JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Oct 2011

Private Residential Tenancies: Discussion with PRTB

Chairman

We will resume the meeting to consider the issues of rental deposits, the dispute resolution service operated by the Private Residential Tenancies Board and proposals for a rental deposit protection scheme. A number of witnesses will appear before the committee to assist us in this consideration. We will hear a presentation from the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, regarding the operation of its dispute resolution service which deals with complaints from tenants, landlords or third parties. I welcome Ms Anne Marie Caulfield, director of the PRTB, Mr. Frank Gallagher, assistant director of the PRTB, Ms Orla Coyne, chairperson of the board of directors and Professor Eoin O'Sullivan, board member of the PRTB.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Ms Caulfield to proceed with her opening statement after which members may ask questions.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

I thank the Chairman and I thank the committee for the invitation to address it today. It would be helpful to the committee to take it through the work of the PRTB and our activities in 2010 by way of providing context for the statistics requested by the committee in its letter of invitation.

The Private Residential Tenancies Board was established in September 2004 under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Its functions are to maintain a national register of private rental tenancies, to provide a dispute resolution service, and to conduct research and advise the Minister on policy matters which impact on the sector.

On 31 August 2011 the PRTB had 251,000 registered tenancies. This represents 171,000 landlords and 536,000 tenants. Extracts from the register are available on our website. In January registration fees were increased by €20, the first such increase since our foundation, and the standard registration fee is now €90. The registration fee income funds the operation of the PRTB which is no longer in receipt of an Exchequer grant. A total of 20% of each registration fee also goes to fund local authority minimum standards inspections as per the directions we receive from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. The PRTB paid €5.6 million to local authorities for such inspections last year, but it should be noted that the minimum standard policies are set by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and enforced by the local authorities.

The PRTB is involved in a major ICT project throughout the entire organisation. The first phase of this involved the roll-out of online registration facilities last November. Almost 35% of our landlord clients used this system in 2011 and this usage is growing steadily. Our new ICT facilities have also enabled us to engage in effective data exchange with other public sector organisations.

The Private Residential Tenancies Board replaces the courts for the majority of landlord and tenant disputes. Any registered landlord and all tenants, whether the tenancy is registered or not, can apply to have a dispute processed by the PRTB. We offer three dispute resolution mechanisms, namely, mediation and adjudication in the first instance and thereafter the outcome can be appealed to a three person tribunal. After a tribunal has reached a determination, the outcome can be appealed only on a point of law to the High Court. The fee for these services is €25 for mediation or adjudication and €100 on appeal to a tribunal. Since we offer a quasi-judicial service we must adhere to the same standards as the courts in terms of fair procedures. The Residential Tenancies Act is quite complex and very prescriptive in terms of procedures to be followed in our dispute resolution service. We may be subject to judicial review in any case.

I will now discuss the statistics requested in our invitation. During 2010, the PRTB received 2,230 applications for first stage dispute resolution, that is, mediation or adjudication, which represented a 20% increase on 2009. A total of 51% of applications related to tenancies in County Dublin and 49% to the remainder of the country. Of these applications, the two biggest categories of cases were deposit retention, which accounted for 43% of all adjudication or mediation applications, totalling 960 cases, and rent arrears complaints by landlords, which made up a further 31% of applications, or 690 cases. At this point in 2011, we are three quarters of the way through the year and rent arrears account for 32% of dispute applications with deposit retention accounting for 38%.

Disputes cases are heard by independent adjudicators appointed after an open competition run by the Public Appointments Service. Their determinations in 2010 were to order landlords to refund the full deposit in 42% of cases and part of the deposit in 37% of cases. The PRTB found that landlords were entitled to withhold the deposit in 21% of cases. Adjudicators have the discretion to award damages against landlords for wrongful deposit retention in addition to ordering the return of all or part of the deposit. They imposed damages in 21% of deposit cases during 2010.

At present, it takes an average of just less than nine months to process a case from dispute application to the making of a determination order by the board. The board of the PRTB has authorised that certain categories of cases be prioritised for hearing. Therefore, cases involving a tenant who is not paying rent but is over-holding in a property, instances of serious anti-social behaviour and illegal eviction cases can be processed in four to five months.

If either case party chooses to exercise his or her right under the Act to appeal the adjudication or mediation decision, the case will then queue for a further two to three months for a tribunal appeal hearing. The PRTB held 340 tenancy tribunals in 2010.

The PRTB has received some criticism for the delays in processing times which, though greatly improved, are not yet within six months, which in our corporate plan we aimed to achieve by the end of 2011. It should be noted that the PRTB significantly streamlined its business processes to reduce case processing times from 18 months to less than eight months between 2008 and 2010. In many cases significant delay is caused by tracing respondent parties to a dispute if the complainant has not provided a current address to serve case papers on the other parties.

The PRTB is working on an IT project to introduce online disputes and tribunal applications and electronic case management systems later this year. More critically, we are engaging with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. It is essential that the legislation is amended in order to allow us to further simplify our procedures.

As indicated earlier, the role of the PRTB includes the provision of policy advice to the Minister. As part of this role, the board periodically commissions research on the regulation of the private rental sector. In 2009, the former board of the PRTB commissioned research into the option of a deposit protection scheme. This research is publicly available on our website. At that time, the board noted that less than 1% of registered tenancies in a given year were involved in a dispute application for deposit retention. Based on the commissioned research, the board recommended that a proportionate response to the issue was that the Minister introduce an amendment to the Act to impose fines of two to three times the amount of the security deposit on landlords in cases where the landlord was found to have invalidly retained the security deposit. The heads of the Bill for the review of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, which went to Government in July of this year contained provision for a system of penalties. The board also reminded all adjudicators of their individual discretion under the current Act to award damages should they find that deposit retention was unjustified.

