RIGHT TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS (Hansard, 12 April 1984)

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
When the House last saw the right to repair clause, it contained an upper limit on the amount which landlords could reimburse tenants who satisfactorily carried out repairs under the right to repair scheme. Clause 25. as originally drafted, would have entitled tenants to recover from landlords such sums as might be determined under the scheme, subject to their being not greater than the cost that the landlords would have incurred carrying out the repairs. That proviso limiting the amount of repayment has now been removed. That is the substance of the amendment.

§ Mr. Chris Smith
I wish to prove the Government further about their exact intentions regarding this part of the clause. We had lengthy arguments in Committee about the so-called right to repair, which remains as it stands in clause 25—a paltry shadow of what it could have been. The major argument was about the Government's intention declared in their draft regulations that the reimbursement to the tenant who carried out the repair should be no more than 75 per cent. of what it would have cost the landlord. That is lower than the 100 per cent. which it would have cost the landlord as imposed by the Act.
In abandoning the phrase in clause 25, are the Goverment also abandoning the 75 per cent. rule, which they have previously intended to bring in under the regulations, and have they been converted to the point, which the Opposition made insistently in Committee, that the right and proper thing is for a tenant who carries out a repair to be reimbursed to the exact value of the repair? 619 We also suggested that an amount for administration should be added, but at this stage we would be entirely satisfied if the Government gave their word that they intended the scheme to operate in the way that we suggest, which is that tenants should receive exactly what they paid to carry out the repairs. Is that the Government's intention? If so, we welcome it.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I, too, am worried about this matter, which was debated at great length in Committee. We welcome the way in which the Government appear to be moving because they are removing the limitation about which many of us were unhappy. Since this part of the Bill provides the framework under which the scheme will be operated, if we are to respond properly to the debate we must know the details of the scheme. If necessary, we shall have to urge the Government to do more than they have said they will do. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us about the Government's intention, especially on the question of whether a tenant who carries out a repair will be reimbursed fully and will not be out of pocket.

§ Mr. John Fraser
The Minister will be aware that local authorities believe that, if they must live with this scheme, the Government should introduce regulations to make it a default scheme. The right to repair should not arise until there has been a default by the local authority, especially if the authority has conscientiously set out a timetable for carrying out the repairs. The right to repair should not be a charter for those who wish to be awkward, but should help those who genuinely need repairs. In making the regulations, will the Minister follow the almost unanimous advice from local authorities that the scheme should be based on default?

§ Mr. Wyn Roberts
With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the points made.
Hon. Members are right to say that the Government acknowledged that in some circumstances it would be proper for tenants to receive payments for carrying out repairs which cost more than the landlord would have incurred. Our consultation document recognised the need for such provision if the landlord defaulted under the proposed scheme. The circumstances envisaged were that a landlord might fail to respond within the prescribed time to a tenant's application to carry out a repair, and might not specify the cost to him of carrying out that repair. If the tenant then went ahead with the repair in ignorance of the amount by which he could be reimbursed, he might be out of pocket. Indeed, his costs might exceed those envisaged by the landlord. In fairness, he should be entitled to recover his reasonable costs in full provided that the repair was otherwise within the terms of the scheme.
Consultation is continuing. The Government are considering carefully the responses to the paper and welcome the views expressed in the House this evening. When our consideration of the responses is complete we shall issue draft regulations for further comment.