Proceeding contribution from Brian Iddon (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 29 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants Etc.) Bill.
Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants Etc.) Bill
Yes, I accept that. I will refer to housing benefit in a moment. When a lender commences repossession against an owner-occupier, the lender is unlikely to be aware of a tenant in occupation. Current law does not allow the tenant to be represented at a possession hearing in court or for the judiciary to take account of the tenancy. The Bill provides that if a lender is seeking a possession order and the unauthorised tenant applies to the court, the court can postpone the date by which the tenant must leave the property for up to two months. That would assist many, but not all, of the tenants affected, by giving them time to find somewhere else to live before they lose possession. A warrant of possession is the means by which an order for possession is executed and possession of the property recovered. The Bill would impose the new requirement that the lender must notify any occupier of that intention. Until that point, some tenants might be unaware that anything is amiss, so if a tenant had not applied to the court when the possession order was made, they could apply directly to the lender for a postponement of the order at the warrant stage. If that request were refused, the Bill would empower the tenant to apply to the court to determine the issue and grant a period of postponement of up to two months. The Bill would not unfairly empower tenants who have breached their tenancy—for example, through non-payment of rent, antisocial behaviour, or damage to the property—as the court would be required to have regard to such breaches of tenancy when considering whether to exercise its powers; nor would squatters and trespassers be empowered by the Bill. However, the court would take into consideration a delay in the payment of housing benefit by a local authority. The Bill also provides that if a lender chooses to collect rent from the unauthorised tenant during the notice period agreed, then doing so would not be considered to create a new tenancy. The Bill includes the power to make regulations requiring lenders to seek a new notice to enforce possession before they can seek a warrant of possession. It also gives a power to specify the means by which such a notice is served on the tenant. In summary, there are two points in the process at which the tenant can intervene, if they so desire. The court could either postpone the date of delivery of possession by up to two months, or stay or suspend execution of the warrant for up to two months. The court could make any suspension conditional on rent payments continuing between the tenant and lender. The tenant would be entitled to one period of suspension only. Clause 1(4) states:""The court may, on application of the tenant ("the applicant"), stay or suspend execution of the order for a period not exceeding two months if"," and so on. I am confident that a court would understand that the word "a" means only one suspension. In rare cases where a tenant seeks a second delay, I am confident that the lender's agent would ensure that the court is made aware that the tenant had previously applied and received a postponement of possession for up to two months. Some concern has been expressed that the tenant might not engage in the legal process at the first opportunity, even when they were aware that proceedings for possession had commenced. In the majority of cases, the tenant would be unlikely to be aware that proceedings had commenced, for the reasons that I have given. However, clause 1(5) makes it clear that""the court must have regard to—(a) the circumstances of the tenant"," which I believe covers this concern. Clause 1 of my Bill would prevent RTL tenants from becoming homeless without representation in court and provide a period of up to two months during which they can search for alternative accommodation. Clause 2 covers the notice of execution of a possession order, while clause 3 interprets the various terms used in the Bill. Clause 4 is about commencement and extent. I am assured that the Bill conforms with the European convention on human rights. I want to thank the staff of the Department for Communities and Local Government for all the assistance that they have given me in putting this Bill together, and for their advice on what is rather complicated housing legislation. I also thank my researcher, Gemma Reay, who has done most of the work for me behind the scenes. I believe that this Bill, which would be fair to the affected tenants and lenders, has widespread support within and without this House, and I commend it to the House.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 504 c1030-1
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Fraud Housing Landlord and tenant Evictions Private sector Mortgages Rented housing Tenants' rights Repossession orders
- Legislation
- Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Bill 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:42:52 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_616864
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_616864
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_616864