-
Which bit is misleading? The law would require properties to be fit for human habitation? (It would, even if ambiguous).
Or that the Tories killed it?
The motivation doesn't change either of those things, it seems like a factual statement to me.
Fox-
the Tory government killed a law that would require rental properties to be 'fit for human habitation'.
Which bit is misleading? The law would require properties to be fit for human habitation? (It would, even if ambiguous).
The law already requires properties to be up to defined standards that when added up amount to something like 'fit for human habitation'. The boring core of it seems to be that the government voted down an amendment to the L&T act so that tenants could take civil proceedings if their LA for some reason won't / is dragging it's feet on enforcement.
Or that the Tories killed it?
They killed the amendment, that's for sure. The Law Commission apparently recommended changes like KB was looking for in 1996 - curiously Labour have also killed it by not implementing it, either.
Howard
I dug in to this, and as I understand it, the 'fit for human habitation' bit has always been in the L&T act - the problem was it applied only to properties that cost tiny amounts to rent per year.
It was there to stop people from renting their sheds as houses.
There was / is no definition of what 'fit for human habitation' means.
Karen Buck's bill was going to update the L&T act to bring the tiny amounts that triggered the habitation bit of the act in line with today's rental prices.
It was voted down because the government felt that there were enough powers held by Local Authorities to regulate the private rental market and that the power should reside with LAs to enforce, not with tenants and their lawyers.
In my view
is misleading - and the way this has been spun on some internet sites, is fake news.
*ducks*