Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Nov 1945

Vol. 98 No. 8

Rent Restrictions Bill, 1944— Committee (resumed).

SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 47:—

To insert a new sub-section (1) a follows:—

This section applies to every controlled (non-1923 Act) premises the rateable value whereof is fifteen pounds or under and to no other premises.

This amendment is somewhat similar to the point raised by Deputy O'Connor yesterday and also mentioned by myself, that builders erected houses either immediately pre-war or in the earlier years during the war at very heavy building costs. The rates on these houses, which were at that time about £6, have now risen to as much as £18. When the tenancy falls vacant the builders are not in a position to renew it. They have not sufficient capital to continue letting houses of that type and, unless they are exempted from control they will have to sell them. I think the Minister is familiar with the argument in favour of this amendment. Certain companies, such as the one mentioned yesterday, may be in a position to continue because they are operating on a larger scale, but smaller builders who erected a number of houses since 1940 or 1941, the rates on which have probably trebled, are not in a position to continue to let them, and they will automatically sell them. In that way, these houses will be outside the scope of this Bill. Whether it is enacted as it stands or not, the landlord will sell in any case.

Mr. Boland

I do not see any case for limiting the valuation. If the principle of Section 15 is sound, as I think it is, there is no reason that I know of why its application should be arbitrarily limited to houses of £15 valuation and under as the amendment proposes. I do not think the Deputy has given any good reason for his suggestion, and I certainly could not agree to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 47a not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 48:—

To insert at the end of the section the following sub-section:

(2) If, on an application to the court under this sub-section by the landlord of premises to which Section 14 of this Act applies the court is satisfied—

(a) that, in the local financial year immediately preceding the local financial year which includes the relevant date, there was in force, by virtue of any statute, a remission of two-thirds of the rates in respect of the premises or a reduction of the valuation of the premises for the purpose of the assessment and levying of rates, and

(b) that, at the relevant date, such remission or reduction was no longer in force, and

(c) that at the relevant date the landlord habitually paid or allowed a deduction or set-off against, or indemnified the tenant in respect of the rates or any part thereof, and

(d) that the basic rent of the premises is less than the rent (in this sub-section referred to as the national rent) which, if the said remission or deduction had continued to be in force, the landlord might, at the relevant date, reasonably have expected under a contract of tenancy in the same terms as the contract of tenancy subsisting at the said date, assuming that the tenant was responsible for the rates,

the basic rent of the premises shall be determined by the court and shall be the amount which, in the opinion of the court, represents the notional rent, and thenceforth the premises shall, without prejudice to the previous application thereto of paragraph (a) of Section 23 of this Act, become premises to which Section 16 of this Act applies as if such determination had been made under that section."

This amendment is the converse of what we have in Section 15. Under that section, if the remission of rates ceases, the tenant can take advantage of that. In this case we want to ensure that the landlord, if he has been paying the rates and if he finds, when the period for remission of rates has expired, that he is not getting a fair rent, should be entitled to the same rights as the tenant has in the converse case under Section 15. I think that is a reasonable corollary to Section 15. I do not think there is any ground for opposing it.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 49:—

To delete sub-section (3) and to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-section:

(3) For the purpose of the determination by the court of the basic rent under this section the tenant shall be deemed to be responsible for the rates.

This amendment is in the nature of a corollary to the amendment of Section 9. The purpose of the amendment is to eliminate the reference in paragraph (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 16 to the liability for repairs; so that the court, when determining the basic rent under Section 16, will be free to decide the question, as in Section 9 cases, on the basis of the facts of the particular case. The tenant is deemed to be responsible for rates because, again as in Section 9 cases, the landlord is allowed to add the rates as a lawful addition to the basic rent.

I think that is an improvement. The court will deal with the case as it is, and without holding the tenant or the landlord liable for repairs. It will determine the matter on the facts of the case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 50:—

In sub-section (4), line 16, to delete the figure "4" and to insert in lieu there of the figure "5".

This amendment corrects an obvious mistake. The reference in sub-section (4) of Section 16 should be to Article 5, and not Article 4, of the Emergency Powers (No. 313) Order, 1944.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.

