Assorted things…

MHCLG have published guidance for tenants, landlords and local authorities on the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 – or as they call it, ‘the Homes Act’. There are separate guidance documents for tenants, landlords and local authorities, all available here.

On the tenant guidance, I would add before taking proceedings, try to get advice or representation from a solicitor, law centre or Shelter, but overall, these are clear, if basic, guidance to the Act.

The Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee are seeking evidence from tenants/prospective tenants with experience of a ‘No DSS’ policy by landlords and/or letting agents. A survey form for the committee is here.

Meanwhile, on ‘No DSS’ policies, MHCLG announced

In the coming months, ministers will meet leading industry representatives, including mortgage providers, landlord associations, tenant groups, and property websites to clamp down on blanket exclusions in adverts – with a view to stopping them altogether.

Which is nice. Mortgage providers setting ‘no tenants on benefits’ as a mortgage condition probably being the biggest stumbling block, even if Nat West has just now recanted of its ways. But let us not forget the disincentive that is Universal Credit.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee on the other hand, is consulting on ‘Enforcement of possession orders and alignment of procedures in the county court and high court‘. The aim is harmonisation of county court and high court procedures. The consultation states:

The CPRC recognises that there is a balance to be struck; for example, on the one hand there may be a landlord who is owed several month’s unpaid rent and who may also be in debt as a result of the rent arrears, and on the other hand tenants or other occupiers who ought to know if and when they are to be evicted to enable them to make other provision or make their own representations to the court.  All parties should be treated fairly and with respect. 

The consultation is open till 2 May 2019 and I would encourage everyone to respond.

And lastly, the Government wheeled out a junior Home Office minister in the Lords to make a written response on losing the Right to Rent judicial review. Call me partial, but it was not impressive, at all. A few tweets on it…

Here is the Govt’s written statement on losing the right to rent judicial review. https://t.co/KBehhVpre1 Let us savour some particularly egregious bits.

— Nearly Legal (@nearlylegal) March 5, 2019

“The Home Office evaluation found there was no systemic discrimination on the basis of race.” Well it did find some issues on race, but the judgment found the Home Office had wholly failed to consider discrimination by nationality, and had not done any subsequent evaluation.

— Nearly Legal (@nearlylegal) March 5, 2019

“The High Court ruled that Parliament’s decision to impose right to rent checks is outweighed by the potential for race discrimination by those with the duty to perform the required checks.” No, it didn’t. It found the Scheme caused discrimination by nationality.

— Nearly Legal (@nearlylegal) March 5, 2019

“Landlords and letting agents are still obliged to conduct Right to Rent checks. They must not discriminate against anyone on the basis of their colour or where they come from.” But the judgment found that discrimination by nationality was a rational response to the Scheme.

— Nearly Legal (@nearlylegal) March 5, 2019

“we are looking at options for a further evaluation of the operation of the Scheme” There has been no evaluation of the Scheme, as the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found. The Govt’s own preliminary data, released just before trial, showed discrimination

— Nearly Legal (@nearlylegal) March 5, 2019