The programme for Government, published in February, contains a commitment that a tenancy deposit protection scheme will be established to put an end to disputes regarding the return of deposits. The Minister has now asked the PRTB to commission a study on the feasibility of introducing a deposit protection scheme, which would be integrated with the existing regulatory infrastructure for the private rented sector. Those familiar with the earlier research will know it did not include any detailed statistical analysis of the cost and benefits of establishing a deposit protection scheme as the board was not recommending the establishment of a scheme at that point. However, the PRTB will tender for a full cost benefit analysis in the coming weeks. This is normal procedure under the regulatory impact analysis guidelines for a regulatory proposal of this scale. The PRTB will make recommendations to the Minister based on the outcome of the cost benefit analysis.

The decision as to whether or not to proceed with a deposit protection scheme is, of course, a matter for Government. As committee members are aware, it is not appropriate for us as a State agency to comment on Government policy in a committee setting. The board's concerns will be to ensure that the decision to establish a deposit protection scheme is thoroughly researched.

While the terms of reference have yet to be finalised, they are likely to include the cost of establishing and administering the new system, bearing in mind that the PRTB costs approximately €8 million per annum to run and the serious economic challenges facing this country. In other words, like the PRTB, it must be self financing. The revenue stream must also be considered, bearing in mind the market size in Ireland and interest rate fluctuations. Adequate staffing is also an issue, as the PRTB has struggled to operate and improve its registrations and disputes services with 70 staff. Under the employment control framework we are obliged to reduce this number to 33 by the end of 2013. At the same time, we will be expected to broaden our remit to regulate the social and voluntary housing sector. It is important that we are adequately staffed to provide the expected service to our clients, particularly if we have taken deposits from them. The terms of reference should also consider the simplification and computerisation of processes. The UK scheme hears only deposit cases, which are processed only on paper, with no oral hearings. There is no appeal except directly to the courts and 90% of client services are on-line. Therefore, it is important to remove the unnecessary complexities of the current Residential Tenancies Act and not merely to layer a new system upon the existing legislation.

The PRTB board and management are honoured to be invited to assist the Minister and the Department with this important research and to advise on what would be a fundamental change in the Irish private rental market. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. We will be pleased to answer any questions.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

A culture seems to exist with regard to the retention of deposits which probably does not come as a great surprise as most of us will have been aware of it. What type of penalty can be imposed? Does a maximum penalty exist? Is it possible to sanction people for non-payment of rent? With regard to the additional remit of the PRTB and the potential reduction in staff how much will it cost to do the additional work and what additional charge will be imposed to cover it? Will the move to online services make a difference? Will it compensate for the people who will be lost?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

With regard to the retention of deposits, a deposit may be retained under particular circumstances and these are prescribed by the Residential Tenancies Act. They include rent arrears, outstanding utility bills and damage beyond normal wear and tear. It is probably the third of these instances which causes most contention in the event of a deposit dispute. Damages were awarded in 21% of cases last year but it is entirely at the discretion of the adjudicator who is independent of the PRTB. The amount of damages is between 10% and 25% of the initial deposit and it is at the discretion of the adjudicator who must have regard to the full circumstances of the case. Under the legislation these damages cannot be punitive in nature. The board has recommended to the Minister that the legislation should be amended so that damages of up to two to three times the deposit might be awarded in future. These would be considered punitive levels of damages.

With regard to the issue of staffing in the PRTB, which is the third part of the question, it will be very difficult for it to continue to operate existing services with those levels of cuts. We are not unique in terms of staffing cuts; they apply across the public sector. Our employment control framework, ECF, proposes that by the end of this year we reduce staffing levels to 50, to 35 by end of 2012, and 33 by end of 2013.

The Deputy mentioned automation and that is part of the solution and process we are trying to put in place to deal with the cuts. We now have online registration, although the uptake, at 35%, is not sufficient to compensate for staff reductions. We are also considering other measures such as shared services with the Revenue Commissioners. We are in the process of setting an arrangement in place with it whereby it will scan forms that arrive in paper format and try to read some of the information, particularly if it is typed, for us.

In addition to the streamlining that is taking place internally by staff, we will also consider other options such as shared services and potential outsourcing to try to deal with the staff reduction as best we can. It will have an impact.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

One point was not addressed, namely the work the PRTB has been asked to do for the Minister on the research project. Given that it is self financing as depositors cover the cost, what additional fee would accrue should it take on that work?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

Is the Deputy asking about the cost of the research?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It now costs €90 for people to register. Would that increase to cover the cost?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

Is the Deputy referring to the cost of the deposit protection scheme?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Yes.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

We want the deposit protection scheme to be self financing. I will ask Professor O'Sullivan to comment on it.

Professor Eoin O’Sullivan

It would depend on the type of scheme that was put in place. There are two broad types of deposit retention schemes, namely, a custodial scheme and an insurance based scheme. It would be determined whether such a scheme was done privately and embedded within the existing infrastructure of the PRTB. We would need to take a range of variables into consideration before we could answer that question.

Ms Orla Coyne

In respect of the matter raised by Deputy Murphy on penalties for the retention of deposits, we could not be too punitive. All the adjudications are independent and because they are, in essence, held in camera we would not hear the evidence. It is a matter for the adjudicator to award whatever damages he or she believes are necessary at the time.

Chairman

There is a vote in the Seanad. We will continue the meeting with the permission of the two Senators present and as soon as they return I will call on them. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the delegates for their presentation. This is an issue most of us have come across in our communities. We have dealt with residents who have complained to the PRTB. Many issues concern deposits and arrears. People have terrible trouble with landlords and usually we direct them towards the PRTB or somewhere else. The delays in dealing with cases are significant, in some cases six or eight months. In the meantime people are left in limbo and in some cases have to borrow money to continue paying rent.

Many landlords are registered but others are not. What actions are taken when they are discovered to not have registered? What is the role of the PRTB in dealing with antisocial tenants? We have all experience of a person who lives beside a neighbour who plays music and other such things. There are very strict rules and unless there is a conviction it is very difficult for a landlord to evict a tenant because there is a lease of some description.

What is the role of the PRTB in deciding if a dwelling is unfit for occupancy or not being properly maintained by a landlord?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

I will answer the first question and then hand over to Mr. Gallagher who will deal with the question on antisocial behaviour.

