Rent Assessment Committees (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 1981

HL Deb 10 December 1981 vol 425 cc1473-82

5.57 p.m.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I beg to move that the Rent Assessment Committees (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 1981, laid before the House on 10th November, be approved. These regulations are concerned with the procedures followed by rent assessment committees. Committees are drawn from 14 regional rent assessment panels, and their task is to fix fair rents in those cases where either landlord or tenant has objected to the fair rent registered by the rent officer. The regulations do not in any way affect the independence of rent assessment committees from central Government, nor affect the basis of assessment of fair rents. Their objective is to streamline procedures and to reduce delays without prejudicing the rights of either landlords or tenants. The proposals flow from the recommendations of the Working Party on Rent Assessment Panel Procedures, whose report was placed in the Library on 10th November.

Rent assessment committees have received 12,000 cases in the first nine months of this year. This is more than 50 per cent. up on the equivalent period last year, and they are to be commended on the improved productivity that has been achieved. The working party's report, however, has identified ways in which we can look for still further improvements so that landlord and tenant can get a speedier service, and so that the cost per case can be kept down. Most of the working party's recommendations concern administrative arrangements in panel offices, and can be implemented without regulations. Others concern rent tribunals, and are the subject of separate regulations that do not require affirmative resolution. We are concerned in this debate only with those proposals which require statutory amendment to rent assessment committees procedures. There are two such proposals, the first dealing with time limits and the second with the giving of reasons for decisions.

Under the rent assessment committee procedures there are two principal time limits. When a committee receives a case, it must serve a notice on the landlord and tenant asking whether they wish to request a hearing or to make written representations. At present the committee must give at least 14 days to the parties to respond to this notice. We propose in these regulations that the period should be seven days. If a hearing is requested, the committee must then serve a further notice giving at least 14 days' notice of the date when it will take place. We propose that the period be either 10 or seven days. The lower seven-day limit would apply only in those cases where the earlier notice to which I have referred—the one asking the parties whether they wish to request a hearing—told the parties in advance the date the hearing would take place if one was requested. They will therefore already have noted this date.

These shorter time limits would help to reduce delays in getting hearings, and speed is important to both landlord and tenant. An objection to the rent officer's registration in itself extends the period of uncertainty for landlord and tenant as to what the fair rent will be, and they are entitled to expect the rent assessment committee to resolve the matter speedily. I note that the working party quote the Lord Chancellor's words: Where there is delay, the whole quality of justice deteriorates Seven days has proved to be a quite adequate time limit on other analogous circumstances; for example, it has been the standard limit for rent officer proceedings since 1965. Moreover, rent assessment committee hearings are likely to raise issues which have already been considered by the parties in the course of the rent officer's determination, so the facts and arguments should already be familiar to them. In addition, the shorter limits will be accompanied by other administrative changes which will enable the parties to begin to prepare their cases or take advice before the time limits commence. In future, the rent officer—to whom all objections are addressed in the first place—will write to the parties explaining how the case will be dealt with and warning them of the action that will be required of them, even before he sends the papers to the assessment committee. And time in the post will be excluded.

The Council on Tribunals have been consulted on the regulations. While they have said that they would have preferred longer time limits, they acknowledge that the points I have outlined provide some off-setting safeguards for the parties. They have however particularly asked that the proposed new limits should be minima that can be extended administratively in particular cases on good reason being shown. I assure your Lordships, first, that the legislation is so framed that the limits can be extended administratively, and, secondly, that panels will be asked by my department to allow extensions whenever the parties can show good reason for that. They will in particular be asked to establish whether either of the parties will be away—for instance, on holiday—and to make appropriate allowance for that. In that way the majority of cases can be dealt with more speedily without leading to injustice in those cases which specially merit longer periods.

The second proposal covered by the regulations relates to the giving of reasons. The regulations remove the requirement, first introduced in 1971, that rent assessment committees must give reasons for their decisions in all cases, whether requested by the parties or not. Instead, committees will simply be governed by the general requirement of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act 1971 that reasons must be given where requested by either landlord or tenant. Under that provision, the parties will be able to request reasons either before the notification of the decision or during a reasonable period thereafter. This absolute right to reasons will he made clear to the parties in simple language in the literature they receive, both at the outset of the case and at the time they are given the decision. If they ask for reasons, they will get them. Where there is no such request, the time saving will mean that committees can issue decisions much more quickly and deal with more cases per day.

Although the Council on Tribunals favour the giving of reasons in all cases by tribunals, whether or not requested, the Working Party have argued convincingly in their report that a different approach is justified in the particular case of rent assessment committees. Indeed, they point out that the Franks Committee, whose report in 1957 led to the creation of the Council on Tribunals and the current legislation on the giving of reasons, themselves recognised that the position of rent-fixing tribunals is somewhat different from that of other tribunals; they are making an expert judgement of value, rather than simply applying stated law to proven fact.

