NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION (Hansard, 26 October 1988)

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) leave out '6' and insert '2'.
I take it that we may also discuss amendment (b), in line 4, at end insert
'and no further notice may be served within a period of six months after the lapse of a notice under this subsection'. The Lords amendment means that an eviction notice will lapse six months after the proceedings could have been raised. I suppose that that may be a small blessing. Without it the threat of eviction could hang over tenants more or less permanently. However, it does not take us much further forward, because the landlord can simply issue a new notice. Amendment (a) would further reduce the uncertainty facing a tenant by reducing the lifespan of an eviction notice to two months. More important, amendment (b) would prevent a landlord from issuing another notice within six months of the lapse of the previous one. That would prevent the landlord from playing a cat and mouse game with his tenants and harassing them by repeatedly issuing notices to quit.
Harassment is already a feature among private landlords in Scotland, and it is likely to intensify as a result of this legislation. At my constituency surgery last Saturday, there was one young mother who was being threatened with violence by her landlord, who wanted to put her out of the house because she could not afford to pay the rent. The only advice that we could offer was that she should contact the police and seek protection. Such harassment is already happening and will become mach easier under this legislation.
The Minister says, "Tenants can just go and find another landlord." In Scotland, the normal procedure 327 would be for a person to seek a tenancy from the local authority, but that is the one thing that the Minister does not want prospective tenants in Scotland to be able to do, because the Government keep running down and eroding the provision of local authority and public sector housing in Scotland, as they are determined to get as much of that housing stock as possible into the private sector. I invite the Minister to consider the possibility of harassment by the repeated issuing of eviction notices, so that a tenant would be constantly living under the threat of eviction. I commend to the Minister in particular amendment (b).

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
The Government cannot accept the proposed amendments to Lords amendment No. 6, as we believe that there is considerable doubt about whether a sheriff would treat as valid a notice served on a tenant many months before proceedings took place.
However, to put the matter beyond doubt, the Government agreed to placing a time limit on the lifespan of a notice. That is what we have done, and we have naturally used the same time limit as that which applies to notices served on public sector tenants. As a result, the notice is valid for six months after the earliest date on which possession proceedings could take place. That seems entirely sensible, and I see no reason to restrict the lifespan to two months as proposed by the amendments, thereby treating private sector tenants differently from those in the public sector.
I do not consider that a restriction on the issue of further notices would be appropriate. It is true that without amendment (b), a landlord could issue a series of notices and so keep a tenant under constant threat of proceedings. But if a landlord is so minded, at least the Lords amendment puts him to the trouble of issuing a notice every six months. If a landlord wishes to pursue the matter, he must go to court and through all the processes, and obviously the facts will be taken fully into acount by the court.
It must be borne in mind that there are many circumstances in which it would be perfectly reasonable for a landlord to serve another notice shortly after the expiry of an earlier one—for example, if the tenant falls into rent arrears for a second time, or, in general, where a ground for possession applies, then ceases to apply, then comes to apply again.
I must also point out that, however well intentioned, the amendments might occasionally encourage landlords to evict tenants. That would occur if a landlord used the issuing of a notice as a form of final warning; for example, to make the tenant bring his rent payments up to date or else face eviction—a relatively common practice in the public sector. When the lifespan of such a notice is six months after the earliest date when proceedings can take place, and when the landlord has the ability to issue further notices, he can be fairly relaxed about giving his tenant time to comply. But if the notice's lifespan is only two months and there is a restriction on issuing further notices, the tenant will have less time to comply and the landlord will be more likely to raise proceedings for eviction. I invite the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) not to press the amendments.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths
I shall attempt to summarise the Minister's remarks: he thinks that there should be a six-month rule for both the public and the private sector, as against our amendment, which would provide one rule of six months for the public sector and one rule of two months for the private sector.
The growth in rent arrears has been mainly caused by the Government's policies in respect of housing benefits, which have restricted the payments available to tenants who entered agreements with both private and public sector landlords. Those restrictions on housing benefit have caused great hardship over the past seven months —as the Minister, his colleagues and all the rest of us know, and as the people who have been most affected by housing benefit restrictions know to their own cost.
The reason why we advocate a two-month rule for private landlords as against six months for public landlords is that the latter are geared up for changes in Government legislation. Their local Members of Parliament are advising them that the Government are cutting housing benefit and that that might have a horrendous impact—as it has in Edinburgh. Private landlords do not have any such mechanism. I know that that is true, because private landlords have contacted me asking, "Why is the council suddenly cutting the money available to the private tenant in my dwelling? I cannot hold off eviction proceedings for much longer." I have to explain to those private landlords that it is not the fault of the local authority but is the fault of the Government, and that has been admitted by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
While a council can, one way or another, wait more than six months for rent arrears to be paid by a cheque from the DSS, the private landlord often cannot do so. We want to ensure that any notice that is served must be acted on within a short period. We know that, with eight changes and cuts in housing benefit since 1983, there may be a ninth and a tenth on the way, and even more until we reach the 24 fiddles we have had on the unemployment statitistics. That is what worries us. We worry about the impact that this legislation will have on those people who are threatened with notices of eviction that hang over them for much longer than two months. If the period is limited to two months, attention will be focused more than ever on the Government of the day to ensure that changes in legislation such as that affecting housing benefit will not have the terrible impact that they have had in the past.