On registrations, the PRTB this year as part of its ICT programme has taken delivery of a new software package which allows us to systematically identify from sources such as the rent supplement database landlords who are unregistered. We always engaged in enforcement against unregistered landlords but did not have the capability to do so in such a systematic fashion.

We took the quarter 4 database from the Department of Social Protection and identified 37% of landlords in receipt of rent supplement via their tenants - it is considered an income support - were not registered with us. We also took the quarter 1 database, examined it and found that 34% of landlords approved for new cases were not registered. Between May and the end of October this year alone we will have followed up 10,000 cases.

The legislation prescribes the course we must take in the event of uncovering an unregistered landlord. From our perspective, we were set up to take work from the courts. We offer landlords an opportunity to mend their hand and register with us before we proceed with criminal prosecutions, bearing in mind the burden on the court and the very serious consequences for individuals if they receive a criminal conviction. We have issued 7,756 first notices since May this year. They are official notices under the Act to alert a landlord to the fact we are aware he or she has not registered and should do so immediately.

Some 876 second notices have been issued and by the end of this month another batch of 1,500 second notices will be issued. There have been 14 criminal convictions handed out since last November by the courts and substantial fines have been imposed in some cases.

I have addressed most of the question on unregistered landlords.

Mr. Frank Gallagher

On the issue of anti-social behaviour, the landlord or the affected individual, such as the neighbour, can take a case to the PRTB. The affected person takes a case against the landlord for breach of his or her obligations. The adjudicator examining the case can order a landlord to enforce his or her obligations and award damages against a landlord. It is a major disincentive for the landlord not to deal with the situation.

When an application is submitted to the PRTB we will notify the landlord within a matter of weeks that there is a case against him or her. Sometimes that can resolve the issue immediately without the need for a case hearing. Antisocial behaviour of a serious nature is a criminal matter and something the Garda has to deal with in the first instance.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

Is every person in receipt of rent supplement registered with the PRTB? I understand approximately 95,000 people are in receipt of RAS and rent supplement. It costs the State some €500 million a year, which is a huge amount of money. Based on the comments of the delegation, its resources are very thin. The number of people we are dealing with and the amount of money involved are significant.

Mr. Frank Gallagher

The RAS is an agreement with the local authority-----

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I know, but it is still a private-----

Mr. Frank Gallagher

The rent supplement scheme is with the PRTB.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

Fair enough.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

With regard to the rent supplement scheme, one must register with us within a month of the tenancy commencing. Therefore, there is a gap. The Department of Social Protection provides us with its database of tenants it approved for rent supplement in the previous quarter. We run a computer programme to match this against our register and to identify who is not registered. As I mentioned, we were taken aback with the number of unregistered landlords. This is being followed up with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and our colleagues at the Department of Social Protection. They are examining measures to address this. At present, the answer to the Deputies question is "No".

The Deputy asked a question on minimum standards. The role of the PRTB is to fund the minimum standards regime. Inspections are carried out by local authorities because they have the staff and expertise to do so. Last year, we paid out €5.6 million and I understand from my colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government the number of inspections carried out nationwide last year which were funded by this was 21,614. The standards are set by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. One of our categories of cases is breach of landlord standards.

Mr. Frank Gallagher

Maintenance of dwelling accounts for 5% of the cases which come before us.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

Such cases can come to our attention indirectly in this way. The inspection regime is a matter for local authorities.

Chairman

As Senator Landy is attending a vote in the Seanad, I call Deputy Coffey.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I welcome the delegation from the PRTB to discuss this important issue today. I concur with previous speakers that the matter of unregistered landlords is serious. Landlords are obliged by law to register and I hope the introduction of the PRTB's new IT capabilities and the use of them in interaction with local authorities and the Department of Social Protection will flag many unregistered landlords who have tenants receiving rent supplement. Moves are afoot to move rent supplement responsibilities from the Department of Social Protection to local authorities and this should improve matters with regard to how the various systems communicate and the data the PRTB receives from local authorities so it can have a much more positive way of ensuring unregistered landlords are made to register as they are required under law. Any progress in this regard is very welcome.

Is it correct to state that the PRTB's online registration system is relatively new?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

Yes.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Previous committee meetings were told about big backlogs and delays in registration as the process involved manual paperwork which had to be double checked by PRTB personnel. Ms Caulfield mentioned there is now a 35% uptake of online registration which is welcome but I hope it will increase. What backlogs exist at the PRTB at present with regard to the manual processing of registrations? Are they serious? Is progress being made on them? On a related matter, is the new IT system streamlined to deal with a change of tenant? How quickly can the online registration of a new tenant be completed? Do delays exist in this respect?

With regard to standards of rental accommodation, I appreciate it is the Minister who sets the standards and local authorities which inspect. Two years ago, the PRTB had accumulated funds of approximately €10 million which was lying in its accounts because inspections were not being carried out. Ms Caulfield reported that €5.6 million was disbursed in 2010. What level of its related funds is in the PRTB accounts now? How can it be disbursed to local authorities to ensure they do the job they are obliged to do with regard to inspections?

Anti-social behaviour has already been discussed. At present, in my constituency there are serious problems in a very well-known private rented estate, Templars Hall, which is near the college. A huge amount of Garda and college resources go into dealing with anti-social behaviour. Other private residents live in the estate and they are desperate to find a resolution. What role, if any, does the PRTB have in assisting the Garda or innocent third parties where tenants run riot in an estate? I understand landlords have responsibilities but what responsibilities do tenants have to third parties? Does the PRTB have a role in oversight or assisting the Garda in identifying the tenants so they can be brought before the courts. This is a very important issue. The citizens in this estate in Waterford are desperate because they know neither the tenants nor the landlords.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

I will deal first with the question on registration backlogs. We encourage online registration. At present, the uptake is 35%. We provide assistance on our phone lines to people engaging with the system for the first time and we talk people through it. Through surveys with clients, we have identified the areas which people were finding more difficult and have included extra prompts. If one hovers over parts of the electronic form one will receive a prompt with regard to the information we seek. The form is quite prescriptive with regard to the information one must provide to register with the PRTB and something we are examining with regard to reform of the legislation is whether all of this information is required. The Act states one shall provide the information. Some of it is necessary for the rent index which we hope to produce later this year or early next year and we will continue to collect this information, but we would like more discretion with regard to other information and what we would include in the form.

