§ 7. Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)What action his Department is proposing to take to curb the activities of freeholders who demand retrospective payment from leaseholders for alterations made to their homes. [58610]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I share my hon. Friend's concern about the large payments that are sometimes demanded from leaseholders who alter their homes. That is just one example of how leaseholders can be exploited by unscrupulous landlords. We hope to issue shortly a consultation paper on leasehold reform.
§ Mr. ChaytorI thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the activities of companies such as Ladybrook Securities, Simarc Property Management, Chancery Lane Estates, Leafenvoy Ltd, Grace Favour Ltd, Compton Developments and Urban Point Property Management? They all have a track record throughout Greater Manchester, including my constituency of Bury, North, of issuing extortionate demands to leaseholders for minor administrative procedures such as retrospective consent for planning permission or notification of change 740 of ownership. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the scandalous exploitation of leaseholders will be tackled head on in the forthcoming consultation document?
§ Mr. RaynsfordI am well aware of the extensive concern, expressed by my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members from his region and other parts of the country, about the activities of some unscrupulous landlords who use loopholes in legislation to extract unreasonable sums from leaseholders. We are very concerned about it and are determined to tackle the abuse. I ask my hon. Friend to bear with us and wait for the forthcoming consultation paper to see precisely how we propose to end the abuse.
§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)Does the Minister accept that opportunities for leaseholders were considerably extended by the Housing Act 1996, introduced by the previous Government? Will he consider giving leaseholders an opportunity to apply directly to leasehold valuation tribunals in cases that commenced before that Act came into force, rather than simply allowing the courts to transfer such cases, as he is now considering?
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe hon. Gentleman refers to the option of transferring cases from a court to a leasehold valuation tribunal. That will apply only in cases that are currently before the courts, and it would be wrong to deny the courts an opportunity to reach a view on such cases. However, we have acted in response to concerns expressed by leaseholders to make it possible, where the courts consider it appropriate, for the more informal£and sometimes better informed£leasehold valuation tribunals to deal with those complex and technical issues. That is the basis on which we have acted.
§ Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)The Minister referred to the consultation paper, which, in 1997, was promised for the following spring. It now appears that the consultation paper will be issued in spring 1999, which is more than a year late. May I urge the Minister to speed up the process on behalf of thousands of leaseholders throughout the country who suffer from malpractice by unscrupulous landlords or who have great difficulty in enfranchising themselves—something that they expected to be able to do under the previous Government's legislation?
§ Mr. RaynsfordI remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a history of frequent, ill-considered change in leasehold legislation. The previous Government's motives were often good, but the legislation was not properly thought through and, as a consequence, proved unworkable. That is why we are determined to get the package right this time and have given it careful and serious thought. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), we intend to publish a consultation paper shortly, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait until next spring to see it.