Vol. 492 No. 3
7 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if effective safe-guards for tenants exist within the 1992 charter for rented housing; the plans, if any, he has to review the charter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13854/98]
In recent years a range of statutory measures have been put in place which constitute a charter for rented housing. These include: the extension to four weeks of the minimum period for notices to quit residential tenancies under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992; the prohibition under the 1992 Act on the seizure of a tenant's goods by a landlord as a means of enforcing payment of rent; the mandatory provision of rent books to tenants in accordance with the Housing (Rent Books) Regulations, 1993; the introduction of minimum standards for rented accommodation under the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations, 1993; and the requirement to register certain rented accommodation in accordance with the Housing (Registration of Rented Houses) Regulations, 1996. Local authorities, who are responsible for enforcement of the regulations are regularly urged by my Department to take all steps open to them to secure compliance with their provisions.
In addition, the terms of the lease or other tenancy agreement under which the tenancies are held, in conjunction with the landlord and tenant code, determine the rights of tenants in private rented accommodation and the protection available to them. The code of legislation which governs the relationship between tenant and landlord is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am satisfied the measures taken by my Department, coupled with the landlord and tenant legislation, provide a reasonably effective level of protection and safeguards for tenants.
How many prosecutions have been taken against landlords for failing to enforce standards in the private rented sector since enactment of the law in 1992?
That is a specific question on which I do not have the information, but I will get it for the Deputy. In 1997 local authorities carried out 3,846 inspections in connection with standards regulations and 2,526 investigations in connection with rent books. The bulk of those were in the Dublin area.
The Minister said he is satisfied with the provisions of the 1992 Act. How can he justify satisfaction on the basis of a report in the latest housing statistics bulletin that only 26,713 households have been registered by landlords under the housing regulations of 1996?
Court cases are pending on registration and some people probably have not registered for that reason. The 1991 census figures reveal that 81,771 dwellings were rented, either privately furnished or unfurnished. In addition, 21,622 were occupied rent free and there was no information on a further 9,000 dwellings. The precise data on the number of houses to which the registration regulations apply are not available because certain rented dwellings are exempt from the requirements for a variety of reasons — for example, a house let by a resident landlord where there is not more than one rented dwelling within the house, voluntary housing which is rented, houses let to certain relatives of landlords and houses let for temporary convenience are exempt. That could mean a sizeable number of the 81,000 dwellings are not subject to the regulations.
On the basis of the statistics the Minister has given on inspections relating to standards and the issue of rent books, given the total number of rented premises, will he agree inspection of premises in regard to standards and the issue of rent books to tenants is the exception rather than the rule? Will he agree, even in the substantial number of cases where health boards provide rent supplements, inspection in regard to standards and the issue of rent books is the exception rather than the rule? Will he agree, therefore, local authorities have failed completely to carry out their obligations under the legislation? Will he agree it is time to reconsider this matter?
I do not agree with the Deputy because it is not the practice to inspect every house or place under any regime where regulations apply. For example, the Revenue Commissioners use a figure considerably less than 10 per cent as a random sample to gauge whether regulations on self-assessment are being complied with. A figure of almost 4,000 inspections in connection with the standard regulations and 2,500 in connection with rent books is a reasonable level of inspection.
There have been no prosecutions.
In what proportion of those cases were rent books issued to tenants?
I do not have that statistic. The rate of investigation and inspection is reasonable, unless it is decided to inspect all dwellings. Spot checks to establish the level of compliance is the way all regulations are policed. Local authorities can derive an income from this and I am sure if possible they will increase the levels. I am not aware of any major difficulty.
Will the Minister inform himself on at least one issue? In what proportion of the cases inspected were tenants issued with rent books? If he finds — as I am sure he will — the issue of rent books is the exception rather than the rule, will he rethink the matter to determine if there is a better way to afford the kind of protection to tenants the law sets out to give them, but is not being given in practice?
Will the Minister clarify if a case has been taken against the Minister and the Department by a group of landlords on the basis of the registration fee? Is it also the case that his Department has not submitted a defence to the courts on that case? Will he clarify this matter as it is directly related to the issue in the question?
I will certainly investigate the matter raised by Deputy Dukes, but I am not aware that there is a significant level of non-compliance. Under the current system, if a large number of people do not comply with the regulations, the local authorities can take steps to address the matter. I will check the rate of compliance and if it is not satisfactory I will take up the matter with the local authority concerned.
A District Court case was taken against a local urban district council in regard to the regulations. I understand the case put forward by the landlords was upheld in that the regulations, as drawn up by the then Minister of State, Deputy McManus, did not allow for a fine for non-compliance. I understand that may be the subject of an appeal. It is being kept under review in the Department so that we know the action that needs to be taken.
