Proceeding contribution from Bishop of Exeter (Bishops (affiliation)) in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Housing and Regeneration Bill.
Housing and Regeneration Bill
I support the amendment, which addresses an issue of real concern and, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, of justice to all those mobile home residents on rented sites, of which we have a great many in Devon. Acceptance of the amendment or something very like it would be helpful in addressing those concerns, as it would mean that all such site residents could always take a dispute with their site owner to the county court, should they need to. I suggest that that is preferable to another option that I understand is being proposed in the consultation document produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government: that tenants of mobile parks should have their disputes taken to residential property tribunals. Referral of disputes to such a tribunal may well be an improvement over compulsory arbitration by an arbitrator chosen by the site owner, although I recognise that a particular arbitrator may, in a particular case, make a fair judgment. However, for the majority of site residents that proposal could well be very detrimental. It must be wrong to force residents to argue their own case on complex matters of law before a formal tribunal without the benefit of representation unless they pay for it themselves. My understanding is that legal aid is not available for tribunals. I also believe that DCLG is wrong to claim that residential property tribunals are more informal than courts. Tribunals are formal bodies. The key difference between a tribunal and a court being, as I said, that legal aid is unavailable for representation at a tribunal. Moreover, it is not clear why tenants in similar circumstances should be able to take the matter to court, whereas mobile home site residents would be precluded from that opportunity. I am the bishop of a diocese that, together with its neighbouring diocese of Salisbury, has appointed a full-time chaplain to Gypsies and Travellers, so I am kept well informed of their worries about this matter. I wonder whether the Government have carried out a race equality or human rights impact assessment of the DCLG's proposals, given that Gypsies and Irish Travellers on non-local authority sites, and that all Gypsies and Travellers on rented sites, are soon going to be affected by virtue of the impact of this measure. It is important to get this provision right. I hope that the amendment will be given the serious consideration it deserves.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 702 c533-4GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Disability Disclosure of information Compensation Accountancy Compulsory purchase Ballots Construction Demolition Council housing Arrears Housing Finance Eligibility Domestic abuse Housing associations Foreign nationals Migrants Homelessness Landlord and tenant Local government Low incomes Property transfer Park homes Overcrowding Valuation Trespass Tenants Rented housing Rents Repossession orders Right to buy scheme Service charges Housing occupancy
- Legislation
- Housing and Regeneration Bill 2007-08
- Housing Act 1985
- Mobile Homes Act 1983
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 02:28:52 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_485580
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_485580
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_485580