There are some amendments here in the name of Deputy M. O'Sullivan, which are, in a different connection, similar to amendments Nos. 34 to 38. Would the Deputy consider that they are governed by the previous decisions?

They are exactly similar, in a different context.

Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 53:—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (d), lines 54 and 55, to delete the words and figures "8th day of February, 1944", and to insert in lieu thereof the words "relevant date".

The purpose of this amendment is to correct a mistake in the existing draft. Paragraph (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 provides for a lawful addition, in the case of premises to which Section 14 applies, in respect of expenditure on improvements or structural alterations incurred before the critical date, that is, the date of the passing of the Act. As paragraph (d) stands, the lawful addition is restricted to expenditure incurred in the period between the 8th February, 1944, and the critical date. The period to be covered should clearly commence on the relevant date, that is, the 7th May, 1941, or the date within five years before that by reference to which the basic rent is fixed under Section 14. Obviously the landlord is entitled to the lawful addition in respect of any expenditure on improvements or structural alterations which he may incur after the relevant date. This is actually the existing position under Emergency Powers (No. 313) Order, 1944, which applies to the premises to which the provisions of Section 17 will apply when the Bill is law.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56 not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 57:—

In sub-section (3), page 12, line 1, to delete the word "Act" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "Chapter".

This is purely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Is there any provision in respect of allowance for normal repairs? It seems to take in a whole lot of other matters, but the question of expenditure for repairs ought to be considered.

Mr. Boland

No, there is no allowance. The reason for that was——

That there are no repairs?

Mr. Boland

No, but that the landlord, in fixing the rent for those houses built after 1919, and which were subject to control, took into account— this is the belief, and I am satisfied about it—what the annual cost of the repairs would be. Therefore, I omitted from the Emergency Powers Order any allowance for repairs, and I think that is justifiable.

Surely the Minister should allow something for repairs to a house that is 26 years old, considering its present state?

Mr. Boland

This refers only to the 1941 cases, the ones that were covered by the Emergency Powers Order which dated from May, 1941. There is provision for repairs in the case of the older houses covered by the 1923 Act. I am just incorporating in this Bill the provisions of the Emergency Powers Order, as amended by shifting the date back from February, 1944, to May, 1941. I am satisfied that, in fixing the rents, after the experience of landlords under the Rent Restrictions Acts, they included in the rent an amount for the repairs which they would have to make to the premises. That is the reason it was left out of the Emergency Powers Order, and I am continuing that in this Bill. There is no injustice there.

Does the Minister not think there is an increased allowance required now for repairs? Is it the Minister's argument that the repairs are the same now as they were previously?

Mr. Boland

The Emergency Powers Order stabilised the rent at a certain figure, just as wages were stabilised. I suppose everyone feels a grievance, but it was considered in the general interest an advisable course to pursue. It applies to people who own houses as well as to others, and there is no difference in principle.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.

I move amendment No. 58:—

In sub-section (1) (a), after the word "section" in line 40, to insert the words: "or by order of a competent court".

The method "by order of a competent court" is the third method whereby the rent may be amended. I think these words are necessary, and if the amendment is agreed to I suggest they would also be necessary in the following sub-sections.

Mr. Boland

I am advised that this amendment is unnecessary. Section 20 provides a comprehensive machinery for the adjustment from time to time, as occasion may require, of the rent to be paid. In the opening paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) it is provided that the landlord and tenant may agree upon the rent and, provided it does not exceed the lawful rent for the time being, that rent remains the rent to be paid until varied by a further agreement or by notice under one of the later paragraphs.

The words "subject to this Act" in line 2 of the section make it clear that all the provisions in sub-section (1) are subject to the provisions generally of the Act as regards the lawful rent and naturally any determination by the court on the subject of the amount of the rent must operate to put an end to any temporary agreement under paragraph (a). It is not necessary to say this again in paragraph (a).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 59:—

In sub-section (1) (d), line 6, page 13, after the word "sub-section" to insert the following words:—"the first known rent paid by a tenant in respect of such premises or where such rent is unknown".

