UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Housing

  • Marco Longhi – 2020 Speech on Conveyancing Standards

    Marco Longhi – 2020 Speech on Conveyancing Standards

    The speech made by Marco Longhi, the Conservative MP for Dudley North, in the House of Commons on 7 October 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish minimum standards regarding searches and assessments of risk for solicitors and licensed conveyancers acting on behalf of purchasers of residential properties; and for connected purposes.

    The main aim of this Bill is to help protect people who wish to buy a house—sometimes their first home—from being exposed to risks that currently are not sufficiently visible or understood at the point of purchase. The Bill does not propose radical changes to the conveyancing process; nor, indeed, does it propose changes to the development control system, although some may argue that that might be desirable to further de-risk the process for homebuyers.

    I will set out two examples to illustrate the types of difficulties faced by homebuyers. Both are real cases of people who have been let down by a system that has not kept pace with an industry that has become increasingly cut-throat. The system does not offer enough consumer protections for people who are about to make possibly the single most important investment of their lives, while the transaction itself is mired in documents and legal complexities that are rarely fully understood.

    My first example is of a developer who purchases land and applies for planning permission, which is granted subject to conditions. Those conditions are wide ranging and set out requirements of the developer in order for them to receive final planning certification at the end of the development. One such condition may be that soil sampling is undertaken to establish whether any contamination is present; another may be that properties must not be occupied until planning conditions have been fully satisfied.

    That developer set up a limited company for the sole purpose of the development and started marketing the site almost immediately. Some properties were sold off-plan; some were sold when the buildings were largely complete. When the final plot was sold, the developer immediately liquidated the company. That means the legal entity that sold the properties no longer existed.

    It became apparent immediately that a significant number of planning conditions had not been met: no soil sampling, no preventing of owners from occupying, and no top coating of road services or pavements to bring them up to council adoptable standards. Drainage was not connected properly, and the new homeowners had a huge list of unfinished works and complaints about poor standards of work.

    At that point, the homeowners turned to the council for help, in the expectation that it would have the ability, as a local regulatory body, somehow to fix things. It transpired that any regulatory liabilities relating to the properties transferred to the property owners at point of sale, and that if the council chose to enforce breaches of planning, it would have to pursue the new homeowners.

    It is important to note that the current system places no requirements on local planning authorities to pursue developers to evidence compliance with planning conditions. The expectation is that a developer will want final ​planning certification, but that is all it is: an expectation. What if a developer does not care about obtaining the certification? Their objective is to build, sell and maximise profit. So here we are; we have just purchased a property in good faith following the advice of the conveyancing solicitor—who, by the way, was recommended by the developer—and the property does not have planning permission. Certification costs could be extremely significant, and we have no recourse to the developer because they no longer exist as a legal entity.

    My second example is probably more widespread than my first, and I suspect that similar examples may be present in several MPs’ casework folders. Imagine we are very keen to buy a property. At the point of purchase, our solicitor handling the conveyancing might highlight the fact that there is a contract for maintenance of green spaces on the estate—grass cutting, hedge trimming and so on—as well as that those areas do not belong to any of the properties and the cost is about £100 per year. Do we still want to buy the property? Of course we do. That is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, and if it means securing the property of our dreams, of course we will pay it.

    What is not discussed with sufficient clarity at the point of conveyance, if at all, is that the small print of the maintenance contract will state that contract owners can increase the price as and when they wish, and there is virtually no recourse within the contract for poor workmanship or lack of clarity. The fee of £100 per year may soon become £500 per year, and the grass cutting may be once a year instead of once a month. These areas remain unadopted by local councils—something that I find a little too convenient. How would you feel, Mr Speaker, if you paid an even higher ​council tax for services you did not receive, compared with a neighbour around the corner who pays less and gets more?

    Usually, when a service is not rendered, one may choose not to pay. That cannot happen here, because these contracts state that a charge will be placed against the property, so it cannot be sold without payment. Furthermore, homeowners cannot complain to anybody, because an unresponsive contractor is virtually unaccountable and has plenty of legal cover, while homeowners are usually bounced around from contractor to subcontractor to developer in a never-ending merry-go-round.

    Those two scenarios are real. The same thing has happened in Dudley and to other people from the Black Country whom I have met. People find themselves financially exposed. The system is being gamed by unscrupulous developers and contractors, because it is not transparent enough to shine a light on the potential risks to people when they are buying a property. People might feel that the very fact that a solicitor is handling the conveyance means that they are sufficiently protected. They employ a solicitor not just to carry out due diligence for them, but to highlight any potential downsides. That is not happening with enough robustness, and that is why I propose the Bill.

