§ 27. Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that considerable hardship is being caused to persons occupying furnished premises by landlords who are charging excessive rents, and serving notice to quit on tenants, which prevents them from getting relief by applying to rent tribunals; and whether he will introduce legislation to remedy the position.
§ Mr. RipponNo, Sir.
§ Mr. YatesIs the hon. Gentleman aware that in one case—I have verified these facts—a man was put into a furnished five-roomed semi-slum house and charged £12 a week which was increased to £14 a week after he had paid that rent 1197 for six weeks? The notice to quit expired before he could get any satisfaction from the rent tribunal. Should not a man be able to claim rent retrospectively when a court finds that he has to pay £188 arrears of rent? This is an absolute disgrace.
§ Mr. RipponIf the hon. Gentleman is referring to a case about which he wrote to my right hon. Friend, I do not think he has presented it very fairly. The man agreed to pay a rent of £12. He fell into arrears. The court gave him possession. The Birmingham City Council looked into the circumstances of the case, decided that it had no merit and proposed to take no further action. The law in this matter stems from an Act passed by the Labour Government, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which was continued last year after a very happy debate which went on until about five o'clock in the morning.
§ Sir B. JannerWill the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter? Is he aware that, when a landlord ascertains that a tenant is discontented with the amount of rent he is paying for a furnished fiat, he immediately presents that tenant with a notice preventing him from going to the rent tribunal to have the matter put right? As I understand, that is what my hon. Friend is driving at. In view of experience—never mind when the Act came into force—does not the hon. Gentleman think it time to reconsider the matter to see whether this is justified, or whether injustice is being done to a large number of tenants?
§ Mr. RipponOf course, these matters can always be considered again, but I do not think it unreasonable that we should prevent a man, after notice to quit has been served, from going to the rent tribunal. If he goes to the rent tribunal, it can fix a rent even though it cannot give him rent protection. That binds the property in future. If the man goes straight away after making his bargain and before a notice to quit, he can get three months security of tenure, and he can, if necessary, get it again and again.
§ Mr. YatesThe Minister sent me a letter yesterday saying that the man had agreed to pay £9 a week. He tells me this afternoon—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is Question Time, not the time to make speeches.
§ Mr. RipponHe originally paid £9 a week. He had a very heavy electric light bill. The landlord approached him and he agreed to pay £12 a week. I am sorry if I have foreshortened it, but it is difficult to give the whole story in answer to a Question.