Experience of statutory rent-fixing since the Rent Act 1965 does not provide any evidence that where the giving of reasons has been obligatory rather than contingent, this has resulted in a higher standard of decision-making. Rent tribunals, who fix reasonable rents for restricted contracts, have never been required to give reasons for their decisions where they have not been requested. Prior to 1971, rent assessment committees themselves were not required to do so. None of this experience suggests that decisions without reasons are worse in quality or more criticised. In making decisions, committees will of course always need to bear in mind that reasons might still be requested by one of the parties when he or she receives the decision. There is therefore no sense in which the absence of a mandatory requirement to give reasons will in any way reduce the intellectual discipline required for reaching a decision on the rent.

I do not believe it is reasonable or justifiable—especially with a rising caseload and the need for economy in all areas of the public service—for rent assessment committees to continue to have imposed on them the time and expense of formulating written reasons, which in practice often run to several pages, which neither of the parties may want. The resulting delays can only be to the detriment of those who wish to have the decision on the rent itself as quickly as possible.

The proposals in these regulations are aimed at enabling the landlord and tenant to have a full and fair opportunity to put their case according to the rules of natural justice without procedures becoming so prolonged as to create a different kind of injustice—that of delay; and without detracting from the informality and accessibility that is one of the great strengths of rent assessment committees. It is a difficult balance, but I believe the working party got it right in their recommendations, and I commend these regulations to your Lordships' House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th November be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)

6.6 p.m.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations, and while I am not particularly happy about them, they are not on a par with matters such as the compulsory sale of council houses and other issues on which there have been some very strong arguments between the Government and these Benches. I must say at the outset that I am not very happy about the reducton in time. I take the noble Lord's point that one should try to speed up these issues, not just in the interests of economy and time but because it is obviously an advantage to the applicant—to the tenant, the landlord or both—to have the matters dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

We must look very carefully at the same time at the disadvantages as a result of shortening the times in question and compare those with the advantages of a quicker hearing. For the unrepresented tenant, for example, the reduction of the period in which a decision whether to ask for an oral hearing or make representations could prove a grave disadvantage. It could be a burden also for the represented tenant or represented landlord in that the shorter time could lead to them being hard pressed, particularly when they need legal or other opinion to support them; it might be difficult for them to get that opinion organised within that time.

Under the Labour legislation of 1960 the time was shortened, but it was extended in 1980 by the present Government. The Minister gave the reasons, but they did not seem to get to the heart of the reason why they have now gone back on that. I was impressed by the view of the Council on Tribunals on this. Although they took into account very much what the working party had said, in the end they came down to arguing against the curtailment of time. That being the case—it is a legal and not just an administrative act—it is important to ensure that the matter receives very careful consideration before being accepted.

Like the Minister here, the Minister in another place spelt out, though in a little more detail, the safeguards envisaged. Perhaps when he replies the Minister can assure me that there has not been any change in the safeguards, or can make some other comment on them. The first safeguard was that in future the rent officer to whom all objections to a fair rent are addressed in the first place, instead of just acknowledging objections, should write to the parties explaining the rent assessment procedure and indicating that they would be allowed to choose either an oral or a written hearing. I very much welcome that safeguard, and I believe it is most important that people should have the procedures explained to them.

However, I ask the Minister whether he will use his influence and good offices to ensure that the explanation is couched in easily understood, readable, and simple English, so that people know exactly what it means. Unfortunately, especially in the area of rents and entitlements, some material that is issued, and which people have brought to me to try to elucidate, is extraordinarily difficult to understand. There should be simplicity of language. Very often people who draft the documents-this is not a criticism of them-themselves know the subject so well that they find it difficult to believe that everyone else is not as cognisant of them as they are. Such material needs to be worded in simple English.

In addition, it would be helpful if the whole method of assessment could be explained, too. I think the Minister is aware that this point was raised by a Government supporter in another place, and it seems to me to be a very good suggestion. So, not only the procedures, but also the method of assessment, should be explained.

As the minister pointed out, the first notice sent should, wherever practicable, give the actual date on which any hearing is to take place, so that the parties can provisionally note it. I hope that in practice this does not prove inconvenient to the parties in the sense that they might feel that there is no alternative date. People who are not used to receiving official communications can often find them rather frightening, and unless it is made absolutely clear, they might not realise that if the proposed date is inconvenient or impossible for them, they can ask for another date.

Obviously if it is hoped to expedite matters, there will be an inclination to adopt the shortest procedure, involving the seven-day limit. That would expedite dealing with cases. The Minister gave a figure of 12,000 cases last year, and if the number of cases is on the increase, I can see that there would be a preference for the shorter time period. But it is very important that people should not be pressured into it, only to be told later that they can ask for a longer time period. I am sure the Minister would agree that if that happened, the benefit sought by trying to proceed on the shorter time basis would be lost, because there would be more correspondence and even more delay.

