EVICTIONS FROM RENTED DWELLINGS (Hansard, 4 February 1964)

§ Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compel a landlord to obtain an order of the court before proceeding to evict a tenant; to provide that the court shall suspend the operation of such an order until satisfied that alternative accommodation is available; and for purposes connected therewith. I hope that my proposed Bill will achieve three things. First, that it will put an end to what is now generally recognised as a barbaric and out-dated custom, that of putting out on to the pavement people who have been evicted from their homes, a practice which ought to disappear from any civilised country. Secondly, that it will bring immense relief and encouragement to practising solicitors who often find themselves in a very embarrassing situation with regard to their clients when they are facing the sort of tragic situation which has been all too common in recent years. Thirdly, that it will bring some sense and meaning into the figures for homelessness.

At present, such figures are no more than totals of people who have been put into the street; they were not born there. They have been evicted and put out. We would like, surely, to see the implementation of what was the original intention in preparing statistics of homelessness, to be able to make assessments of the number of problem families and not of problem landlords, and cut the flooding of welfare authorities with families with no internal problems and who ought not to be in overcrowded circumstances, and properly provide for the rehabilitation of families with internal troubles.

The Bill would abolish the uncertain and disagreeable aspects of the use by private bailiffs of the particular kind of trickery which has to be used to do violence on a home but not on a person in order to secure the possession of a dwelling and to lock it against those who have dwelt therein. I do not think that any reputable landlord, solicitor or any other person would not be glad to see that disappear. It would make the eviction of a tenant dependent on the order of a court and provide, further, 983 that the order should not be operative until the court was satisfied that alternative accommodation was available.

As I see it, that would mean that the registrar of the court had made previous inquiries from all the parties concerned, including welfare authorities, and was able to report to the judge at what date alternative accommodation which could be occupied and paid for by a family would be available, or, in extreme cases of problem families, the provision by the welfare authorities of suitable accommodation. The order would be suspended until such accommodation became available.

I am well aware that were the House willing to give permission for it to be brought in, the Bill would have to be short and clearly understood, and have practical effect within the present state of the law. By limiting it to this point I hope that I shall get agreement from all quarters. For those who have doubts, perhaps I may just go over what I think would happen if, after inquiries of the parties concerned, a registrar came to the conclusion that the case was a recalcitrant and difficult one.

It might be a case where, because a family were bad tenants, or had fallen behind with the rent, or because there was a broken home in some respect or other, the landlord—whether a local authority housing management committee or a private landlord—would be entitled to be relieved of the duty of being a welfare officer as well; and the family would be properly put in the care of an organisation which, after all, was set up by Parliament to do that, in the case of families needing retraining in making the money go round, in learning to cook and to pay debts regularly, and so on. Such families are, of course, a very small proportion of those who become homeless at present. But it is a type which the provisions of the Bill would have to cover and which a judge would have to consider when considering the report of the registrar.

If I may give examples of the sort of thing which is still happening in my constituency and the way in which the Bill would work my argument will be complete. In areas such as I represent we have a continuous problem of evic-984 tions threats of eviction and homelessness. Firms spring up which, by a coincidence, happen to be dealing with properties which were notorious in the last few years. A firm called General Freeholds Ltd. seems to manage a large number of these addresses on behalf of Wamsgain Property Company Ltd. At present, the firm works within the law and if it were able to work within the framework of the law as strengthened by the provisions in my proposed Bill the tenants would not be afraid of eviction, a fear which overshadows any reasonable negotiations.

The most complicated situation in part of Paddington exists over an estate which was sold by the Church Commissioners, sold by Lintang and then sold by auction, where there are leases of different durations still in existence, and where elderly people are being offered sums of money to surrender their leases or new leases for longer terms. It is a subject of immense complexity, needing expert advice. It is not right that they should be afraid of negotiating on equal terms because of the fear of eviction.

That is the least important example. Then I have the very moving example of a family of a man, his wife and five children living in a basement and paying a not unreasonable rent by modern controlled standards. The house was sold over their heads to an investment company, which promptly gave them notice to get them out so as to sell with vacant possession. The mother was a pleasant soul, doing her best to cope with the circumstances of herself and five children and with a sick husband in hospital. An attempt was made to serve a writ on the man while he lay in a hospital bed. That could have been terrible in its effect on the family.

This case caused me and the solicitor a good deal of anxiety. The solicitor wrote to me one day and said, "I find that the senior partner in the firm which has been acting on behalf of the landlords is a Mr. X, a Conservative M.P. Do you know him?" I know him and I think that his opinion of me is lower than my opinion of him. I shall not name him for the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall make that clear, and perhaps the hon. Members 985 will be surprised. I thought that I must write to him and I did so, setting out very briefly indeed the facts of the case. The following morning as I came to the House to go to a Standing Committee, he was waiting for me. He had been on to the junior partner, as this was a case which he knew nothing about.

This is the sort of thing which normally goes through the managing clerk's department. The writ was served by a writ-serving agency, which would never have been instructed to go to a hospital if any responsible person had been in charge of the operation. The investment company had bought this house by accident, as it were. It was buying an estate which contained one compact block of property and this one extra house of which it said, "Clear out the uncontrolled Tenants and sell".

That is why I do not name the hon. Member concerned. I would normally name him, but I do not think that the secretary of the Law Society would favour a commercial "plug" of that kind in a speech on a Ten Minutes Rule Bill. The rapid action to mitigate the circumstances was entirely commendable. This kind of thing ought not to happen simply because hon. Members meet one another here, or because someone knows someone else in another firm. It ought not to happen at all. The managing clerk should say to the client who gives the instruction, "This will take some time, 986 because we shall have to make arrangements with the registrar at the county court before we serve any writs".

I have told the story at length because I do not think that one should come to the House with a Bill every time that one detects a wicked man doing wicked business. Through the chain of events one cannot put one's finger on a single villainous action by anyone, but the facts would be just as tragic as if the whole thing were intentional, thoughtless and brutal. That is why I hope that my Bill, short, clear and acceptable as I believe it is to public opinion and to the whole legal profession, will also be acceptable to the House.