Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 110UA: 110UA: After Clause 206, insert the following new Clause— ““Complaints to the regulator (1) This section applies where a designated body or locally recognised representative body makes a complaint to the regulator that the affairs of a registered provider may have been mismanaged, and is or appears to be detrimental to the interests of tenants of social housing. (2) The regulator must, within 60 days after the day on which it receives the complaint, publish a response stating how it proposes to deal with the complaint, and in particular— (a) whether it has decided to act using powers conferred on it by this Part, or to take no action, and (b) if it has decided to act, what action it proposes to take. (3) The response must state the regulator’s reasons for its proposals. (4) The Secretary of State by order— (a) may designate a body only if it appears to him to represent the interests of tenants of social housing, and (b) must publish (and may from time to time vary) other criteria to be applied by him in determining whether to make or revoke a designation. (5) In this section, ““body”” means any national or representative local body appearing to it to represent the interests of tenants of social housing. (6) The regulator— (a) must issue guidance to the complainant as to the presentation of a reasoned case for the complaint, and (b) may issue such other guidance as appears to it to be appropriate for the purposes of this section. (7) An order under this section— (a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (8) Before issuing or revising guidance, the regulator shall consult the following and ensure that they have been consulted— (a) one or more bodies appearing to it to represent the interests of registered providers, (b) one or more bodies appearing to it to represent the interests of secured creditors of registered providers, (c) one or more bodies appearing to it to represent the interests of tenants of social housing, and (d) the Secretary of State.”” The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to another aspect of the way in which the regulator should relate to tenants and to tenants’ organisations. As the Committee knows, I wish that the scope of the regulator would be wider and apply to other social tenants; but even the narrower definition of social tenants should be covered in the regulator’s scope in the Bill. I should declare my interest as the chair of the National Consumer Council and its successor body. It is probably the first time in the House of Lords that the new name of the successor body has been mentioned, Consumer Focus. So Members of the Committee can consider that to be a public announcement. We are in favour of different forms of engagement between tenants, their organisations and the new regulator. There are three dimensions to that. Unfortunately, I was not at the previous session of the Committee, but I would have strongly supported the noble Earl’s amendment to strengthen the duty in the Bill to engage with tenants. I regret that my noble friend the Minister rejected that approach and I hope that she will reconsider that. That is an ongoing framework within which the regulator should continue to engage with tenants’ organisations and tenants. The amendment is more specific. We have just passed without amendment the references to inquiries by the regulator, but how do tenants and their organisations trigger such inquiries or other forms of intervention and action by the regulator? The new clause proposed by the amendment would allow tenants’ organisations that are nationally recognised by the Secretary of State—and we know that a number of them exist—and organisations that are locally recognised by the provider, which have standard consultation procedures, to bring to the attention of the regulator situations of general mismanagement which they felt was carried on by a social housing provider in their area, or more generally. The amendment would give the right of initiative, in other words, to tenants and their organisations to bring to the attention of the regulator such alleged or perceived abuse. The regulator would have to make its own assessment as to whether to do anything about these situations. It would have 60 days to decide on whether to take action and what form of action was necessary. In serious cases, it would probably decide to hold an inquiry, under the clause that we have just passed. This gives more power of initiation to the tenants’ organisations. There are some difficulties in defining those tenants’ organisations and how they would qualify in certain circumstances. Some of that probably has to be left to the regulator to tidy up, or is for the Government to tidy up in subordinate legislation. It is important that people who feel that their current provider is mismanaging their property, their relations with the tenants or other services of the provider should be able to trigger action by the regulator. Judgment of the seriousness of the case and what form of action to take is the regulator’s responsibility. The clause provides a positive a role for tenants and their organisations. I do not see its equivalent in other provisions. Although the Minister may feel that this is not quite the right way to do it, I hope that the Government recognise that we must convince tenants that a serious change is being made, whereby they have some levers in their hands. That would make the credibility of the new regulator more substantial than does the present draft of the Bill. I beg to move.