Related to this is the level of incomplete forms we receive which at times can be as high as 60%. Therein lies the reason for delays; if we do not have the information the Act states we must collect, a level of interaction is required to chase up on it. We must also deal with the paper applications which continue to be submitted. Until such time as the online take-up increases we will consider other options.

I mentioned we have been in discussions with our colleagues at the Revenue Commissioners who are examining the possibility of scanning for us. We would send them paper forms, and it should be possible to scan some or all of the information on forms printed on a PC rather than having to manually input all of the information. This should lead to a reduction in the backlogs. If one's form is complete even if it is submitted by paper it will be processed in a couple of weeks. A complete form submitted online will be acknowledged immediately with a letter to follow. For the purposes of Revenue, the online system is the way to go, particularly this month when people are trying to make their tax returns.

The Deputy asked about minimum standards and whether we have money in reserve as we did when we appeared before the committee previously. I checked the figures with the Department this morning in anticipation of this question. At the end of last month we had €4 million in reserve for local authority inspections. The Department expects it will be in a position to draw down €3 million of this by the end of the year. How it is disbursed is a matter for the Department but I gather it is by way of a formula involving the number of registered tenancies in a given local authority area and the number of inspections carried out. This is to encourage the inspection level.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I apologise for interrupting. Does the PRTB receive reports from local authorities on how many houses are inspected in each local authority area? Is there any interaction in that respect that would help the PRTB in the future to inform its officers when making decisions on appeal regarding standards?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

The local authorities do not generally give us reports with regard to standards as such because they have their own powers. I may be straying a little from my area of expertise but they have the powers to prohibit a person from renting if the conditions are such that they are unsafe. The local authorities can also issue notices to say that works must be carried out by a certain date. This is an area of expertise belonging to the local authorities as opposed to my area of expertise. With regard to feedback to the PRTB from the local authorities, we receive feedback on particular issues. For example, if they encounter unregistered tenancies we would pursue the case.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I apologise for labouring the issue but it is important. I accept completely that the local authority is responsible for enforcing standards but if a dispute between a tenant and a landlord arises about standards, is the local authority required to keep that inspection report? Substantial moneys are being expended on local authority inspections. Where are such reports held and has the PRTB access to these reports in the event of dispute resolution? It would be important that the PRTB would have such access when this money is being spent on inspections.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

My colleague, Orla Coyne, sits on tribunals. These reports would be submitted occasionally as evidence.

Ms Orla Coyne

We receive reports periodically and they are produced by the tenant who has contacted the local authority. I am not sure if there is a register of reports because this is beyond my remit but the local authority, I imagine, would have a register of these houses or apartments which it has inspected. We hold the reports on the file when they are submitted to us.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

Ms Coyne is an officer sitting on a tribunal. If Ms Coyne were dealing with a dispute about standards, would such a local authority report be available to her?

Ms Orla Coyne

Yes, we have had these reports in front of us.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

The other matter I wish to raise is anti-social behaviour.

Chairman

I can invite the Deputy to speak in a moment.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I had asked the question previously.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I am conscious of time restrictions and I will restrict my comments to the question of the proposed rental deposit protection scheme. Ms Caulfield has told the committee that deposit retention represents 43% of all adjudications and mediation cases and that it takes on average nine months to process a case. I note from the presentation that the PRTB aims for a shorter time of six months, as proposed in its corporate plan. This goal is probably unlikely to be achieved this year. I think she would accept that a nine-month or even a six-month delay is quite tardy. Because of the tardiness and related issues, NGOs working in the sector are essentially picking up the slack and providing advice and advocacy services and direction in certain cases. They are filling the gap that exists because of that time delay.

It has been argued to me by constituents that the time delays in recovering deposits has, to a degree, affected public confidence in the operation of the PRTB. As a result, tenants sometimes feel they need to take alternative approaches to recover deposits. There is also a question as to the capacity of the PRTB to enforce the regulations. Ms Caulfield has pointed out that it may be expected over time that enforcement and sanctions will be addressed in legislation and I will certainly support any approach of that nature. Given the current climate, I do not think it tolerable or acceptable that tenants should have to wait an excessive time to have a deposit returned which is their entitlement. Often this makes a difference for a person deciding whether he or she can do the shopping that week, given the current circumstances.

There is sufficient and adequate research available on the Government's position with regard to the deposit protection scheme. The analysis was carried out by academics and NGOs and others and also deriving from information from the PRTB which would suggest to me and, I hope, other committee members that now is the time to introduce a protection scheme. In the next few years, the aspiration of owning a home will not be realised for many people because of the economic circumstances. We are dealing with a set of circumstances where confidence in the private rented market is required. There needs to be protection for good landlords and security for tenants.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

I will address the issue of the delays. The PRTB would prefer if it were possible to process its cases more quickly than nine months. There has been a reduction in the time from 18 months to nine months and this was brought about by a number of different internal streamlining initiatives which were embraced by both the staff and by our adjudicators. We have taken a number of different initiatives such as an initial assessment unit which examines all the dispute cases and informs both parties of the burden of proof and evidence required in order to prove a case before the PRTB. This has been very successful as up to one third of our cases are settled at that early stage and prior to a hearing once parties are aware of what their rights and responsibilities are under the Act and the burden of proof required of them.

