asked the Minister for Local Government if he will consider increasing the penalties imposed on landlords who fail to abide by Dublin Corporation bye-laws in respect of health and sanitary arrangements in their property.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Corporation Bye-Laws.
7.
In so far as the drainage, ventilation, cleanliness, sanitary, cooking and washing arrangements in rented accommodation are concerned, section 70 of the Housing Act, 1966, provides for penalties of up to £25 and up to £5 a day for a continuing offence, for the contravention of bye-laws made under that section. It is a matter for each local authority in the first instance to make bye-laws under the section and, pending the making of such bye-laws, the existing bye-laws made under older enactments, which in the Dublin Corporation area provide for a maximum penalty of £5, and £2 a day for a continuing offence, continue in force. I understand that the making of bye-laws under section 70 is in fact being considered by the corporation at present.
I should add that, in so far as the repair of unfit houses is concerned, section 69 of the Act provides for the first time for a penalty of up to £200 for non-compliance with the requirements of a repairs notice from the local authority and otherwise strengthens considerably their powers of enforcing these notices.
Is the Minister aware of the situation in which a company taking over property are not interested in the living conditions of the existing tenants and have, in fact, no intention of carrying out any improvements in order to maintain the fabric? In fact, they can go over many months ignoring court notices while unfortunate tenants continue living in the most appalling conditions. Is the Minister aware of the anomalous situation in which motorists can be subjected to on-the-spot fines if they break the law while landlords of property go free? Why should the same situation not obtain in the case of companies like Leinster Estates, a company which is, in fact, deliberately planning to let these houses run down?
The 1966 Act gives more effective powers of enforcement to local authorities and it should be possible, under that Act, to deal with the situation to which the Deputy refers.
Is it true to say that last year only £105 was imposed by way of fines for this kind of offence by these landlords? I am referring in particular to landlords who are in this for commercial purposes, the houses having already been condemned.
About that, I do not know. The corporation have not yet made bye-laws under the 1966 Act, which provides for much heavier fines for contravention of the bye-laws. Section 69 provides for the first time for a penalty of up to £200 for non-compliance with a repairs notice and that particular section has only just come into operation.
Is the making of bye-laws a function of the corporation or of the manager?
Of the local authority. The members of the corporation can raise these matters with the manager.