---

Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2007

I thank the Minister for her extensive explanation, not only of the tenancy deposit scheme but of the amendments. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his place. He and I were dealing with the then Housing Bill, and about the only item of agreement we had, fairly late in the proceedings, was that this tenancy deposit scheme should be included. There is no dispute over the principle of the tenancy deposit scheme. I know, and I am sure that many other noble Lords here know, both sides of the history of this. First, there were landlords who quite unreasonably sat on deposits for long periods and were extremely reluctant to return them, with endless excuses, often unjustified, as to why they should not. That caused great difficulty to tenants. Equally, however, tenants were not blameless either, because they quite often withheld portions of rent on the basis that they might not get their deposit back. We all know that this has been a long-running problem with local authorities. I understand that. I am also clear that the voluntary system set up in 2000 did not work, and that this statutory system was therefore essential. Having said that with great accord, I have only a few questions on the processes. I do not want to delay the Committee for long; I realise that there are a lot of other orders to come. First, it is clear that the process of giving out information will be very wide and extensive. You cannot do it once; it must be ongoing. Leaflets must be available everywhere. How is it expected that that will carry on? Where will those leaflets be available? Quite a lot of deposits are these days provided by local authorities, in support of tenants on a low income and putting statutory tenants into housing provided by registered social landlords. I was wondering what encouragement there would be from the department to ensure that local authorities also provided that information as and when they provided a deposit. At the end of the day, it is the tenant’s deposit. As the Minister rightly said, there are two aspects to the scheme; the custodial and the insurance. Under the custodial scheme, as I understand it, a statutory declaration will be required. If no agreement can be reached, and it is going to be terminated by a statutory declaration, then the administrator will be able to hand over the deposit. One reason for this is to clear it out of court. Must the statutory declaration be taken before either a court or solicitor? Is it a legal document? A statutory declaration normally is, and would require legal intervention. Can we clarify that? On the insurance, there is a slightly different process with two interesting areas, one where the landlord is contactable and deemed unco-operative. The process for deciding whether the landlord is contactable is to send him or her a letter, and it is deemed to have been served. But ““contactable and unco-operative”” might actually mean ““uncontactable””. What steps will be taken to ensure that that is not the situation? The second interesting area is the landlord being uncontactable, but the Explanatory Notes blithely say that if he is not contactable no procedure can take place, because it is assumed that he ought to be able to challenge the decision. That seems topsy-turvy. If he is uncontactable, how on earth can one continue the process if he has to be around to decide whether he agrees? Where do the processes for the contactable and unco-operative and the uncontactable leave the tenant? The tenant could end up back in court when the landlord is seen to be uncontactable. The third area is where the landlord does not continue with the scheme that he first started with. One of the reasons why that might happen is because for some reason the scheme administrator thinks that the landlord is not co-operating. The Minister said that he might not pay the membership fees or there might be some concerns about the deposits. There are only three schemes, so if one scheme says the landlord is hopeless and it cannot go on with him because he has not paid his membership fees, why would the other schemes take him on board? What compulsion will there be to ensure that deposits can safely be moved from one scheme to another without a hiatus? I know there is protection, but it is interim protection and is shorter and less than it was under the original terms of the legislation. This is one of the areas that concerns me most because there could be a big black hole here, and I want to be sure that tenants’ deposits cannot fall into it. I hope those are five fairly clear questions, and I will be extremely grateful if the Minister will respond to them. However, I support the scheme, and I will support the amendments when I know that the Minister’s team has come up with perfect answers.