Adjudicators are now required to hear three cases per day for the same daily fee and they no longer receive travel and subsistence payments. The business processes have been streamlined resulting in a 50% increase in the processing of cases by staff. We introduced paper-based adjudications for the deposit retention cases because some cases are more straightforward involving the deposit retention. Rather than putting people to the expense and delay of a hearing, we use that system. We have also set various targets and a telephone queries management system. The Deputy referred to advocacy groups taking telephone calls. The PRTB took 78,000 phone calls in 2010 and 23,000 of those calls related to disputes. While I am unable to quantify definitively for the Deputy the number of disputes resolved in this manner, I listen to the calls every day as I sit near that area of the office and the information given would certainly clarify for people their rights and responsibilities under the Act. It is my belief that this service has reduced the number of cases going to hearing.

As for further improving our processing times, certainly more facilities would be required. We are bringing an ICT system on line which will bring some benefits in terms of the amount of paper evidence being handled. We hope to have all paperwork scanned by the Revenue Commissioners in order that it can be distributed electronically to the case parties and to the adjudicators. This would avoid the need for staff to stand at photocopiers processing paperwork for evidence, as is the case at present.

The fundamental change required will be the Residential Tenancies Act. Other practitioners, all our stakeholders and some of the Judiciary have commented on the complexity of the Act. This Act was a greenfield site and we have all learned over recent years. There is certainly a willingness on the part of our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to reduce the complexities in the Act. This will bring about greater efficiencies and the PRTB is anxious to take advantage of them.

The second issue raised by the Deputy is that of enforcement. With regard to the determination orders, more than two thirds of our enforcement orders, once issued, are complied with by the parties. Of the remaining one third of the orders, the parties can come to the PRTB if they do not comply with the terms of the determination. In the first instance, we seek a resolution of the matter. A tenant may be unable to pay considerable rent arrears in one payment. Many landlords are willing to take the arrears in instalments. We would write to both parties several times in an effort to seek compliance and our solicitors would also do so.

Of the cases that come to us, approximately one third must go all the way to court. I can provide the statistics with regard to enforcements. So far this year, we have had 34 civil prosecutions with regard to not adhering to determination orders and 11 criminal prosecutions. It is a serious issue. It is a resource-intensive and expensive process to go to court on determination orders. It would be a concern if, in these more stringent or difficult economic times, the level of enforcement required was to increase. That demand would be difficult financially. It is a matter we take seriously and we follow up as quickly as we can if people do not adhere to our determination orders.

The next question related to the deposit protection scheme and I will ask Professor O'Sullivan to comment on that.

Professor Eoin O’Sullivan

The board dealing with the deposit protection scheme has two pieces of research to examine in this regard. The two studies to date have been comparative studies and we have looked at schemes that exist in a number of other countries. We have not yet worked out a detailed cost-benefit analysis of applying a deposit protection scheme, be it insurance based or a custodial scheme, to the existing Irish infrastructure. In other words, it is not a greenfield site and we cannot simply pluck a scheme from another country and make it work in Ireland. We have a legislative and infrastructural system in place and any new scheme must be embedded within that. The board does not have a view on this. Our job is to give information to the Minister based on the best evidence we have.

Currently, we do not have robust reliable evidence on the cost or benefit of introducing a scheme into Ireland. Hence, we are in the process of commissioning research on this. When we get the results of that research, we will be in a much better position to look at the costs and benefits of a deposit scheme. We must be aware there is not just a single scheme but different types of deposit protection schemes. Other countries, which seem on the surface to operate straightforward, simple, cost-effective and efficient schemes, do so in a context where they do not have the complexity of the Residential Tenancies Act. That Act, as pointed out by Ms Caulfield, provides significant protection to both landlords and tenants but is extraordinarily complex legislation. Any deposit protection scheme must be embedded within that or we would have to repeal the existing legislation and start again. This demonstrates the complexity of introducing a deposit protection scheme. It must be embedded within the Residential Tenancies Act and be linked into the existing standards for private rented housing and a number of other regulatory frameworks.

The study we are about to commission will try to include all those variables in the analysis in order that we are in a position to give robust and reliable evidence and policy advice to the Minister based on that research.

Chairman

Deputy Coffey asked about anti-social behaviour. I am conscious that we are discussing the rental deposit protection scheme and do not wish to drift into other issues, but perhaps the delegation could respond on anti-social behaviour and how it might have an impact on deposits.

Mr. Frank Gallagher

I will just add to the response I gave previously to Deputy Ellis. As I explained, there is a court system in place. With regard to information on rental properties, affected persons can apply to the PRTB to get the details of the owner of a property. They are entitled to request details from us as to who is the landlord of the property to enable them contact the landlord and try to resolve the matter. With regard to the Garda, if the Garda requests data from us on a landlord or the tenants in a property, we can supply that information. The PRTB must operate within the Residential Tenancies Act. We do not, as such, have an investigative role but simply deal with the cases and evidence brought and put before us.

Chairman

Senator Landy went out to vote but has returned. I call him now to ask his questions.

Senator Denis Landy

I apologise for having to leave, but it was part of my duty. I hope I will not repeat questions asked already. What is the level of awareness among tenants and landlords with regard to the service provided by the PRTB? How does the board raise that awareness? How many tenants or landlords abandon their cases because of the delay in dealing with them? It was said there is an eight-month delay but that the board was trying to improve on that. How realistic is it to expect the board to reach the target of a six-month timescale before the end of this year, as planned?

With regard to cases in which a determination has been made, how many of these are not followed through on by either the landlord or the tenant? I know of one case where the determination order has been signed and notices have been sent by registered post to both parties. The innocent party has complied with everything, but the other party has just thrown up their hands and nothing has happened. What does the board do and what is the next step for people in such a case?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

The first question related to how we promote awareness of the service provided by the board among landlords and tenants. One of our initiatives over the past couple of years was to establish a stakeholders group, chaired by Professor Eoin O'Sullivan, under our research, education and awareness committee. We have representatives of all the people speaking to the committee today and other organisations on that. These come to us on a quarterly basis and we discuss the issues relating to their stakeholder groups and what we can do to address those. We also discuss the issue of broader awareness. We have also spoken to landlords and others at numerous seminars we conduct each year throughout the country. This year, Mr. Gallagher also provided training to the accommodation officers from the Union of Students in Ireland at their annual training event in Cork.

