HL Deb 10 July 1996 vol 574 cc309-11

(".—In Chapter I of Part I of Housing Act 1988 (assured tenancies) after section 19 (restriction on levy of distress for rent) there shall be inserted—

Extension of certain rights of tenants of registered social landlords.

19A.—(1) Unless otherwise stated, references in this section to a section or a Schedule are references to a section of or a Schedule to the Housing Act 1985.

(2) The provisions of sections 87 to 90 (succession on death of tenant) shall apply on the death of an assured tenant of a registered social landlord as if he were a secure tenant and section 17 of the Housing Act 1988 (succession to assured periodic tenancy by spouse) shall not apply in such cases.

(3) The provisions of sections 91 to 94 (assignment, lodgers and subletting) shall apply to an assured tenant of a registered social landlord as if he were a secure tenant and section 15 of the Housing Act 1988 (limited prohibition on assignment etc. without consent) shall not apply in such cases.

(4) Sections 96 to 101 (which deal with tenant's improvements) and section 105 (consultation on matters of housing management) shall apply to an assured tenant of a registered social landlords as if he were a secure tenant.".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause would extend certain rights, including certain rights of succession, which are enjoyed by law by secure tenants of registered social landlords to those same landlords' assured tenants. At present, that right is not a matter of law, but is enjoyed under the tenant's guarantee.

I moved a similar amendment in Committee (late at night or possibly even early in the morning) and the Minister said then that he thought that he could fully support the spirit behind it. I was grateful for that acknowledgement at least. He went on to say that the use of the tenants guarantee was adequate for the individuals in question and worked well. I do not believe that it is working well.

Having considered the matter further, I believe it is worth raising two points in response to the Minister. First, a contract is overridden by statute. Conversely, to put it in statute will override contract and ensure that the rights are properly in place.

The second point is related to privity of contract; in other words, someone who is not a party to a contract cannot take action to enforce the provisions of that contract. Other parties can do so for the benefit of that individual, but if those potential parties are dead—often that may be the situation, at least in relation to one of the provisions in question—it will be a matter for the individual's personal representatives. In that event, one may be entering the area of family disputes, which is better avoided. For example, if the contract states that the tenancy shall pass to the children and, if there are no children, to the grandchildren, it will have no effect. When the tenant dies the tenancy will go to the executors or administrators as part of the estate.

The Minister said that the current position was working reasonably well. I am advised that there are a significant number of cases of disputed succession in secure tenancies and court proceedings will follow. Many of your Lordships will feel that if proceedings can reasonably be avoided by putting into statute something that is now a bit shaky, that is a good thing not only for those directly involved but for the workings of the court. I do not know what the Government will lose by giving rights by statute and I do not see the drawbacks. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, this issue was considered in Committee. I explained then that, while we fully accepted that housing association assured tenants should be treated no less favourably than secure tenants, it was not necessary to make this a statutory requirement. Housing association assured tenants enjoy these rights by virtue of the tenants guarantee. Those rights go further than the statutory rights given to other assured tenants in the private sector. The noble Baroness has explained that, having considered this further, she feels that this mechanism does not provide the degree of protection enjoyed by secure tenants.

We have looked closely at the concerns of the noble Baroness and we do not believe that they are warranted. The tenants guarantee requires associations to give a right of succession for assured tenants but this need not be contractual. If there is a dispute about the facts of any particular case, there can be recourse to the independent housing ombudsman who under the Bill will have power to determine such matters and require them to be put right. I hope that that deals with the question of privity of contract. If an ombudsman is working well he can be a very powerful friend in such disputes.

In certain cases the tenants guarantee requires contractual arrangements. Disputes may arise, but the Housing Corporation has informed us that there is no evidence that the current arrangements do not work satisfactorily. If the noble Baroness has evidence to the contrary, I hope that she will let us in on it so that we may look at both sides of the question. There are sound reasons why the statutory route is not appropriate for registered social landlords. They are independent non-public bodies. While it is right that they should, as a matter of good practice and as a condition of registration with the corporation, undertake to give their assured tenants rights along the same lines as those enjoyed by secure tenants, they operate in a different environment from local authorities. We have always taken the view that to impose inflexible statutory requirements on the detailed management of their business can have significant implications for the development of registered social landlords. We do not believe that that is desirable.

For that reason, the Bill proposes that the corporation should continue to have power to issue guidance on such detailed matters with which landlords will be expected to comply. If they do not, the corporation can take the necessary measures to ensure compliance. That is the mechanism by which we prefer to deliver the benefits that we all agree housing association assured tenants should have. Although we may agree with the noble Baroness in spirit, when it comes to the method by which this is to be done we must agree to differ.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I certainly agree that we differ. The Minister has made an interesting comment. He spoke about the freedom of registered social landlords to develop. I believe that he was referring to the freedom of housing associations, not necessarily other registered social landlords, particularly local housing authorities.

I am not terribly happy with the response. I believe that to bring in the ombudsman is to introduce yet another layer of regulation, or at least monitoring. It confuses the issue and certainly does not give the tenant an assurance that the rights are in place. It is dependent upon the judgment of yet another body which will need to look at whether there has been maladministration leading to injustice. That is a substantial hurdle to overcome. I agree that we differ. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I regret to say that there is a printing error in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 127 should not appear under the heading "Clause 95" but under the heading "Before Clause 95".

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 127: Before Clause 95, insert the following new clause—