of the service which is dropped. The tenant will be entitled not merely to withhold the increase paid in respect of services the landlord ceases to provide, but to have his rent reduced by the whole cost of providing the service.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. McNeil

This is not a major matter, but there are two points that puzzle me. I am not at all sure about the first. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to uncontracted services. Would this mean that the landlord would be able to provide any service he thought desirable and to pass on that cost? The second question is, who decides the value of the services withdrawn in respect of which the rent can be withheld?

The Lord Advocate

The answer to the first question is, no. The answer to the question, who is to decide the portion of the rent to be withheld, is in Section 2 (3) of the Act of 1920.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 12, at end, insert "and."

In line 13, leave out line 13, and insert: (b) services for the tenant are under the terms and conditions of the letting to be provided, or are provided, by the landlord.—[The Lord Advocate.]

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 25, line 17, after "made," to insert: after the commencement of this Act. This Amendment is related to the next. The effect of the two is that in respect of the rise in the cost of services provided by the landlord the rent can be increased by agreement in writing between the parties or on a determination of the rent tribunal only if the agreement or determination is made after the commencement of the Measure. The Clause as it stands would give a legal sanction to any increase in rent resulting from an agreement entered into in the past. It is known that agreements have sometimes been made between the parties to a lease for the payment of extra rent in respect of the increased cost of services provided by the landlord.

These agreements made in the past have been attempts to contract out of the Rent Restrictions Acts and would not be countenanced by the courts. The Amendments ensure that if any earlier agreements have been made of that kind, the landlord and tenant will nevertheless have to start again after the Bill is in operation, and either reach agreement afresh or have the rent fixed by the tribunal. In other words, the Amendments provide a protection for the tenant.

Mr. Woodburn

We were a bit puzzled about exactly what was the purpose of the Amendments. I gather they cancel out these extraordinary agreements. The tenants have to start afresh—

The Lord Advocate

Both parties.

Mr. Woodburn

Yes. I thought that was the meaning of the Amendments, but, having been caught before by some of the legal phraseology, I wondered whether I was right or whether they would allow the one party to contract out and the other to be left in the lurch. I think we welcome the proposal, on the whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 27, after "time," insert: after the commencement of this Act.

In page 25, line 35, at the end, insert: subject, however, to the provisions of the next following subsection— (3) Where any such agreement or determination as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection has been made in respect of services which the landlord is not under the terms and conditions of the letting liable to provide, any withholding or restoration of those services (whether in whole or in part) shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (3) of section two of the Act of 1920 (which relates to the effect on recoverable rent of the transfer of burdens and liabilities between landlord and tenant) as a transfer from the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, of a burden previously borne by him."—[The Lord Advocate.]