We have also produced a number of leaflets, such as one entitled Good Landlord, Good Tenant. This is a credit card sized information leaflet which expands out and gives a good overview in layman's language of the Act. That leaflet has been translated into nine different languages and is available on our website and through some of our networks. While we must bear in mind the cost of advertising now, over recent months we have tried to advertise our service through RTE and have taken a four page spread in Metro. We have done what we can in terms of education awareness. While we cannot give every interview requested, we try to engage with the media on particular issues. For example, our most recent press release concerned students taking up rented accommodation for the first time, informing them of matters of which they should be aware before entering into leases. Therefore, within the resources available to us, we are mindful of the fact that education and awareness are an important part of our remit.

Does the committee want me to go over the position with regard to delays and the streamlining of processes within the PRTB?

Chairman

That is on the record.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

We went into that already. We also looked briefly at the issue of enforcement and I explained to the committee our activities in that area in recent months. As mentioned, approximately two thirds of determination orders are adhered to almost immediately. As for the other one third, by making additional contact we generally get a further two thirds adherence to the order. It is only the remainder then that must go to court. I had some of the statistics earlier on prosecutions. They are on the record, but I can give them again.

Chairman

Ms Caulfield might as well do that because there have been a few questions on them.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

In 2011, we had 34 civil prosecutions and 11 criminal prosecutions, with a number of other cases pending. That process is quite expensive. Perhaps Ms Coyne would like to comment on that.

Ms Orla Coyne

With regard to enforcement, we are always looking at new ways of enforcing our determination orders. This year, we tendered for a new legal contract. Our solicitors are in situ and we had a meeting last week, which I am not at liberty to discuss. It is always a topic with regard to dealing with determination orders more efficiently and as quickly as possible. When people talk about enforcement, we are aware that retention of deposits could stop tenants from moving into a new tenancy and, in this climate, rent arrears have major implications for landlords. We are mindful of the enforcement of our determination orders and are always looking for new ways to do this.

Chairman

The presentation referred to how 43% of the workload is dealing with rental disputes and that the result of 42% of those disputes find in favour of the tenant and a further 37% find partly in favour of the tenant. In 79% of these cases, which represents 43% of the workload of the PRTB, the PRTB finds totally or partly in favour of the tenant. Is that correct?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

That is true in deposit retention cases.

Chairman

I am putting 42% and 37% together.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

That represents 79% of the deposit retention cases.

Chairman

Some 43% of the workload of the PRTB, almost half of what it does, deals with deposit retention. What is the average sum of deposit for tenants? Is it €500 or €600? The PRTB is carrying out a study at the moment. I understand that the role of the PRTB is to implement the Residential Tenancies Act, not to decide which way the Act should travel. However, there is an examination of the national deposit scheme under way at present. The sums have not been done but the board is looking at how the sums will stack up. Has the board also given consideration to whether, if the deposit scheme is put in place in the morning, this would increase the number of registrations and the incidence of registration compliance? If there is a national deposit scheme where it is legally compelling to hold the deposit in a specific account, what would be the impact on registration? We are sure there is not 100% compliance with registration. Has consideration been given to this in respect of what is being forwarded to the Minister?

How many cases are at the enforcement stage? An indication of this figure was given. Are these cases that were brought to the attention of the board by people seeking the enforcement? Are there cases on which the PRTB has made an adjudication but that have not gone to the enforcement stage because the party to whom money is outstanding has not brought this information to the attention of the PRTB? Do the figures presented represent cases the PRTB has been harangued into pursuing or is the PRTB aware of all cases that have not yet been fully resolved? Is the board also chasing these cases? If a tenant has a deposit outstanding, and the landlord has not complied with a ruling, is it up to the tenant to contact the board to say that he or she has not yet received the cheque? Does the board follow up on this?

Given that this represents 43% of the board's work, has a study been done on the geography of this cohort? Is it particular to a part of the country or a particular sector, such as students or those on social welfare? For someone on social welfare to lose a deposit is a major problem because the next time they go for a rental agreement and there is difficulty with the deposit, the person will have difficulty getting the community welfare officer to provide another deposit. Are there serial offenders, either landlords or tenants? Do tenants consistently lose deposits and do landlords consistently withhold deposits even though the PRTB finds against them? Is there some sanction for breach of the registration process for the landlord or the tenant? I have already asked about the PRTB monitoring compliance with its determinations. Whose responsibility is to monitor the determinations? Is the landlord, the tenant or the PRTB responsible?

The inspection regime is an important process and landlords get a bad deal in this regard. Every PRTB registration requires a sum of money to be lifted out, put into an account and sent to local authorities. Over the years, the level of inspections carried out by local authorities has been appalling. Some local authorities carried out no inspections in some years. The job of the board is to transfer the money to the local authority. If I move into a property in the morning and there is a dispute about the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy when no inspection has been carried out, it is difficult to decide who is right and who us wrong. That is the point Deputy Coffey alluded to and which we discussed with the PRTB a couple of years ago. How much money is sitting in that account? Two years ago, it was approximately €10 million.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

There are quite a few questions there. I last checked the level of deposits a couple of months ago and I believe it has dipped slightly since then because rental levels have dipped. It was €815 as of April or May.

The second question is whether the introduction of a deposit protection scheme would improve the situation with regard to compliance with the requirement to register. I do not know because it is a statutory obligation and one can end up with a criminal conviction if one does not register. Looking at statistics on rent supplement and dispute cases that come before us, approximately 30% may not be registered with us. It is already a legal obligation and quite a serious offence not to register, yet a certain cohort must be pursued constantly.

The next question concerns whether we keep any statistics on the geographical area of the deposit cases. We have a breakdown by county and we can provide it to the committee secretariat. We do not collect information on the people's circumstances, whether they are in receipt of social welfare or are students. I am not sure we are entitled to but it is not a matter we have examined. Under data protection legislation, such collection would have to be required for the purposes for which we were set up.