Dealing with the determination of the rent under the Act, paragraph (d) says:—

"(d) where the rent to be paid by a statutory tenant has not been determined under any of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section, the rent payable by the tenant for the time being in respect of the premises on the operative date, or the then lawful rent (whichever is the lesser), or if the statutory tenant has since the operative date held under any contract of tenancy, the rent last payable by him under that contract or the then lawful rent (whichever is the lesser), shall, subject to this section, be and continue to be the rent to be paid in respect of the premises."

Heretofore, there was a rent known as the interim rent in cases where it pended an official determination. If a landlord knows that the rent which is legally chargeable, and which he is entitled to get, was the first known rent after 1914, say in respect of 1923 controlled premises, and the 7th May, 1941, in respect of other cases, it will prevent him from overcharging tenants. I think this is a desirable amendment, since where the first known rent is available, pending the application to the court, that should be the rent accepted and charged by the landlord. I think, in order to prevent landlords getting excess payments out of the tenants—in this particular case it is irrecoverable as far as the tenant is concerned—the Minister should accept this amendment.

Mr. Boland

I think Section 20, again, is quite sufficient to deal with these cases. If the Deputy will look at Section 20 he will observe the purpose of paragraphs (d) and (e) of sub-section (1). It is by agreement under paragraph (a) and by notice under paragraphs (d) and (e). Paragraph (d) sets out:—

"the rent payable by the tenant for the time being in respect of the premises on the operative date—"

that is, the date of the passing of the Act.

But suppose a tenant does not apply. Maybe there will be no fault on the part of the tenant; but if, for whatever reasons, he does not apply for a determination and then, after a length of time, he does apply, he cannot recover. If the first known rent was the rent chargeable it might mean that he could not be made liable, or the landlord would not be able to escape his responsibility for the repayment of the arrears.

Mr. Boland

He should apply in time.

He should, but a lot of tenants, through no fault of their own, may not apply in time.

Mr. Boland

It would be very hard to make provision for a lot of people who will not obey the law. If a tenant is interested, he should take advantage of the Act. We cannot make provision for people's negligence—for their failure to act in their own interests. I am satisfied that Section 20 meets the point.

What objection has the Minister to accepting the amendment?

Mr. Boland

I am sure the Deputy will admit that one can never cover cases where people do not apply in time, or take advantage of provisions in any statute which are meant for their benefit. If they do not do that, it is their own fault. There is no use in trying to provide for the negligence of such people. We have good machinery in that section and I believe it will work all right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 60 not moved.
Sections 20 and 21 put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.

Will the Deputy in whose name amendment No. 61 stands consider whether it is met sufficiently by amendment No. 62? Amendment No. 62 is a Ministerial amendment.

Mr. Boland

I suggest amendment No. 61 is largely met by my amendment.

I believe it meets my amendment.

The Deputy may move his amendment if he wishes —that is, if he thinks it is not sufficiently covered by amendment No. 62.

I believe it meets it all right. I want to ensure that the landlord will have notice.

Mr. Boland

That is what I am providing in amendment No. 62.

Amendment No. 61 not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 62:—

In sub-section (1), line 28, after the word "court" to insert the words "on notice to the landlord".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 62a—

In sub-section (1), line 28, after the word "court" insert the words "on notice to the landlord"

—is the same as the Minister's amendment.

Amendment No. 62a not moved.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No.63:—

In sub-section (1), lines 28 and 29, to delete the words "controlled premises" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "controlled (1923 Act) premises".

The object of this amendment is to confine the application of Section 22 to controlled (1923 Act) premises. Section 22 is a substantial re-enactment of a corresponding provision in the 1923 Act (Section 8 (2)), under which the court was empowered to suspend certain of the permitted increases on the standard rent (including the increases in respect of repairs) if the premises were not kept in good and tenantable repair. The underlying idea was that the landlord should not be allowed to continue to draw increases permitted by the statute on the basis that he was liable for repairs if he did not, in fact, keep the premises in proper repair.