I am pleased to see that the statutory time limits are exclusive of time in the post, which is an extremely important factor nowadays. I understand that the Minister in another place undertook that the documents would all be sent by first-class post. This might seem a small detail, but it makes a considerable difference if correspondence is received within a few days, rather than taking much longer to arrive.

I am also pleased that the limits are the minima, so that they can be extended. This is very important, and tenants and landlords should be made aware of it. It should be publicized—and in simple language, since I fear that not everybody understands exactly what "minima" means. I should like to see it explained quite simply.

I turn now to another point that the Minister himself made. The committees will be asked to establish whether at the time of a first notice either of the parties were intending to be away from home for whatever reason in the following few weeks. I welcome this proposal, too; it is absolutely right. However, there is a further type of case which I believe should be covered in this part of the regulations, rather than merely come under a general heading. Many people will have to make arrangements to take time off work so as to be present when their cases are heard. I should like to see this point written into the safeguard, rather than be covered merely under the phrase about "any other reason, or a good reason". This is a very important point, and it will probably apply more often than will instances of people being on holiday or otherwise away from home. I hope that the Minister can satisfy me on that particular aspect.

I turn to the question on the giving of reasons. The Council on Tribunals was not happy about the removal of the automatic giving of reasons in these cases, which is to be replaced by a provision for reasons to be given if asked for. First, with respect, I do not believe that the comparison here with rent tribunals is completely sound. I do not think that there is a complete analogy because basically the rent tribunals, while they can of course fix rents, have had the primary function of giving temporary periods of security, and since 1974 this has essentially been to tenants of resident landlords. These are therefore discretionary decisions made on the facts of the case. Thus they are more subjective decisions, and so in these cases there is less value in having written reasons. But with rent assessment the reasons would have to be more objective, since the factors that prevail are the condition of the property, the size of it, the amenities, the terms of the tenancy, and the service provided, and in some cases outside London and the major conurbations there is also the scarcity factor.

The rent tribunal is a body to which one applies, but the assessment committee is really an appeal body from the rent officer. Therefore, I believe that there are stronger grounds for a rent assessment committee, as compared with a rent tribunal, having to give written reasons.

Furthermore, there is the situation of the individual tenant, and possibly the individual landlord, too, since we are not necessarily talking about landlords who have a great deal of property and who know all the ropes. Certainly many of the tenants do not know all the ropes, either. As we have seen in so many other social and housing fields, people are often reluctant to take the initiative in these cases and decide to ask for all the reasons, which at the moment are given automatically.

There is another strong factor to be considered in pressing for the retention of automatic giving of reasons. We need to have available a body of previous decisions, and the provision under which reasons are to be given only if asked for will mean that the available body of opinions on previous decisions will be substantially reduced. It could also mean that the rent officer would be without the benefit of having the details of many of the decisions of the rent assessment committee, which are a tremendous help and back-up when he is himself making decisions.

As I have said, many people simply will not ask for the reasons, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell me how many people asked for reasons from the rent tribunal during, say, last year. That would be a fair period of time to consider. The 1971 regulations made rent assessment committees give reasons in writing for their decisions, whether or not they were asked to do so. I wonder whether there is any other reason, which perhaps I did not quite understand, or any other explanation or motivation for what the Government are doing, except this question of expedition. Here, I think I am more concerned about this proposal than I am even about the cutting of the time. I have mentioned the question of objections and also about explaining the methods of assessment. I think this also cuts across both party and professional lines; and, as I have said, there are so many people who are not generally cognisant of these niceties.

Finally, I would ask the Minister whether he could give me answers on the following points. First, it will be possible to establish at the time of the first notice that people will be aware that getting leave of absence from work will be included in the safeguards—and here I should like it written in. Secondly, the method of assessment should be explained. Thirdly, since I am certainly not going to divide the House on this order (so presumably it will then go through unless some of the Minister's noble friends object to it, which is fairly unlikely, I would have thought), I should like him, if he would, to undertake that, preferably after six months but certainly not longer than after a year, we shall be given the numbers of landlords and tenants who have requested reasons. I would ask him to give some report on how that proposal is working out—that is, not giving written reasons automatically but only on request—so that we have some idea of the situation in different parts of the country; and also on how the question of cutting the time is working out, both on the question of expedition and on whether in fact some of the points I have raised have meant that there is cancelling out, if there has to be a certain amount of correspondence or communication in order to try to arrive at a convenient date between the various parties.

Further, I think we should be told whether or not the procedure is working satisfactorily. In asking for this, I am of course assuming that if the Government found it was not working as well as it should—not just because these matters were not being dealt with fairly quickly, but because it was not to the benefit of either the tenants or the landlords, or both—they would reconsider it in the light of the experience of either six months or, at the most, a year.