Regarding compliance with determination orders, it is open to parties to pursue their own compliance and occasionally we see cases going through. A number of high profile cases have been taken. Some people seek compliance themselves and is not necessarily the case-----

Chairman

That is not the question I am asking. I am asking whether the PRTB monitors compliance. It is quite expensive for a person to take a civil case. The PRTB was set up by the Residential Tenancies Act as a quasi-judicial structure. When a ruling is made, the onus should not be on the landlord or the tenant. It should be on the PRTB, given its quasi-judicial function. Is the PRTB monitoring its own rulings? If it finds they are not being delivered on, does it chase all those involved to court?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

The Act says that we may enforce rulings but does not say we should. Ms Coyne is more of an expert on this than me.

Ms Orla Coyne

Under the Act, there is no obligation. We may enforce our determination orders or we may monitor them, but we do not have to.

Chairman

Good practice would indicate that the board should pursue cases. If it does not enforce its own rulings in court, it ends up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will not be complied with. If I were a landlord or a tenant I would say, "The PRTB never goes to court on these things - why would I adhere to its ruling?". The PRTB is unique in that it is the only agency that operates in a quasi-judicial fashion. In fact, it has more powers than this committee has at present with regard to making rulings. We will see after the referendum later this month whether we will have more powers than the PRTB, but at this moment in time it has more. It makes quasi-judicial rulings that have an impact in law. Do those in the PRTB follow up on these rulings and, if they are not being adhered to, pursue those involved? If not, they are doing the agency a bad service. How many do they follow up, or is it the case that the client must inform the agency that a ruling is not being followed up?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

The covering letter that issues with a determination order informs the parties that they may contact us if the order is not adhered to. In 2010 we had 561 requests for enforcement, of which 48% were from landlords, 50% from tenants and 2% from third parties. Some 43% of those cases were to do with deposit retention and 31% were to do with rent arrears. As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, in the first instance we seek to get the parties to comply by corresponding with them. We write to them ourselves and point out the serious consequences that may arise if we have to take them to court, including the effect on future credit ratings, applications for loans and so on. If that does not work, our solicitors write to them, and thereafter, unfortunately, we have to go down the route of court enforcement, which is expensive and can take quite a while.

Chairman

Given that 43% of the work of the PRTB is related to rental deposits, and putting aside the actual rulings and the issue of enforcement, has the PRTB calculated the cost of dealing with deposit disputes each year?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

I will have to come back to the Chairman with those figures. We do have costings.

Chairman

It is a critical figure.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

I can tell the Chairman the fee for hearing a dispute and I can tell him what we spent on enforcement last year.

Chairman

How much is the fee for hearing a dispute?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

It is €222 per case, calculated on the basis of three cases per day. That is for adjudication.

Chairman

There are three cases a day at €200 each?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

No. For the entire day, it is €666.

Mr. Frank Gallagher

Yes. The adjudicator is paid a daily fee of €660 and he or she hears three cases.

Chairman

For that he or she will hear three cases?

Mr. Frank Gallagher

He or she will also prepare a report.

Chairman

If I was running an organisation and 43% of its work was in one area, I would certainly have a figure for how much it was costing me. Particularly in view of the fact that the programme for Government has already stated something in this regard, the first question I would ask is how much it is costing at present to administer the system. I would appreciate it if the witnesses could provide these figures.

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

We do have these figures, because they were prepared in the context of our multi-annual budgets. Had I known-----

Chairman

You do not have them here?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

I do not have them with me. Had you told me in advance, I would have brought them.

Chairman

We already know about figures such as the 43% because we discussed this with the PRTB two years ago. With regard to deposit disputes, the one thing I would be asking myself is how much the system is costing at present to administer. I will accept those figures from Ms Caulfield at a later time.

Deputy Clare Daly

Much of the information we have received so far encourages me to think that we definitely do need a deposit protection scheme. It strikes me that the function of the board is twofold. The first is to register properties so that somebody else can monitor and enforce standards, perhaps county councils, although I am sure the taxman might have an interest also. Clearly, information technology can make that part of its brief easier. It is outrageous that the Department of Social Protection was not handing over information prior to last year and that such co-operation did not take place, because, presumably, there is a cost in terms of tax avoidance for every landlord who is not registered and not paying his or her taxes.

The figures the witnesses gave about staff reductions were stark, with numbers going down from 70 to 33 within two years. Computers can assist with registration but I am not aware of their being able to facilitate dispute resolution, which appears to be - and in my opinion should be - a key part of the PRTB's brief. In that context, what is the opinion of the witnesses on the discrepancy between the number of cases that come before the board and the information submitted by those in the voluntary sector, such as Threshold and the USI, who deal directly with people on issues that come under its remit? Why do people go to those organisations instead of to the PRTB? I am not saying that in a derogatory way. It is probably for historical reasons; Threshold has a much higher profile on this issue so tenants may be more likely to go there. I was a USI officer myself and saw many cases. I believe the USI's figure of tens of thousands of cases versus the 1,000 that the PRTB deals with. Either people do not know about the PRTB or the serious time delay means that people have to walk away. Students move or leave for the summer and it is finished. There is no confidence in the process. That is an indication that we need something different.

I would like the witnesses to comment on the idea of doing a study. It was mentioned by organisations such as Threshold 20 years ago that such a scheme should be available. We will spend another ten years having another study done.

Chairman

We are discussing it this afternoon, Deputy Daly, so perhaps you could direct your questions to the board.

Deputy Clare Daly

Why would the PRTB need another study when it is sitting on about ten of them already?