Section 22 as it stands applies to both controlled (1923 Act) premises and controlled (non-1923 Act) premises. It is considered that its application to the latter kind of premises can scarcely be justified since the landlord of such premises is not allowed statutory increases of any kind, whether for repairs or otherwise, under the Bill. The tenant has other remedies against his landlord for non-fulfilment of his liability in the matter of repairs. Section 22 provides a very exceptional kind of remedy which, it is considered for the reasons stated, should not apply in the case of controlled (non-1923 Act) premises. I think that is only fair. When there is no allowance made for repairs in the rent he should not be liable to be brought in for not doing the repairs.

Amendment agreed to.

On behalf of Deputy M. O'Sullivan, I move amendment No. 64:—

In sub-section (2), lines 40 and 41, to delete the words "not exceeding twenty per cent. of the lawful rent".

We are dealing here with premises which are held to be not in good and tenantable repair and that have come under the notice of the sanitary authority. The responsibility for the premises being in such a poor condition rests on the landlord. The premises are in that poor condition because of his failure to carry out his duties in regard to them. It is provided that there can be a reduction of rent to an extent that the court thinks proper to a limit of 20 per cent. Apparently it is felt that that overriding limit should not be set down in the Bill and that the reduction might be based either on the condition of the premises or on the degree of negligence of the landlord.

Mr. Boland

This amendment is unacceptable. As sub-section (2) of Section 22 stands, the court, if satisfied that the premises are not in all respects in good and tenantable repair and that this is due to the landlord's default, may reduce the rent by such amount, "not exceeding 20 per cent. of the lawful rent," as the court thinks proper. The amendment proposes to delete the quoted words, so as to leave the court free to reduce the rent by any amount it wished.

Section 22 of the Bill is a substantial re-enactment of a corresponding provision in the 1923 Act. Under Section 8 (2) of that Act, the court could suspend the permitted increase in respect of repairs, and also the statutory increase of 20 per cent. On the standard rent. The 20 per cent. maximum reduction on the lawful rent, which Section 22 (2) of the Bill proposes to allow the court to make, corresponds roughly to the amount by which the rent can be reduced in the similar circumstances under the 1893 Act.

The idea underlying the 1923 Act provision was that, if the landlord failed to keep the premises in a proper state of repair, he should not be allowed to continue to collect from the tenant the increases which the Act permitted, some of which were in respect of repairs. My amendment No. 63 proposes to limit the application of Section 22 to 1923 Act cases, and there does not appear to be any good reason why the landlord should be made liable to suffer any greater penalty under Section 22 than he is liable to suffer at present under the 1923 Act. Accordingly the provision limiting the amount by which the court may reduce the rent to 20 per cent. of the lawful rent should, I think, be preserved. It has to be borne in mind that the remedy put at the tenant's disposal by Section 22 is over and above other remedies that he may have against his landlord for breach of covenant to keep in repair. The Deputy's amendment would mean that the landlord would no longer be allowed to increase the rent in respect of repairs. I do not think that would be fair at all. There is no reason why it should be permissible for the court to take more than he is allowed for repairs, and I think the Deputy would agree that it would not be fair.

Section 61 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, allows a tenant to stop rent in respect of any repairs for which the landlord is liable, and I suggest that there might possibly be a clash between Section 22 of this Bill and that section in certain cases.

Mr. Boland

I will look into the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 65 is a definition amendment and is out of place. It seems to me that it is designed to meet amendments to Section 48. There would be no need for it because, if the Deputy succeeded in his amendments, the definition would have to be inserted in the definition section.

Amendment No. 65 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 22, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Under sub-section (1), a landlord must get notice of court proceedings, and I take it that under sub-section (2), there could not be court proceedings without the landlord being given notice. Is it tied up with sub-section(1)?

Mr. Boland

That is so. The landlord must get notice.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 66:—

Before Section 23 to insert the following new section—

Subject to the provisions of this Act if an increased rent exceeds by more than the amount permitted under this Act the basic rent the amount of such excess shall notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary be irrecoverable from the tenant of the premises.

