§ Lords amendment: No. 21, after clause 3, insert the following new clause—
§ ".—(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act "dwelling-house" has the meaning given by section 50(2) of that Act as extended by section 3(4) of that Act.
§ (2) In subsection (2) of section 3 of the 1980 Act (land used for purposes of dwelling-house) after the words "by virtue of there shall be inserted the words "subsection (4) below or".
§
(3) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(4) There shall be treated as included in a dwelling-house any land which is or has been used for the purposes of the dwelling-house if—
(4A) A notice under subsection (4) above may be withdrawn by a written notice served on the landlord at any time before the tenant exercises the right to buy.
§ (4) Where, after the service of the notice under section 10(1) of the 1980 Act, a notice under section 3(4) of that Act is served or withdrawn, the parties shall, as soon as practicable after the service or withdrawal of that notice, take all such steps (whether by way of amending, withdrawing or re-serving any notice or extending any period or otherwise) as may be requisite for the purpose of securing that all parties are (as nearly as may be) in the same position as that in which they would have been if the notice under section 3(4) had been served or withdrawn before the service of the notice under section 10(1)."
§ Mr. Wyn RobertsI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The new clause introduced by amendment No. 21 is intended to clarify the extent to which land, including garages, may be included in right-to-buy sales. By virtue of section 27(1) and section 50(2) of the 1980 Act, a tenant has a right to buy any land which is let together with the 606 dwelling house. It has been argued by some authorities who have refused to sell garages let to the tenant under his secure tenancy that section 50(2) does not apply to part I of the 1980 Act. Subsection (1) of the new clause disposes of the argument about the application of section 50(2) by making it absolutely clear that the tenant has a right to buy all property comprised in his secure tenancy.
Under section 3(4) of the 1980 Act a tenant may also buy any land which is used for the purposes of the dwelling, provided that the landlord is willing to sell. We have come across some harsh decisions by landlords. One authority refused to sell a garage which was within a few feet of the back door of the house and which the tenants had rented since they took the letting of the house.
In defending its refusal to sell the garage, the council pointed to the fact that two separate tenancy agreements covered the house and the garage, and that while the tenancy of the house was in the name of the husband and wife, the garage was in the husband's name only. I have many letters from plaintiff tenants who have been refused the right to purchase their garages.
There have also been cases where landlords have refused to sell gardens to tenants, even though the tenants have always looked after the gardens. The authorities argued that the gardens were not comprised in the secure tenancies and that therefore the tenants had no right to the inclusion of the gardens in the sale. Subsection (2) of the new clause gives the tenant the right to require, by written notice, that any land which is used for the purposes of the dwelling be included in the sale, and provided that it is reasonable that the land should be so included, the tenant's request cannot be refused.
If the tenant's request is made after his original application—for example, he may not know until die landlord's offer notice arrives that the garage is not to be included in the sale—the parties must take all steps necessary to ensure that they would be in the same position as if the tenant's request had been made with his right-to-buy application. That is dealt with in subsection (3). The amendment does not apply to completed sales.
Amendment 191 contains a minor consequential change. I hope that the House will agree that these proposals are necessary.
§ Mr. John FraserI do not agree that they are necessary. Sometimes, insisting on a landlord selling a garage, for example, with the house when it is not immediately adjacent to the house, can create practical problems. I say that as a solicitor who has advised housing associations.
One difficulty is that, as the Bill tightens up and restricts the covenants that a local authority or housing association can place on a lease or on the sale of land, the amount of money that can be raised through management charges for maintaining amenities on the whole estate is even more restricted. Tenants are beginning to challenge the rent charge arrangements that I have devised for some housing associations, to ensure that there is a fund—not involving any profit—for maintaining common amenities.
There is always a risk for a housing association—rather than a local authority that has a rate fund—of running into loss-making on maintaining the amenities of an estate as more houses are sold. One insurance policy that helps housing associations is where facilities such as garages, that are detached from the houses, can be let on 607 reasonable—not extortionate—terms. At least that provides a fund of money that gives a little leeway to maintain the amenities of the estate as houses are sold. It is a pity that that safety margin may be lost if garages that are not immediately contiguous to the houses are sold.
9 pm
Another reason for disagreeing with the amendment is purely practical rather than one of principle. It leads to great conveyancing difficulties if local authorities have to convey land that is not adjacent to the house being sold. A garage used by the tenant of a house may be 100 yards away. That creates complex covenants, cross-easements and maintenance provisions. If there is no evidence of abuse in the amount of rent charged by a local authority for a garage or another amenity, it would be sensible to leave the matter as it is.
The Opposition and the Government disagree about the principle of the matter, but I realise that if a garden or garage is an integral part of a unit or immediately adjacent to it, it would be sensible to allow the right to buy to extend to those facilities. But where those facilities are distant from the house, although used by the tenant, it is better to leave the law as it is.
§ Mr. Wyn RobertsI am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not agree that garages and gardens should necessarily be sold with the dwelling. Many letters that I have received point out that the sale of a garage has been refused. For example, in one case the garage is only 38 inches from the side wall of the house, has direct access into the garden, and the half-glazed door at the rear looks directly into the kitchen. The tenant considers that the council is being unreasonable to refuse the sale of the garage—and there are many instances of such unreasonableness.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the distance of a garage from a house, he must know that there is a test of reasonableness. At first, it is a matter for the parties to agree between themselves, but, eventually, it could become a matter for the courts to decide.
§ Question put and agreed to.