  • Christopher Pincher – 2020 Speech on Evictions

    Christopher Pincher – 2020 Speech on Evictions

    The speech made by Christopher Pincher, the Minister for Housing, in the House of Commons on 23 September 2020.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this urgent question. The Government have taken unprecedented action to support renters by banning evictions for six months, preventing people from getting into financial hardship and helping businesses to pay salaries. We have boosted the welfare safety net and increased the local housing allowance rates to cover the lowest 30% of market rents. We have made available £180 million for the discretionary housing payments this year, for local councils to distribute to support those renters who require additional support. We have now introduced comprehensive measures to ensure that renters continue to be protected over the autumn and winter, following the resumption of possession proceedings on Monday.

    However, we must strike a balance so that landlords are able to access justice alongside measures to protect the vulnerable. That is vital to the long-term health of the private rented sector. We have worked with the judiciary to put in place new court arrangements that seek to ensure appropriate support to all parties within the current statutory framework. The judiciary will look to prioritise the most serious cases, including antisocial behaviour, fraud and egregious rent arrears. New court rules also require landlords to reactivate any claim they have made before 3 August and to provide information to the court on the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on the tenant and their dependants. A court would be likely to take a very dim view of any landlord who tried to circumvent this requirement or mislead the court by not disclosing relevant information where known.

    To help to keep people in their homes over the winter, we have changed the law, increasing notice periods to six months in all but the most serious cases. Tenants now served notice will not be required to move over winter, while landlords will be empowered to take action where necessary—for example, where a tenant’s antisocial behaviour severely affects their neighbours’ quality of life. To further support renters, guidance has been issued to bailiffs by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that possession orders are not enforced in areas where lockdown restrictions are in place or over the Christmas period, except in the most serious circumstances.

    Our package strikes a fair balance, supporting landlords to act in the most serious cases while keeping the public, including renters, safe. Comprehensive guidance has been published for landlords and tenants to explain these new arrangements and the possession process in courts. The Government are clear that all these measures are to protect renters over this period. They are kept under constant review in the light of evidence on public health, and we are prepared to take further measures as they are needed to protect landlords and tenants alike.

  • Kelly Tolhurst – 2020 Statement on the Homelessness Reduction Act

    Kelly Tolhurst – 2020 Statement on the Homelessness Reduction Act

    The statement made by Kelly Tolhurst, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 25 September 2020.

    The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which came into force in April 2018, is the most ambitious reform to homelessness legislation in decades and our manifesto committed to enforce the Act in full. It is a key lever for reducing homelessness as we seek to end rough sleeping within the lifetime of this Parliament.

    The Act placed new duties on local housing authorities to take reasonable steps to try to prevent and relieve a person’s homelessness, and introduced a new duty on named public authorities to refer users of their service who they think may be homeless or threatened with homelessness to their chosen local housing authority. For the first time, local authorities and other public bodies must work together to actively prevent homelessness for people at risk.

    During the passage of the Homelessness Reduction Act through Parliament, a commitment was made that a review of the Act would be undertaken within two years of commencement. This commitment was reaffirmed in the rough sleeping strategy. This was delayed by covid-19. However, today we are publishing this review. A copy will be deposited in the Library of the House and will be published on gov.uk at

    https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/homelessness-reduction-act-2017-call-for-evidence

    The review found that the Act has significantly strengthened England’s homelessness safety net at the national and local level. The findings indicate positive change with more people being helped to prevent and relieve their homelessness than ever before, in particular single people who prior to the Act would have received much more limited support. Since the introduction of the Act, 365,000 single households—almost two thirds of the total number of households who were owed a prevention or relief duty—including 28,000 people with a history of rough sleeping and over 15,000 people who were rough sleeping at the time of the assessment, have been assessed as owed help to prevent or relieve their homelessness.

    As you would expect for legislation in its infancy, there remain challenges to full and effective implementation. There are changes under the Act that will take a longer time to fully embed such as the development of the local homelessness workforce and engagement with public authorities under the duty to refer. The Government are committed to fully enforcing the Homelessness Reduction Act, and we will continue to work with the homelessness sector, local authorities and their partners to ensure the Act is working effectively for all involved. In 2020-21, the Government have provided an additional £63 million through the homelessness reduction grant for local authorities to implement the Act. Taken together, the overall amount spent on rough sleeping and homelessness this year is over half a billion pounds.

