Report on CCH meeting with the Law Commission
October 2002
Blase Lambert, David Rodgers and Nic Bliss met Richard Percival and Matthew Waddington from the Law Commission on 29th October to discuss the CCH's submission on the single tenancy proposals. The LC representatives pointed out that they are not in a position to determine what the LC says, and that the LC's role is to make recommendations to Government. Notwithstanding that, the following points were agreed:
1. Fully mutual housing co-op tenancies
The Law Commission's view was that fully mutual housing co-ops could decide to issue either Type I or Type II tenancies. It was suggested that the CCH could draft a model:
- tenancy agreement for use with Type II tenancies which granted the same rights as for a Type I tenancy, whilst adding a mandatory ground for possession if a tenant ceased to be a member of the co-op;
- membership clause for adding into a Type I agreement.
LC agreed to recommend to Government that these two model agreements be drawn up.
It was noted that if a housing co-op were to issue Type II tenancies, it could gain:
- mandatory possession if correct procedures had been followed, but that the notice period would be either 2 to 3 months, dependent on what the notice period for Type II tenancies becomes (probably to be used on membership and possibly ASB issues);
- discretionary possession (ie. on the discretion of the courts) if the co-op issued a 4 week notice period (probably to be used on rent arrears issues)
If a co-op were to issue Type I tenancies, all possession proceedings (including for loss of membership) would be dependent on the discretion of the courts. For loss of membership, this would mean that the courts would determine whether the co-op's withdrawing membership was reasonable.
2. The Housing Corporation
It was suggested that either the Housing Corporation, or particular Corporation representatives, might insist that fully mutual housing co-ops registered with them use Type I tenancies. The LC agreed to highlight this issue.
3. Default on the mortgage as a ground for possession
It was agreed that default on the mortgage becoming a mandatory ground for possession could be included in the model Type II tenancy agreement (but could not be included in Type I tenancies).
4. Powers to amend tenancy agreements
There was a discussion about including clauses to amend tenancy agreements. The LC indicated that they are considering this issue. It was agreed that housing co-ops should be subject to the same powers to amend tenancy agreements that all other "social housing" providers are subject to.
5.Obligation to issue Type I tenancies
It was agreed that an exception to RSLs having to issue Type I tenancies would be where they developed homes for transfer in the future to a fully mutual housing co-op.
6. Right to Manage
The LC agreed that they were in error to exclude the Right to Manage entirely from their considerations. The LC were in agreement that for council tenants that the RtM should remain a statutory right. It was agreed that a clause be included in Type I tenancies that those who fall under RtM regulations will continue to have the Right to Manage.
The LC reported that they have written to the Housing Corporation and the NHF on RtM, and are awaiting a response from them. It was pointed out that the importance of RtM was not the legal enforcement of tenant management, but the compulsion on the landlord to do something about tenant requests for consideration of tenant management, as well as the RtM funding arrangements. It was agreed that the LC would arrange a meeting between them, us, the Corporation and the NHF to discuss this issue.
7. Other rights to involvement
It was agreed that it might be desirable to have other rights to involvement between Rights to Consultation and the Right to Manage. The LC agreed to give this matter consideration.
8. Estate Management
The LC clarified that the proposed "estate management" grounds for possession refer to the current grounds for possession where a landlord is seeking to demolish particular properties (where there is a proper process of consultation, compensation arrangements for tenants and the provision of suitable alternative accommodation).
9. Process
The LC's timetable is to prepare a draft bill and report by Summer 2003. November 2003 is the earliest that a bill could go through parliament, but it could happen after this. The LC indicated that the next public information would be in Summer 2003 after publication of a draft bill and report.
The CCH pointed out that there is considerable and growing discontent amongst tenants about the process that has taken place to develop the single tenancy proposals. There is a view that tenant consultation that took place was inadequate and in some cases misinforming. For example, some tenants have become concerned about the "estate management" grounds referred to in point 8, and this concern may be needless. A lack of any information to tenants on the proposals until Summer 2003 runs the risk that there could be considerable opposition to the proposals by then. The CCH indicated that it finds the general nature of the proposals to be positive and is prepared to assist in explaining them to tenants.
The CCH recognized that the LC does not have the resources to run a tenant information campaign, but urged the LC to indicate this concern to Government. The LC agreed to raise this issue.
See also:
