DUTY OF LANDLORD TO PROVIDE STATEMENT OF TERMS OF ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCY

HC Deb 30 April 1996 vol 276 cc974-7

'. After section 20 of the Housing Act 1988 there shall be inserted—

"Post-Housing Act 1996 tenancies: duty of landlord to provide statement as to terms of tenancy

20A.-(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a tenant under an assured shorthold tenancy to which section 19A above applies may, by notice in writing, require the landlord under that tenancy to provide him with a written statement of any term of the tenancy which—

1. (a) falls within subsection (2) below, and
2. (b) is not evidenced in writing.

(2) The following terms of a tenancy fall within this subsection, namely—

1. (a) the date on which the tenancy began or, if it is a statutory periodic tenancy or a tenancy to which section 39(7) below applies, the date on which the tenancy came into being,
2. (b) the rent payable under the tenancy and the dates on which that rent is payable,
3. (c) any term providing for a review of the rent payable under the tenancy, and
4. (d) in the case of a fixed term tenancy, the length of the fixed term.

(3) No notice may be given under subsection (1) above in relation to a term of the tenancy if—

1. (a) the landlord under the tenancy has provided a statement of that term in response to an earlier notice under that subsection given by the tenant under the tenancy, and
2. (b) the term has not been varied since the provision of the statement referred to in paragraph (a) above.

(4) A landlord who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice under subsection (1) above within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he received the notice is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. (5) A statement provided for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall not be regarded as conclusive evidence of what was agreed by the parties to the tenancy in question. (6) Where—

1. (a) a term of a statutory periodic tenancy is one which has effect by virtue of section 5(3) (e) above, or
2. (b) a term of a tenancy to which subsection (7) of section 39 below applies is one which has effect by virtue of subsection (6) (e) of that section,

subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to it as if paragraph (b) related to the term of the tenancy from which it derives. (7) In subsections (1) and (3) above—

1. (a) references to the tenant under the tenancy shall, in the case of joint tenants, be taken to be references to any of the tenants, and
2. (b) references to the landlord under the tenancy shall, in the case of joint landlords, be taken to be references to any of the landlords.".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Clappison

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 17, in schedule 7, page 147, line 28, at end insert—'Tenancies excluded by absence of written tenancy agreement— (4A) An assured tenancy for which there is no written tenancy agreement.'

Mr. Clappison

Amendment No. 17 deals with the question of what happens where a landlord and tenant do not put their agreement into writing. The amendment would cause such positions to result in a full assured tenancy being created. That is not a good idea. I have reflected on what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said in Committee about that. It is neither equitable nor logical that, when landlord and tenant do not put their agreement into writing, that consequence should follow.

It may not be entirely prudent for a landlord not to have an agreement in writing—not least from the landlord's own point of view—but a full assured tenancy should not be created for that reason, not least because that would defeat the landlord's intention. It is not fair—or right— when the landlord intends to create an assured shorthold tenancy and when a tenant agrees on that, for a full assured tenancy to be created merely because of the absence of an agreement in writing. The amendment should not be added to schedule 7 as one of the exceptions in relation to assured shorthold tenancies. I note that all the other exceptions where assured tenancies are created depend on the landlord's intention.

The amendment would defeat the landlord's intention. It runs contrary to what we are seeking to do throughout the Bill: it would create unnecessary formality and, in effect, a trap into which some unwary landlords might fall. It is reasonable, however, for landlords to provide more information to tenants. New clause 13 achieves that in a sensible way. It requires the landlord to provide the tenant, on request, with written details about the date that the tenancy began, the rent and other important details. That will provide tenants who have oral agreements with their landlords with the most important terms relating to rent and security of tenure, and will provide an adequate safeguard against the minority of landlords who might seek to exploit their tenants' rights.

Where a landlord fails to comply with his tenant's request within 28 days and there is no reasonable excuse for his failure, the landlord will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine. That achieves an appropriate balance.

Mr. Raynsford

It will be no surprise to the Minister to learn that we profoundly disagree with him. His comments show the extent to which the Conservative party has, in the past decade, lurched to the right. When assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the late Lord Ridley—not someone who would be deemed to be on the wet side of the Conservative party—the assumption was that normal letting would take place through an assured tenancy. The shorthold tenancy was designed as a tenancy for separate purposes, such as when a landlord wanted to let only for a short period. I remember Lord Ridley saying that, for that reason, shorthold tenancies would attract a lower rent than assured tenancies.

Times have changed, and there has been a progressive erosion of tenants' rights. The shorthold tenancy has become far more popular than the assured tenancy and, because of the acute shortage of rented housing, it often commands a rent identical to that of the more secure assured tenancy. Consequently, landlords have no reason to offer an assured tenancy.

The Government are now compounding that problem by making the assured shorthold tenancy the default tenancy. We believe that there should be a proper fair balance between the interests of landlord and tenant, not the complete surrender that the Government are performing to the interests of the landlord at all costs, while the interests of tenants are abandoned.

We believe that, where a landlord fails to prescribe the fact that he wishes to let for a short period, it is right and proper that a full assured tenancy should be created, and that is the purpose of our amendment. We greatly regret the fact that the Government will not accept it, but we understand why. Their lurch to the right says it all. Undoubtedly, the matter will need to be revisited after the general election.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.