§ Mr. Doran
I am slightly out of step with my right hon. and hon. Friends because I welcome Lords amendment No. 6, which I see as being reasonable. If we shorten the period, we may encourage landlords to go to court much more quickly, rather than attempt to reach a negotiated settlement.
However, I am concerned at the Minister's rejection of amendment (b), which attempts to restrict the number of notices served. The Minister's brief comes from the vacuum, as I see it, that exists either in New St. Andrew's house or in Dover house. Certainly it does not appear to relate to the real world.
One of the most effective methods of harassing a tenant is the service of an eviction notice. From my experience as a solicitor who acted for many tenants who were in difficulties with their landlords, I know of numerous occasions when landlords wishing to avoid court proceedings, knowing that they cost money and create 329 difficulty, considered the service of an eviction notice as a first stage in the process of harassment. In most cases, until the tenant receives legal advice, he does not know that there is any difference, and assumes that a notice of eviction means that he must get out. Amendment (b) provides a valuable sanction in attempting to restrict the serving of notices and further to protect tenants.
One of the few benefits of the Bill—and we welcome it —is the improvement in the definition of and the increased penalties for harassment, contained in clause 35, which proposes a new subsection 2A(a) to section 22 of the 1984 Act. Does the Minister think that a repeated service of notice would constitute harassment? I think that it would, but I should be interested to know whether he thinks that the proposed new subsection would cover that.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
The normal reply of lawyers is that it always depends on the circumstances of the case. We have framed the grounds for possession to bring them in line with those for public sector tenants. A ground for possession can apply, cease to apply and then apply again.
I do not think that Opposition Members have put forward a convincing case for a different approach, and I therefore cannot accept the amendments.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I am persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) about the defects of amendment (a). I accept that the six months provision may be marginally better than two months. However, I remain worried about the subject of amendment (b).
The Minister acknowledged that it would be possible for a malicious landlord repeatedly to issue eviction notices. As my hon. Friends have already said, that is an acknowledged method of harassment of tenants, and the Minister has confirmed that landlords will be allowed to continue to do that. He said that landlords would have to go to the trouble of issuing a notice every six months. That is hardly an undue burden in this day of word processors. The Minister is deluding himself if he does not think that some landlords will set up shop in Scotland and he only too willing to take such action to keep their tenants under pressure. I am disappointed and angry that the Minister is not prepared to acknowledge the value of amendment (b).
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.