If you thought the bill to try to outlaw revenge evictions had bitten the dust last Friday when it was defeated in the Commons, think again - four members of the House of Lords are bringing it back, with a stronger chance of it now becoming law.
Liberal Democrat peers Baroness Cathy Bakewell, Baronet Rosalind Grender, Baron Ben Stoneham and Lord Tope have tabled an amendment to the Deregulation Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament.
The amendment is likely to be debated in mid-January, when peers return from their Christmas recess.
A private members' bill on the subject, tabled by Liberal Democrat back-bencher Sarah Teather, was defeated in the Commons last Friday. But the process leading to its defeat was procedural, with two Conservative MPs - also reported to be landlords - talked out' the bill, a filibustering process which means it could make no progress in that form.
However, the debate before the procedure was invoked saw substantial backing for the bill from all sides of the Commons, including from the government.
Stephen Williams, parliamentary under-secretary of state at DCLG, backed the bill in the Commons and said: An extrapolation from a YouGov survey of more than 4,500 private renters carried out earlier this year found that 480,000 tenants had either not asked for a repair to be carried out or had not challenged a rent increase because they were concerned about being evicted. Some 80,000 tenants had actually been evicted because they had asked for a repair to be carried out.
Under Teather's proposal, which has now been effectively repackaged, landlords would be prevented from evicting a tenant for no reason within six months of receiving an improvement or hazard awareness notic. When a complaint alleging a revenge eviction was received - obviously applying to a private rented property - the local authority for the area would contact the landlord to resolve the problem, only serving a statutory notice if the landlord is clearly at fault and there is a serious issue with the property.
Landlord bodies opposed Teather's bill last week and are expected to repeat the process when the new amendment goes to the Lords.
The Residential Landlords Association has already sent out two tweets. The first read:
Retaliatory eviction bill returns via @UKHouseofLords amendment to Deregulation Bill
The second read: Deregulation Bill is supposed to remove or reduce burdens on businesses" - hardly the place for more red tape for #landlords
Here is part of the wording of the amendment to the Deregulation Bill:
Insert the following new Clause
Preventing retaliatory evictions
In the Housing Act 1988, after section 21 insert
21A Preventing retaliatory evictions
(1) A notice under section 21(1)(b) or (4)(a) (a section 21 notice) may
not be given in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy of a
dwelling-house in England within six months beginning with the
day of service of a relevant notice in relation to the dwelling-house.
(2) A section 21 notice given in relation to an assured shorthold
tenancy of a dwelling-house in England is invalid if
(a) before the section 21 notice was given, the tenant made a
relevant complaint in relation to the dwelling-house to the
landlord or the relevant local housing authority, and
(b) since the section 21 notice was given, the relevant local
housing authority has served a relevant notice in relation to
the dwelling-house.
(3) It is a defence to proceedings for an order under section 21 in
relation to an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in
England that
(a) before the section 21 notice was given, the tenant made a
relevant complaint in relation to the dwelling-house to the
landlord or the relevant local housing authority, and
(b) subsection 4 applies.
(4) This subsection applies if
(a) the relevant local housing authority has not decided
whether to inspect the dwelling-house or the common parts,
(b) the relevant local housing authority has decided to inspect
the dwelling-house or the common parts but has not
conducted an inspection,
(c) the relevant local housing authority has conducted an
inspection of the dwelling-house or the common parts but
has not decided whether to serve a relevant notice, or
(d) the relevant local housing authority has decided to serve a
relevant notice in relation to the dwelling-house but the
relevant notice has not been served.
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply where
(a) the relevant notice has been wholly revoked under section
16 of the Housing Act 2004 (revocation and variation of
improvement notices) as a result of the notice having been
served in error,
(b) the relevant notice has been quashed under paragraph 15 of
Schedule 1 to that Act (procedure and appeals relating to
improvement notices),
(c) a decision of the relevant local housing authority to refuse
to revoke the relevant notice has been reversed under
paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to that Act,
(d) a decision of the relevant local housing authority to take the
action to which the relevant notice relates has been reversed
under section 45 of that Act (appeals relating to emergency
measures), or
(e) the relevant notice has been made subject to an order under
section 29 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (mandatory,
prohibiting and quashing orders).
(6) References in this section and section 21B to a relevant notice
served, or relevant complaint made, in relation to a dwelling-house
include a relevant notice served, or complaint made, in relation to
any common parts of the building of which the dwelling-house
forms a part.
%20(002).png)
Comments