HL Deb 13 October 2004 vol 665 cc347-8

31 B (1) This paragraph applies in relation to an appeal under paragraph 31A against a decision of a local housing authority not to pay compensation to a third party or as to the amount of compensation to be paid.

(2) Any such appeal must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the date the authority notifies the third party under section (Compensation)(2).

(3) A residential property tribunal may allow an appeal to be made to it after the end of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) if it is satisfied that there is good reason for the failure to appeal before the end of that period (and for any delay since then in applying for permission to appeal out of time).

Powers of residential property tribunal on appeal under paragraph 31A

31C (1) This paragraph applies in relation to an appeal under paragraph 31A against a decision of a local housing authority not to pay compensation to a third party or as to the amount of compensation to be paid.

(1) The appeal—

  1. (a) is to be by way of re-hearing, but
  2. (b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority were unaware.

(2) The tribunal may confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the local housing authority.

(3) Where the tribunal reverses or varies a decision of the authority in respect of a final management order, it must make an order varying the management scheme contained in the final management order accordingly."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 122 [Effect of management orders: furniture]:

Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 112:

Page 88, line 14, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to the unpalatable proposal in the Bill that furniture should be seized and kept by the local authority and used as payment under management orders. This part of the Bill is difficult. I asked the Minister in Committee a question that he could not answer: what would happen where the furniture in question was owned by a third party—for example, a TV or video hire company, or even a suite or set of chairs that were either rented or on hire purchase? Will the Minister give us more information about that? I should be grateful if he could deal with the question of hire purchase. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I will take advice on that point, but, frankly, the goods and chattels should not he in dispute. They are owned either by the landlord or by the tenant; alternatively, if they are owned by a third party, they are still not owned by the landlord. Goods on hire purchase remain the property of the person who owns the goods—that is, the retail company that is renting them out—so I suspect that they could not be affected. Anyway, Clause 122 does not permit a local authority to seize goods within a property that belong to the landlord or any other person, meaning those goods belonging to a third party or on hire purchase. The clause relates only to furniture and chattels that are provided for the use of tenants under the terms of their tenancy agreements, and one assumes there will be an inventory, and provides that only once an order is in force is the furniture vested in the local authority. Indeed, the landlord is free at any time to request that the furniture be returned to him, and the local authority can renounce its right to possession of the furniture on receipt of the request. Nothing would happen to a third party's furniture, because there is no transfer of ownership. I hope that is clear and that the noble Baroness is satisfied.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 114:

After Clause 123, insert the following new clause—

Forward to