---

Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 114E: 114E: After Clause 311, insert the following new Clause— ““Orders for repossession (1) Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) (orders for possession) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (3), at the beginning insert ““Subject to subsection (3A),””. (3) In subsection (3), for ““subsections (5A) and (6)”” substitute ““subsections (5A), (6) and (6A)””. (4) After subsection (3) insert— ““(3A) Ground 8 in Part I of Schedule 2 shall not be used in possession proceedings brought by registered providers of social housing, as defined in section 79 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”” (5) In subsection (4), for ““subsections (5A) and (6)”” substitute ““subsections (5A), (6) and (6A)””. (6) After subsection (6) insert— ““(6A) If the court is satisfied— (a) that Ground 8 in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act is established; and (b) that some part of the rent is in arrears as a consequence of a delay or failure in the payment of relevant housing benefit, it shall not make an order for possession unless it considers it reasonable to do so.”” (7) After subsection (7) insert— ““(8) In subsection (6A) above— (a) ““relevant housing benefit”” means— (i) any rent allowance or rent rebate to which the tenant was entitled in respect of the rent under the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006; or (ii) any payment on account of any such entitlement awarded under Regulation 93 of those Regulations; (b) references to delay or failure in the payment of relevant housing benefit do not include such delay or failure so far as referable to any wilful act or omission of the tenant.”””” The noble Baroness said: This amendment was brought to me by Shelter and is supported by Crisis and the Housing Law Practitioners Association. I understand that the Law Commission has also recently expressed concern about the subject. The short point of the amendment is to allow discretion to the court when an application is made for possession on the ground of rent arrears because of delays in housing benefit. Ground 8—the ground seeking possession—can be used by private landlords and housing associations in connection with an assured tenancy or an assured shorthold tenancy where a tenant has arrears of more than two months' rent. However, unlike the other rent arrears grounds, ground 8 is mandatory and the court has no discretion to determine whether or not it would be reasonable to make an order for possession. Ground 8 was originally aimed at stimulating the private rented sector but since 1993 private landlords have been able to gain possession quickly and without a hearing for assured shorthold tenancies. In practice, therefore, they tend to use not ground 8 but the accelerated possession procedure. Therefore, the concern here is primarily with the use of ground 8 by housing associations. In cases where the tenant's problem is a delay or some issue relating to the claiming of housing benefit—and those in about 2.5 million social tenancies are claiming housing benefit—clearly they will have problems with debt, of which rent arrears are a major item. Of course, it is understood that there have to be measures to combat fraud—one cannot simply put in a claim for housing benefit and expect to have it paid immediately—but in general terms in social housing the Government have been promoting a preventive and supportive approach, with possession action being taken only as a last resort. In Scotland, the Scottish Executive has introduced measures to prevent eviction of tenants for rent arrears caused by housing benefit problems. So that can be done. I was taken by the description of the situation by the right honourable Member for Greenwich, Nick Raynsford, when the matter was discussed in the Commons, who talked about the fundamental objectives of the regulator, one of which is to ensure that tenants or potential tenants have an appropriate degree of choice and protection. Ground 8 seems to go very much against that. I understand that there have been discussions since then with Shelter and that the Government have asked the Housing Corporation to undertake research into how, why and when ground 8 is used. I hope that the Minister can confirm that and explain, given the transition to a new agency, what will happen with this research. It would be good to have on the record as much explanation of what is being undertaken by the Government as they are able to give. I was shocked when I understood that there is a mandatory provision for a landlord to claim possession and I had intended to use an example used by Sir George Young in the Commons. I shall not repeat the details, but I will refer, as he did, to Lord Justice Dyson in the Court of Appeal, who said that the statutory scheme is potentially draconian in its application. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I beg to move.