Home Repossession (Protection) Bill

A Private Members Bill introduced by Andrew Dismore seeking to amend the Law of Property Act 1925 to require a mortgage to obtain the court’s permission before exercising the power of sale, where the mortgaged land consists of or includes a dwelling-house and to make certain powers available to the court in actions by mortgagees for possession of a dwelling-house.

Dismore argued that the Bill sought to enforce a “human right”- to not be repossessed without a court order.

He argued that it was a right not enforced in this country. He referred to a recent court judgment now allows “unscrupulous” lenders to sell people’s homes without having first to go to court, when even just one mortgage payment has been missed.

He commented that the number of home repossessions resulting from defaults on mortgage repayments had increased dramatically in recent months. He referred to Council of Mortgage Lenders figures which suggested 45,000 homes were expected to have been repossessed by the end of last year, and 75,000 by the end of this year.

Dismore also referred to the government’s response to rising home repossessions which he described as “admirable speed and decisiveness”. He also referred to new guidance announced on October 22 for county court judges to “ensure that repossession of people’s and families’ homes was undertaken only as a matter of last resort”.

Dismore acknowledged that the Financial Services Authority and the Council of Mortgage Lenders had reported that UK sub-prime lenders had been taken an “increasingly aggressive approach to repossessions, and predict that this trend is only likely to increase as economic conditions worsen”.

He added that as a result families were at serious risk of being repossessed without having had any opportunity whatever to put their point of view to a judge.

Dismore stated that the Bill would reverse the High Court’s judgment. He added “It requires that lenders—sub-prime or otherwise—first obtain the court’s permission, before they can call in their security by selling a property that is somebody’s home”.

Arguing the case for a Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom, Dismore said that provisions would mean the courts which allowed lenders to cash in on their security by selling people’s homes without first having to obtain a court’s agreement.

Dismore added “Until we have such a Bill of Rights, there is absolutely nothing to stop our courts giving the highest priority to the rights of banks over the rights of ordinary people to a fair hearing before they lose their homes”.

He added “This example of home repossession provides a good practical example of the way in which a Bill of Rights protecting social and economic rights such as the right to housing—including the right to minimum procedural safeguards before eviction from one’s home”.

Progress

House of Commons

First reading: February 3 2009

Second reading: June 26 2009