PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO BUY (Hansard, 27 June 1988)

§ Mr. John Watts (Slough)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with a fairly narrow point arising from the problems of my constituent, Mr. J. Croxford, whose right to buy has been denied as a result of retrospective and capricious action by the Northborough housing co-operative, of which Mr. Croxford is a tenant.
In February 1987, Mr. Croxford made a right-to-buy application to the Northborough housing co-operative. In May 1987, the co-operative admitted his right to buy, albeit nine weeks later than it should have done. Mr. Croxford was concerned at the slow progress of his application, and wrote to me on 27 July 1987. He knew that the section 125 notice was due, but suspected that it would not arrive. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who replied to me at the end of August 1987 based on information supplied to the Department by the housing co-operative.
The co-operative claimed that it had instructed a surveyor to inspect the flat in preparation for the issue of a section 125 notice, but the co-operative's claim that it was progressing the application turned out to be a cynical lie. On 30 March 1987—before admitting Mr. Croxford's right to buy, and before supplying that information to my hon. Friend the Minister—the co-operative had changed its rules and registered as a fully mutual co-operative, thereby depriving all its tenants of their status as secure tenants and of their right to buy.
It was not until 3 February 1988 that the co-operative wrote to my constituent—almost a year from the date of his initial application—advising him that his right to buy had been retrospectively extinguished by the devious action that the co-operative had taken in changing its rules. I wrote again to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. My hon. Friend replied explaining that the action taken by the co-operative appeared to be in accordance with the law, although I submit that it was certainly not within the spirit of the law as enacted by Parliament.
My new clause seeks to remedy the wrong suffered by Mr. Croxford and perhaps by other people in similar circumstances. It renders void any action by a non fully mutual housing co-operative to change its rules or status so as to remove the right to buy from a tenant who was a secure tenant at the time he claimed his right to buy.
I have made the effective date of the new clause 1 March 1987. I realise that there would normally be an objection on the grounds of it being retrospective legislation, but it 160 is justified in this instance as it is designed to provide a remedy against the retrospective action of the housing co-operative to remove a right which had been conferred by legislation.
11.45 pm
I shall not be surprised if my hon. Friend the Minister finds some technical defect in the drafting of the new clause—indeed, I should be surprised if that were not the case. However, if he cannot accept it, I hope that he will give me an undertaking that he will look again at this problem and consider whether it would be possible to introduce an amendment in another place to remedy the wrong which my constituent has suffered.
I cannot believe that it was the intention of the House, when it created the right to buy, that it should be negated by cavalier retrospective action by a mischievous housing co-operative. The House should stand by the right to buy which it conferred on tenants such as my constituent Mr. Croxford.

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
The right to buy raises a number of very important issues, not least for some 500 or 600 of my constituents who exercised the right to buy and, unfortunately, bought a pup. They bought BISF steel-framed properties. Those properties cannot be sold on, even when willing buyers are found, because building societies do not make mortgages available because of alleged structural defects.
Rather than take up the time of the House any further, when the Minister replies to the debate, either on the new clause or on Third Reading, will he give some comfort and some hope to those people who, under the Conservative right-to-buy policy, are lumbered with houses which are impossible to sell on and which do not qualify for any grant under the structurally defective properties legislation? Will he seek at least to review the case of 500 or 600 of my constituents in Nottingham, North, so that at some point in the future they can either sell their houses or have them brought up to a reasonable standard?

§ Mr. Waldegrave
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) has been in correspondence with me about the individual case that he mentioned. I am glad to say that the only such case that has come to our attention is the one that he described. The Housing Corporation, which deals with such matters, has also heard of no other such case. I doubt whether it would be wise to legislate on the basis of a single case.
It is not clear to me that it would be right in principle to make the changes which my hon. Friend proposes. A member of a co-operative is bound by its decisions. I understand that the procedure for changing the status of the housing co-operative to fully mutual was correctly followed, including making sure that all the members of the co-operative were aware that by changing from a non fully mutual housing co-operative to a fully mutual one they would lose the right to buy. If there were any doubt About the way the procedures were followed, doubtless recourse to the courts is available. The Housing Corporation, however, has undertaken to ask housing co-operatives when they apply to be registered as fully mutual whether there are any right-to-buy claims outstanding. If there are, the corporation will seek to ensure that they are cleared up satisfactorily and that no tenant who wishes to exercise the right to buy and has claimed it will lose that right.
161 I do not know whether that will help my hon. Friend with his case, but it will deal with the problem in future, and I hope that he will withdraw the new clause on that basis.

§ Mr. Watts
On the basis of my hon. Friend's reply, I will he able to get in touch with the Housing Corporation to ascertain the facts of the case.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.