  • Ian Levy – 2020 Speech on Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Ian Levy – 2020 Speech on Houses in Multiple Occupation

    The speech made by Ian Levy, the Conservative MP for Blyth Valley, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation; to increase penalties for the contravention of such licences; and for connected purposes.

    The private rented sector is an important part of our housing market. As we see large premises in town centres being vacated by businesses, there is a growing demand for them to be turned into housing. The introduction of high-quality residential units to town centres may be a great way to bring life back into town centres, but a worrying trend is developing in such units: they are subdivided into poor-quality houses of multiple occupancy, which are aimed at the very poorest and most vulnerable in society. The problem affects not only my constituency in Blyth Valley, but other towns up and down this wonderful country of ours.

    Houses in multiple occupancy, or HMOs as they have become known, are a useful part of the housing sector, providing cheap accommodation for people whose housing options are limited. Although standards need to be met in large HMOs, these mainly relate to fire and building safety, as well as ensuring that facilities such as bathrooms are available. However, no consideration is given as part of the regime for the welfare of the residents or the impact that subdividing large properties into HMOs can have on the local community.

    The standards set out a minimum accommodation size, but this makes appalling reading. Two adults are permitted to live in a space of just 10.22 square metres, which is nothing—the size of a reasonably-sized garden shed. According to the regulations, a child under 10 requires an additional 4.6 metres, or the size of a double bed—space not merely to sleep in, but to live, play, learn and eat in. Even more appalling is that, until the last Conservative Government introduced it in 2018, there was no minimum room size at all. The mental welfare of those forced to live in such conditions must be a concern for us all in 2020.

    But however woeful the standards required for licensing HMOs across the country, in my home town of Blyth only one such premises is licensed as a house of multiple occupancy. Others are listed as hotels or marketed as Airbnbs or bed and breakfasts, creating a multitude of problems. When a property is not registered as a house in multiple occupancy, it falls through the gap, which means that local authorities such as the council and the police do not have the right of access and cannot implement boundaries, restrictions or measures to support the safeguarding of the clients living there.

    The very nature of the accommodation provided by HMOs often means that those living in them have fallen on hard times or are suffering from mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, and, in a lot of cases, as reported to me by the police, domestic abuse. These are vulnerable people, whom we have a duty to safeguard. Allowing HMOs to exist by disguising them as hostels, hotels or bed and breakfasts not only denies tenants security of tenure, but means that the accommodation does not face the true scrutiny it should. ​With no help or support, living in a community can be hard for people who are not well equipped to live on their own.

    Many of these are young people. I worked for years in the NHS in a mental health capacity, and on a few really sad occasions I heard of clients forcibly being taken to cashpoints by drug dealers or loan sharks, where they were forced to empty their bank accounts of the benefits that had been paid in. This would leave the vulnerable client with no money left in their account to buy the basics to live for the next two weeks. Alone in a room with no support is no way for our vulnerable people to live in 2020.

    You and I, Mr Speaker—and, I am sure, everybody in this House—are fortunate that we can take for granted being able to go to the fridge and have fresh milk, along with food to make a sandwich, clothing to put on our backs and a warm bed to sleep in. But when people are in a vulnerable position, it is hard when their finances are taken away from them. Just getting by, day to day, impacts on the trauma that some of these vulnerable people are already having to deal with.

    It is vital that a stricter regime of checks and measures is imposed on landlords to ensure that safeguarding of clients is kept at the forefront. However, there are other issues that need to be addressed. For example, I find it concerning that, as things stand, the police are not consulted on planning applications for large HMOs. However, they are often called upon to deal with the issues that can arise from such dwellings. These houses cause concern in local communities that the inhabitants are likely to cause problems due to antisocial behaviour and other social problems. It is vital that the public living in and around the vicinity feel that they can live and integrate with the residents of houses in multiple occupancy safely and that community values are respected.

    I would like to see, as a result of this legislation, greater powers to local authorities to deal with both the development and governance of houses in multiple occupancy. Requiring large HMOs to provide a nominated person to be responsible for the residents living there on a 24/7 basis would allow a point of contact for the authorities and the local community to highlight issues and, where possible, address them in a way that safeguards both the individuals and the local community.

