---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s explanation of the amendments. Amendment No. 108ZFA is about the role of tenants in the disposal consent process. She is right about Clauses 88 and 98 applying. It is also worth saying that any disposal of social housing requires the specific consent of the Housing Corporation and, in future, that of the regulator. Disposals are rare and have significant implications for tenants, so it is right that they have an opportunity to be fully informed. It is Housing Corporation policy not to give consent for a disposal of tenanted social housing except to another registered social landlord, and we would expect the regulator to continue that policy, particularly given its explicit objective of protecting tenants. In deciding whether to give that consent, the corporation requires the landlord to provide information on how it has consulted tenants and other stakeholders, including local authorities. That seems to be quite right because that sort of detailed consultation is the job of landlords. In future, the role of the regulator is to make sure that that is done, not to do the job for them. It is essential that tenants are properly involved if there is a proposal for their homes to be transferred. The amendment raises some issues because general disposal consents do not apply to particular landlords or properties but set out categories of disposals. I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to enable us to put on record the protections that are available to all social housing tenants. Amendment No. 180ZGA provides that a purported disposal by a registered provider that requires consent, but for which consent has not been given, is void. There are exceptions to this rule for disposals by non-profit registered providers where the land concerned is not a dwelling or is a single dwelling sold to an owner-occupier. This exception is to protect individual purchasers who buy their home from a registered provider from finding that their purchase is void. The burden of establishing that the vendor is a registered provider, that they are required to seek consent and whether that consent has been given is excessive. However, I understand where the amendment is coming from. The noble Baroness argued that there is potential for abuse of this provision by non-profit registered providers who could evade sanctions against making disposals without consent by salami slicing—selling off properties one by one to individual home buyers. I can see the intent behind that. The amendment sweeps in any disposal, including disposals for which consent was not required or for which consent had been given. Whether a disposal was void could turn on whether any resident in the same development had recently exercised his right to acquire, which seems perverse. Let me reassure the noble Baroness that I do not believe that there is potential for abuse here, so I do not share her fears. Non-profit registered providers are bound by their constitutions to devote themselves to the provision of housing and related services¸ so there is no motivation for them to abuse the system in this way. We have no record of this happening. If it did take place, it would still constitute mismanagement and would still be grounds for regulatory intervention. This exception is not to the requirement to seek consent, but to the sanction that the disposal is void. If there were abuse, and I think it unlikely, the regulator would have other sanctions available. It would amount to a breach of standards, and the regulator could take appropriate enforcement action. I believe that there is no need for that. Amendment No. 108ZHA relates to the disposals proceeds fund. The funds can be spent only in line with a determination by the regulator on new social housing. This ensures that homes sold under the right to acquire are replaced. The noble Baroness correctly set out the way that that happens. Before placing the proceeds of sale in the disposals proceeds fund, landlords are able to deduct an administration fee, which is specified by the regulator. The fee currently stands at £701 for a house and £1,576 for a flat to recognise the more complex leasehold arrangements normally involved in flats. The Housing Corporation had and used that power. This amendment, which specifies categories or types of costs but not amounts, would not improve the situation. The Housing Corporation has been happy to use the power and found it useful—I am looking at my noble friend Lady Dean—and I do not think that the amendment would improve it. Doing it this way is a proper use of the system