6.24 p.m.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I shall try, if I can, to answer the points that the noble Baroness has made, but I would preface my remarks by saying that of course the observations made by the Council on Tribunals, an important and knowledgeable body, were considered very carefully in this respect, as indeed was the report of the working party, which I am sure the noble Baroness would agree with me consisted of some extremely knowledgeable people in this field. It was a question, at the end of the day, of striking a balance—not always the easiest thing to do. I understand when the noble Baroness says she is not happy about the reducton in the time, but perhaps I should explain first why it is (she asked me the question) that we seem to have, as she said, gone back on what was put into the Act.

The fact is that the changes in the 1980 Act were made at the request of the Council on Tribunals in the first place, but since then the experience of panels is that they have in fact given rise to delays, especially on rent tribunal cases, and made it more difficult to cope with the increased case load following the introduction of the 1980 Act. At the time of the 1980 regulations the council were made aware that all panel procedures were about to be reviewed, and that the 1980 regulations were merely a holding measure related to the Housing Act; and the proposed new changes to rent assessment committee time limits stem from an overall examination of procedures, and are part of a package of recommendations designed to make more efficient use of the time during which cases are before a committee.

The noble Baroness then asked—I am trying to cover as many of her points as I can—whether I would ensure that the explanation is in simple terms, in simple language. This, I entirely agree with her, is very important. I know from much experience when I was on the Francis Committee that this whole field is a complex one, and this was the cause of great concern. So I say, Yes, I entirely agree with her. It has to be simple language, and the Government are revising all the forms with a view to this. A leaflet will be given to parties at the beginning which will explain procedures and the criteria that the committee will use in fixing the rent—and, I repeat, it will all be in very clear language.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, may I intervene briefly there? There was something I forgot to say when I was speaking. I know the Minister is very busy—I am sure he is as overburdened as everybody else is—but I have noticed that when he explains these and other matters himself in his own words it comes over very well and sounds extremely simple. Will he undertake to have a look himself at the explanation which is given? Because it really is a matter of communication.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. Yes, I will give an undertaking. I am extremely interested, as it happens, in this particular field. Yes, I will do that, and I will communicate with the noble Baroness. We will look at them together when they come out.

The noble Baroness asked me how many people requested reasons from rent tribunals in the last year.

I am informed that, in fact, in less than 10 per cent. were such requests made. As to whether we shall look at this again in six or 12 months' time, I am sure we will monitor it very carefully, and if the noble Baroness cares to put down a Question or to raise the matter in some way within that time I shall be very pleased to try to give her the answers to that. The noble Baroness then asked if she could be told whether or not it was working satisfactorily. Yes, we will try to assess that as we go and tell her what she wants to know about that.

On the matter of the post, we are asking rent assessment panels to use first-class post. I can confirm that we are doing that. The matter of taking time off work is more difficult. Panels will consider any reasonable argument that longer time limits should be allowed, but I think it is not possible to lay down firm rules about particular points such as these. I am hoping that what comes through from the statement and, indeed, from what I am saying now is a genuine wish to try to be helpful in this whole matter. It is a case of getting a balance in coping with the situation. I will not say it was unexpected, because the decontrol of the 1956 Act was bound to lead to many more applications, as indeed was the alteration in the rule from three to two years. Nevertheless, here is a situation which calls for action. There are two points. As long as the people retain the right, if they wish, to have written reasons—and that is absolute—then I think that is a safeguard; that is, as long as it is clearly understood, and I take that point. The other point about time we will watch carefully. I think that this is a constructive proposal that we are making. It will be interesting to see how it works out in practice.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this; but there does not seem to be a great difficulty when putting this out in guidelines and circulars to include the words "being at work". His honourable friend in another place said when he introduced the order: Finally, committees will be particularly asked to establish at the time of the first notice whether either of the parties intend to be away from home for whatever reason in the next few weeks and to fix the date of any oral hearing accordingly". With respect, I would have thought that in that paragraph, in which, I take it, all these safeguards will be publicised and issued as guidelines, the words, "or making arrangements to be absent from work", could be included. I am sorry to press this, but it is important. There are a number of housing organsations which feel strongly about this. The only other thing that the Minister has not done is, as well as explaining the procedures, also to explain the methods of assessment. This was raised in another place.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, on these latter points I do not think that the noble Baroness is suggesting that should now give details of the methods of assessment. I think she is asking whether we will take steps to make it clear what the methods of assessment are at the time. As to that, and on the earlier point, I will think about what she says. How far it is practical, I am not sure. We will read what she says and look at the points. We are anxious to avoid anything that will cause delay. One of the two objects of this exercise is to avoid delay. We must not do anything adversely to affect that. I will read what the noble Baroness has said and write to her.

On Question, Motion agreed to.