Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Nov 2000

Vol. 525 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Private Rented Accommodation.

I first sought to raise this issue two weeks ago when an advertisement appeared in the property supplements of The Irish Times and Irish Independent newspapers. It advertised the sale of 29 properties at Enaville Avenue and St. Patrick's Avenue in Ballybough in Dublin's north inner city. I live in Ballybough and it is part of the constituency I represent. The advertisement stated that the opportunity presented by the sale of the 29 houses was a dream for first time buyers and builders.

I was astounded by this. I knew there were families living in most if not all these little houses. The advertisement did not mention this. So much for the ethics and standards of the estate agents, Douglas Newman Good, which placed the advertisements. In effect, a community was being advertised for sale without its knowledge and without any reference to the plight of the tenants or, indeed, the responsibility of the landlord to them. It was as if these families did not count. Many of them are one parent families on social welfare or in part-time low paid jobs.

The following Saturday, when prospective buyers went unwittingly to view the properties, they were horrified to find people living in them. Most of them promptly left. The landlord who orchestrated this was unmoved and determined to proceed with the public auction. I raised the matter with the Taoiseach in the House on 24 October, the day before the auction, as it was taking place in the Taoiseach's constituency. The tenants, meanwhile, had organised themselves and alerted the media and the local public representatives. As a result the auction was abandoned by the landlord, probably out of embarrassment, such was the strength of feeling and revulsion against his treatment of his tenants. However, the threat of eviction remains over the heads of these unfortunate people.

This is a classic, if extreme, example which highlights a problem that many people face in Dublin and throughout Ireland. There are an estimated 120,000 households in private rented accommodation in the State. Few of them have security of tenure. The commission on the private rented residential sector reported to the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, last July. Its recommendations were limited and inadequate but they included giving tenants who have been in a property for six months an entitlement to a four year lease. I am unaware of any response so far from the Government.

The plight of the families in Ballybough, many of whom are tenants of eight to ten years, has drawn attention to a number of issues. First is the fact that tenants of less than 20 years standing appear to have no rights under the laws of the State. Second, landlords can behave as if they have no responsibilities to their tenants, the State or the taxpayers who subsidise many of the rents which, in turn, enrich the landlords. Third, any tenant of less than 20 years tenancy has no security of tenure and no reasonable notice is required to evict them, other than a contemptuous notice to quit followed by an immediate court summons. Fourth, landlords can apparently accumulate and buy and sell properties with the tenants in situ and without any reference to the rights of these people.

Fifth, following the abandoned option, the landlord simply announced his intention to increase rents, and it seems he can do this at will. If the health board does not cover the increased costs, he believes he can frighten and drive the tenants out. This is an increasing feature and mechanism in Dublin whereby landlords get rid of long-standing tenants and replace them with others who can afford higher rents. This is a widespread scandal and many elderly people have lost their homes in this way. There must be provision for rent restrictions, or a level imposed beyond which rents cannot be increased, based on the standard and location of the property.

I call on the Minister to address urgently all these issues so that what was attempted in Ballybough, and very nearly achieved but for the vigilance and the organisational ability of the tenants, cannot happen again. This is not the first time this has happened. We have seen the example of the Mespil outrage. Temple Buildings in Upper Dominick Street suffered a similar fate. So far Ballybough and Enaville Avenue have been spared this. I call on the Minister to introduce measures urgently to prevent this type of outrage ever being repeated.

I established a commission in July 1999 to examine the working of the landlord and tenant relationship and to make recommendations with a view to improving security of tenure for tenants, maintaining a fair and reasonable balance between the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants and increasing investment and supply in and removing any constraints to the development of the sector.

The Commission was chaired by Mr. Tom Dunne, from the faculty of the built environment, Dublin Institute of Technology, and its 17 members were representative of tenant and landlord interests, the legal, accounting and auctioneering professions, property investment specialists and relevant Departments. The commission submitted its report on 14 July 2000 and I arranged for its publication on 27 July this year. I welcome the commission's report and I would like again to put on record my particular appreciation of the work of the Chairman, Tom Dunne, and the commission members in reporting within an extremely tight deadline.

I would like to refer briefly to some of the main recommendations contained in the report. The commission has recommended the establishment by statute of a private residential tenancies board to deal with disputes between landlords and tenants and to provide advice and information in relation to the sector. Details of all tenancies would be registered with the board. It would be mandatory for tenants and landlords to refer to the board all disputes, from deposit retention to termination of a tenancy, where agreement between the parties cannot be reached. Determinations of the board would be binding and enforceable by being made an order of the courts. Appeal to the courts would arise only on a point of law.

The commission proposes granting a tenant whose tenancy has not been terminated in the first six months a right to continue in occupation for the remainder of a four-year period unless the landlord needs to recover possession for specified reasons such as for own or family member occupation, to sell or to redevelop etc. Tenancies may be terminated at any time for failure by either party to comply with the lease terms or with obligations to be specified in the legislation. Successive four-year tenancy periods are envisaged, during the first six months of each of which the landlord will have an opportunity to terminate the tenancy without cause. The tenant may terminate at any time subject to giving the required notice. Regarding notice to quit, a graduated scheme, depending on length of tenancy in each four-year period with a minimum of four weeks and a maximum of 16 weeks is recommended.

The commission recommends that rents should be no greater than the open market rate and reviews should be no more frequent than once per annum unless there has been a substantial improvement in the property.

The commission recommendations for tax incentives for landlords who are compliant with the regulatory system and whose tenancies are registered with the board have the twin aims of promoting investment in and greater professionalism of the sector.

I consider the commission's report to be comprehensive and well balanced and it is clear that much careful consideration has gone into the principal recommendations. The package of measures recommended represents a compromise of the diverse views held by the members as to the best way forward for the private rented residential sector. I accept the commission's contention that the report must be viewed as a total package and that, if elements are viewed or implemented in isolation, it could have detrimental or unintended consequences for the sector.

Many of the commission's recommendations have implications for the landlord and tenant legislative code and for the taxation code which are the responsibility of my colleagues the Mini ster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Finance respectively. Consultations have taken place in relation to those issues. The report has also been considered by the Housing Forum which generally supported the recommendations and considered they would provide a good basis for the long-term development of the sector if implemented as a package.

I propose to bring forward proposals to Government in the very near future together with the programme for implementation of the broad thrust of the commission's report.

Top
Share