§ Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
§ ("(3) Where—
§ (a) the nominee purchaser fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) in the case of any person within the period mentioned in subsection (2), and
§ (b) The initial notice would not have been given in accordance with section I 1(2)(b) if—
§ (i) that person, and
665§ (ii) any other person in the case of whom a like failure by the nominee purchaser has occurred.
§ had been neither included among the persons who gave the notice nor included among the qualifying tenants of the flats referred to in that provision, the initial notice shall be deemed to have been withdrawn at the end of that period.")
§ Mr. BaldryI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is technical. It deals with the issue of deemed withdrawal of the initial notice where the nominee purchaser cannot deduce title to the property of any participating tenant. Without the amendment, failure to deduce the title of the lease of any participating tenant would cause the deemed withdrawal of the initial notice, which might prove rather harsh.
The amendment was proposed by the Law Society and the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee. It seems to make sense. It makes the procedures on enfranchisement fairer.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 88 agreed to.