    I understand that not all HMOs exploit their tenants, and I also understand that there are other reasons why, for people wanting to live in small, cheap units close to facilities, they may be attractive. But I wish to ensure that they are not used as a method of housing vulnerable people in substandard accommodation with no regard for their mental or physical wellbeing or the needs of the local community. I want to ensure that someone being able to buy a house in a sub-prime area and divide it into multiple bedrooms, while showing absolutely no care for the individual or the local residents, becomes a thing of the past. I would like to see a balance given to the community, so that clients feel safe and part of that community, and the public living in and around the vicinities of houses of multiple occupancy feel that they can live and integrate with the clients, with respect and safeguarding for all.

  • Sarah Jones – 2020 Comments on the Grenfell Inquiry

    Sarah Jones – 2020 Comments on the Grenfell Inquiry

    The comments made by Sarah Jones, the Shadow Policing and Fire Minister, on 6 September 2020.

    Over three years after Grenfell, it is shameful how little progress has been made. The Government has continuously broken their promises, while tens of thousands of people across the country are stuck living in unsafe flats. The victims and survivors of Grenfell are still waiting for justice. This is completely unacceptable.

    Labour’s amendment to the Bill is an attempt to force the Government to deliver the recommendations of the Grenfell Inquiry’s Phase One Report. Every measure necessary should be put in place to prevent a fire like Grenfell from ever happening again. We urge the Government to honour their promises and back the amendment and get the work done.

  • Mike Amesbury – 2020 Comments on CMA Decision

    Mike Amesbury – 2020 Comments on CMA Decision

    The comments made by Mike Amesbury, the Shadow Housing and Planning Minister, on 4 September 2020.

    Labour welcomes this enforcement action by the CMA and called for robust measures to be taken against scandalous practices from irresponsible property developers.

    This is a significant milestone in the campaign for leasehold justice but given this incompetent Government’s total inaction to reform leasehold, too many people remain trapped in this feudal system.

    This Government can no longer drag its heels: it must act now and legislate to end this broken system once and for all.

  • Karl Turner – 2020 Comments on Eviction Ban

    Karl Turner – 2020 Comments on Eviction Ban

    The comments made by Karl Turner, the Shadow Minister for Legal Aid, said on 21 August 2020.

    It is utterly jaw-dropping that the government have sat on their hands until just days before a self-made homelessness crisis. Pushing ahead with the end of the evictions ban risks unleashing a tsunami of cases which could leave tens of thousands of people homeless and overwhelm our courts.

    If the government do not change course and act now, the complete absence of legal advice in huge swathes of the country will leave tenants at risk of homelessness.

    Ministers’ promises that the courts will take account of the impact of Covid on tenants amount to nothing, as despite having 5 months to do so, they have not changed the law on s.21 or ground 8, so judges will have no choice but to evict in the middle of a global pandemic, regardless of the circumstances.

  • Keir Starmer – 2020 Comments on Eviction Ban

    Keir Starmer – 2020 Comments on Eviction Ban

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 21 August 2020.

    This eleventh hour U-turn was necessary, but such a brief extension means there is a real risk that this will simply give renters a few more weeks to pack their bags.

    Boris Johnson has been warned for months about the looming evictions crisis, but stuck his head in the sand.

    People living in rented accommodation should not be paying the price for this Government’s incompetence.

    Section 21 evictions must be scrapped and renters must be given proper support. The ban should not be lifted until the Government has a credible plan to ensure that no-one loses their home as a result of coronavirus.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2020 Comments on the Resignation of Louise Casey

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2020 Comments on the Resignation of Louise Casey

    The comments made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Shadow Housing Secretary, on 20 August 2020.

    This raises serious questions about the Government’s strategy on rough sleeping.

    This chaotic Government has no plan to avoid a self-made homelessness crisis this winter. They need to extend the ban on evictions, and come forward with a credible plan to keep their promise that no renter will lose their home because of Coronavirus.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2020 Comments on Evictions

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2020 Comments on Evictions

    The comments made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Shadow Housing Minister, on 20 August 2020. The comments are in reference to a letter written by Labour Metro Mayors, the Mayor of London and council leaders from across England to the Housing Secretary calling for an urgent extension of the ban on evictions, which is due to end on Sunday 23rd August.

    The situation couldn’t be more urgent. The Government has three days to avoid a cliff edge, with thousands of people at risk of eviction and homelessness. The Government can still change course. They must extend the ban, and come out with a credible plan to protect renters during this crisis.