§ Mr. RaynsfordI beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 60, line 5, leave out 'eight' and insert 'more than thirteen.'
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 12, in page 60, line 7, leave out 'two' and insert 'more than three'.
§ Mr. RaynsfordAmendment No. 11 deals with the mandatory ground for possession for assured tenants. The Government propose to reduce the period covered by that ground from three months to two. That means that a tenant who is in arrears of only two months can be subject to a mandatory ground for possession against which there is no defence. I stress that there is an additional discretionary ground open to landlords to seek possession where there are any arrears. The opportunity to seek possession is available in any case. We are sceptical about the reduction of the period of the mandatory ground because it could lead to tenants suffering injustice through no fault of theirs.
In Committee, we highlighted the number of people who do not get their housing benefit entitlement in time. Sadly, some local authorities are less efficient than others and do not deliver it in the 14 days in which they are supposed to process claims. In some cases, they take several months to process claims. A tenant left waiting for several months for housing benefit who had no means of paying the rent would soon fall foul of this mandatory ground and be liable to lose his or her home. That would be an injustice.
We tabled amendments in Committee, but unfortunately the Government did not see fit to accept them. We therefore raise the issue again tonight. In view of the pressure on the timetable and to allow us make progress, and being aware that the issues will need to be revisited soon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 60, line 7, at end add
'and(c) at the end of Ground 8 there shall be added—Provided that no order for possession shall be made under this Ground if the Court is satisfied that prior to the date of hearing the tenant has made a claim for housing benefit in respect of the period to which the arrears relate in whole or in part and which has not been finally determined by the local housing authority.".'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 38, in page 60, line 7, at end add 983
'and(c) at the end of Ground 8 there shall be added—Provided that no order for possession shall be made under this Ground if the Court is satisfied that the tenant has an arguable set-off against the unpaid rent of an amount of liquidated or unliquidated damages capable of reducing the rent outstanding to below the amounts claimed. ".'.
§ Mr. HughesThe amendments are the flesh on the bones of the argument that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) was seeking to attribute to his amendments which were considered first. They are realistic and important. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to accede to them.
The amendments deal with possession in assured shorthold tenancies, and the problem that often arises of people who have not had their housing benefit paid. Many hon. Members will have met constituents who have faced possession proceedings when the whole of the arrears is attributable to a failure to pay housing benefit.
Amendment No. 37 gives the complete guarantee that was sought in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). It states:
no order for possession shall be made … the Court is satisfied that prior to the date of hearing the tenant has made a claim for housing benefit in respect of the period to which the arrears relate … and which has not finally been determined".If an application has been made, a person should not be at risk of losing his or her home while the bureaucracy is grinding, as it often does, exceeding slow.Amendment No. 38 deals with a similar but arguably slightly less common occurrence, and says that, likewise, there should not be an order for possession if the court is satisfied that the tenant has a set-off against unpaid rent, perhaps for damages for disrepair. All sorts of situations can arise in which it is clear that there is a claim in the other direction that would reduce the rent arrears. It would be unjust that possession proceedings in such cases should be taken to a conclusion. That is especially important for constituencies in which assured shorthold tenancies are now common.
I hope that the Minister will be at least positive, and possibly generous, and make life easy by accepting both amendments. We could then both sit down and move on.
§ Mr. ClappisonI should like to be generous, but the issue was fully canvassed in Committee. The starting point needs to be that the order for possession will not be made immediately after two months. In practice, it will be a longer period, because, as the hon. Gentleman may know, an extra period of two weeks is required after proceedings commence before a hearing can take place. When one has to wait a little while for a court hearing, it will be longer than that.
I think that it was established in Committee that, in practice, the problem of housing benefit would be dealt with in that fairly lengthy period—somewhere in excess of three months. I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman that, under social security legislation, housing benefit claims should be processed within the statutory 14 days of all the required information being received. If the deadline is not met, local authorities have a statutory duty to make—
§ Mrs. MaddockThat is the point—it is the getting together of the information so that the claims can be 984 processed within the 14 days that is the problem. We discussed that in Committee, and I thought that the Minister understood our concerns.
§ Mr. ClappisonIf the hon. Lady would allow me to continue, I will deal with her point.
Where the delay is not the fault of the tenant and the deadline is not met, local authorities have a statutory duty to make payments on account. We explored that issue fairly fully in Committee.
§ Mr. Simon HughesIf the Minister is going to be bold enough to resist the amendments, can he at least ensure that his colleagues in other Departments instruct and inform all courts of the statutory duties, so that no court is in error about the fact that there is an obligation on someone to pay up? That would at least alleviate the problem.
§ Mr. ClappisonI will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should have thought that, as a matter of basic knowledge, courts would be aware of their statutory duties.
On amendment No. 38, to amend ground 8 to require the court to offset liquidated and unliquidated damages against rent arrears would encourage tenants to counter-claim for damages due to disrepair in all ground 8 cases. That would lead to long and protracted disputes about the cause and extent of the damages claimed.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members' arguments, but the existing state of the law caters sufficiently well for the question of repairs and rent that is owed.
§ Mr. Simon HughesThe Minister has not persuaded me. On the first issue, a period of time might in theory be wonderful, but the reality of the world we live in is that the system does not deliver even if one extends it for one, two or three months. I am afraid that we are not satisfied, so I shall allow the House to resolve the matter in the usual way.
Amendment negatived.