This section is taken out of the 1923 Act, but I think it is less cumbersome than the section as it stands, dealing with sums which are declared to be irrecoverable. It is possible for a landlord if he wishes, to take advantage of the ignorance, laziness or lack of effort on the part of a tenant who does not seek to secure the payment of sums which are recoverable. I think the section proposed in the amendment is better because it is still governed by Section 25.

Mr. Boland

The position was that a tenant could recover over-payments under the 1923 Act, but where the rent was not really determined and known, it is hardly fair that a landlord should be required to refund back money. It would be very harsh on a landlord in cases where the rent was not known and had not been determined. There have been cases where they have had to go back quite a long time, where a tenant continued to pay and did not have the matter determined, and it is unfair to expect the landlord to pay up such arrears. The tenant ought to be satisfied with getting the relief from the date of the determination. The Deputy will admit that it is a more satisfactory state of affairs than existed under the old Act and is a fair amendment of the 1923 position. I do not think he should press his amendment. I have heard of cases of people having to pay big sums in respect of over-payments and it was not good enough if the tenant did not get the matter cleared up in time. Under this Bill, he will get it from the time the rent is determined.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are cognate amendments and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 67:—

In line 14 to delete the words "beginning on or after the operative date" and in line 16 to delete the words "in respect of that period".

Sections 23, 24 and 25 deal entirely with the question of recovery. As the Bill stands, there is provision for recovery only as from the operative date, which, presumably, is the date of the coming into force of the Act or the date of the determination by the court.

Mr. Boland

If any right had been given under the 1923 Act it still survives.

I suggest it would be an undoubted hardship and an injustice that a tenant who finds that he has been overcharged for 12 months, two years or three years and takes his case into court should be excluded from recovering, except from the operative date or from the date of the determination of the court. That is entirely unfair. At least the period in the Statute of Limitations, six years prior to the operative date, might apply.

Mr. Boland

That is the same point as that made by Deputy Cosgrave.

Is there not merit behind it?

Mr. Boland

I do not think so. I have known cases of people neglecting to take advantage of the right they have to go into court and have their cases determined. They find out after quite a long time that they can do so and people who had not very much money who were landlords had to pay back moneys in respect of quite a long period, when, if the tenant had exercised his rights, the rent could have been determined long ago. If a tenant neglects to do that, it is most unfair that a landlord should be made liable.

A man may be a tenant for 12 months or two years under conditions which he regarded as harsh in that he was paying an exorbitant rent. He only then realise his legal position and he goes into court. Surely for that period in any case, for a reasonable period prior to the operative date, he might be allowed to recover? In that connection, might I read for the Minister another interesting letter which I have received? The writer says:—

"I paid £60 cash security which will not be refunded until such time as I vacate the house——"

This, by the way, is an angle with regard to rent which I have never heard before.

He goes on to say:—

"I paid six months' rent in advance, namely, 27 weeks at 21/- per week—£28 7s. This last amount is described by my landlord as 189 days' rent at 3/- per day. Therefore, his letting to me is daily although I have paid him this large amount of money."

He concludes by saying that the house is let to him at 3/- a day. Apparently, that is the form in which the rent receipt is filled in. That man has a grievance, and this is obviously a glaring case. Surely, a tenant of that type is entitled to restitution, if I may put it that way, and should not be precluded by the provisions of this Bill from getting relief. I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Boland

I will look into it although I am satisfied that the thing is all right. Occasionally, of course, cases of hardship may arise, but, in the main, it is only fair when people do not take advantage of their right under the existing law that others who might not be aware of the law should not be made pay money that perhaps they could not very well afford to pay. I will look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 68 not moved.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.
Section 25 and 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 71:—

To delete lines 12 and 13 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "the expression `provisional rent' means the amount determined by the provisional order as the lawful rent of the premises to which the order applies."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Boland

If the House agrees, I think that I might now move to report progress. We are now entering-on Chapter 3 of the Bill, and I confess that I have not had time to consider all the amendments to this part of the Bill.

Agreed.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share