Consumer Rights Bill — New Clause 30 — Report on Detriment Caused by Letting Agent Fees and Plans to Prohibit Detrimental Fees — 16 Jun 2014 at 17:30
The majority of MPs voted against requiring a report on the detriment caused to tenants by letting agent fees and the steps the government intends to take to prohibit fees that cause detriment to tenants.
MPs were considering the Consumer Rights Bill[1]. The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was:
- Letting Agents: Report
- Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a report, and lay a copy of the report before Parliament, on—
- (a) the consumer detriment caused to tenants by letting agent fees and the impact this has on the ability of tenants to secure and maintain tenancies, and
- (b) the steps that the government intends to take to prohibit fees that cause detriment to tenants.”
==
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 222 (+2 tell) | 1 | 0 | 73.8% |
| DUP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12.5% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 199 (+2 tell) | 0 | 77.9% |
| LDem | 37 | 0 | 0 | 66.1% |
| PC | 0 | 2 | 0 | 66.7% |
| Total: | 259 | 204 | 0 | 74.0% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Philip Hollobone | Kettering | Con (front bench) | aye |