AN MP has bit back after his constituents whipped up a frenzy on social media over a housing bill amendment vote from last year.

One resident took to an open Facebook group the day after the Grenfell Tower tragedy to publicise Braintree MP, James Cleverly's voting record of January 2016.

The woman highlighted Mr Cleverly's vote against a Labour amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill, which proposed ensuring private landlords made their properties fit for human habitation.

She said: "It would seem that our local MP James Cleverly is not in favour of making private landlords (including himself) bound by law to ensure that their tenanted properties are up to scratch and fit for human habitation.

"Of course, I'm not implying that he's a bad landlord but surely it makes sense to amend the current bill to catch out the ones that are?

"After all, a fair few of his constituents are now privately renting (like me) and for the money we shell out each month it would be nice to think that there would be more of a safety net if the landlord were at any point to let slide or refuse to do his/her share of the property maintenance or repairs etc."

However Mr Cleverly denied being a landlord at the time of the vote, having sold his property in Lewisham, and said the amendment was unnecessary because legislation was already in place to ensure safe standards in privately rented homes.

He also posted a response to the allegations on social media saying it was ridiculous to claim the amendment could have prevented the Grenfell Tower fire as it was not in the private rented sector and fell outside of the amendment’s clauses.

Talking to the Times, Mr Cleverly said: “Firstly the way that has been described is inaccurate because people are saying: ‘You voted against homes being fit for human habitation, which is complete rubbish.

“Local government has, and had, a responsibility of making sure homes are fit for purpose.

“That amendment was trying to shift responsibility to central government. If that happens they would just instruct local government to ensure compliance.

“The bottom line is there’s already a set responsibility on homes. The amendment was trying to push responsibility to central government. Local government already has enough power."