What is the point of having regulation if it is not enforced? I do not buy the suggestion that is it being properly enforced. That is the case because of the low numbers. I am aware of a number of cases. Off the top of my head, I can recall a case in which people were evicted in April 2008 and a determination was made in favour of the tenant with thousands to be paid in compensation, but nothing was done. These are not Mickey Mouse cases - there was compensation of €10,000 in one case and €7,500 in another. In 2009 the people involved in the case I mentioned went back to the board and asked it to do something about enforcement. It is now 2011 and there has been no follow-up action. If such serious penalties are not being pursued, that tells me that the lesser ones are not being pursued either. I am aware of a number of cases from 2009 and 2010 involving large penalties in which the determinations have not been enforced. I would like more detail on that. Ms Caulfield said that the board may enforce determinations but it does not have to. If it is not enforcing orders involving large sums, which are left outstanding for years, that tells me it is not really enforcing the smaller orders either. I would like more comment on that.

Deputy Sandra McLellan

I thank the witnesses for their presentation, which was very informative. I would like to touch on the enforcement of determination orders, which continues to be a major problem. I ask them to comment on the fact that the Cork office of Threshold currently has 12 cases going back as far as 2008.

Tenants are currently being informed by the PRTB that due to the lack of resources there may be long delays in enforcement, and they are being advised to pursue enforcement of determination orders themselves through the courts. Aside from the other concerns this raises, such as the financial cost and inconvenience of going through the civil courts, would the witnesses agree that the failure to enforce determination orders risks undermining the PRTB? There is potential for increased numbers of landlords to ignore determination orders in the knowledge that there will be no consequences. I understand that even if tenants proceed with cases in the courts, the PRTB might not be in a position to release files to them for data protection reasons, which means their ability to fight their cases is undermined.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I welcome the delegates. I agree with other speakers that a deposit protection scheme is badly needed. The delegates referred to a figure of 1% of registered tenancies in a given year being involved in a dispute over deposit retention. However, that is only what is reported to the Private Residential Tenancies Board. I am confident the true figure is significantly higher, because many people are not aware of the process for reporting such disputes.

The delegates indicated that in 42% of deposit dispute cases the landlord is ordered to refund in full, while in 37% of cases the landlord is ordered to refund part of the deposit. In other words, in 79% of disputed cases which come before the board, the landlord is obliged to refund some amount. In 21% of cases the finding is in favour of the landlord on the basis that the deposit was properly withheld. What is the breakdown of complaints made? The vast majority will be made by tenants, but are many complaints submitted by landlords?

In regard to non-registration, if I heard correctly, the delegates indicated that 34% of tenancies that were in receipt of rent allowance turned out not to be registered when the PRTB performed the data check using the new software. It seems fair to assume that in the case of households in receipt of rent allowance, there will be a higher rate of compliance because the landlord knows the tenant has had to complete forms and engage with the local community welfare officer. On the other hand, in the case of a person who is renting privately, and whose status as a private renter is known to the landlord, it is safe to assume there will be a greater likelihood of non-registration. Do the delegates have a figure or rough estimation for the rate of non-registration in respect of tenancies not in receipt of rental allowance?

I understand 21,614 inspections were carried out in 2010. Do we have a breakdown of that per county? I do not want to take up the committee's time with this, but I would like to know whether that figure is available.

I regularly photocopy two pages from the small booklet issued by the PRTB in 2005 for constituents. The booklet, which lists tenants' and landlords' obligations, was not distributed very widely but is very useful. I have photocopied information from it some 100 times over the years. Are there any plans to re-issue this booklet?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

I shall start with an issue raised by both Deputies Clare Daly and Brian Stanley regarding the exchange of information between the PRTB and the Department of Social Protection. The Department has always given us the information to which we are entitled under the legislation regarding persons in receipt of rent supplement. Our difficulty was not that the information was not forthcoming but that we had to go through it manually. Now we have software to assist us in terms of identifying in a systematic fashion those tenancies which are not registered. Moreover, our electronic case management file system assists us in pursuing people because we are no longer reliant on storing such information in spreadsheets. I did not intend to infer in any way that we have not received the assistance we require from the Department.

Similarly, the PRTB provides information to the Revenue Commissioners on a regular basis and did so again in the last month in respect of our entire database. It is a matter for the Revenue to pursue individual landlords in respect of rent received. In terms of exchange of information, therefore, in so far as we are authorised to do so under the legislation, the process is operating effectively.

Deputy Daly asked about studies and how we are using them. I ask my colleague, Professor O'Sullivan, to comment on that.

Professor Eoin O’Sullivan

We have already commissioned two pieces of research. There has been a great deal of comment about the necessity for a deposit retention scheme but little robust evidence to support claims for its feasibility. The studies we have conducted to date have been comparative studies which simply looked at the types of schemes in operation in different jurisdictions. No organisation, including the PRTB, has yet to undertake a robust and detailed cost benefit analysis of the implications of setting up a new organisation, including staffing implications, compliance requirements and so on. There is a range of factors the board would need to consider before offering any advice to the Minister. Every proposal must be evidence-based.

We are currently of the view that we do not have a sufficiently robust base of evidence to support advice to the Minister in this regard. Hence, our first proposal was an amendment to the existing legislation to allow for the imposition of a mandatory fine. While the Chairman is correct in pointing out that 43% of our workload involves rental disputes, that is not the entirety of the work of the board. In the context of 250,000 registered tenancies, it is a relatively small number of cases. However, the board is committed, in consultation with our stakeholders - and the key stakeholders are members of the research, advisory and awareness committee of the board - to examining this issue. It will not happen in a vacuum but rather following active consultation with all our stakeholders. We are very clear, before giving advice to the Minister, that we require robust, reliable evidence. While there may be many parties arguing for the usefulness of a deposit retention scheme, the board will be guided by the evidence it gathers. At the moment there is insufficient evidence to allow us to give advice to the Minister on this matter.

The Chairman asked about rent allowance. In our first report we explored the question of whether there was scope for a deposit bond scheme, given that approximately 100,000 tenancies are now covered by the rent supplement scheme. There might be a particularly strong argument for moving from cash transfers to a bond scheme following the transfer of the administration of the rent supplement from the Department of Social Protection to local authorities. We will examine that in the context of the viability of the scheme. If, for example, 100,000 tenancies were moved to a security bond scheme, one would be left with 250,000 tenancies where a deposit would be paid into a potential organisation. One must then look at the cost benefits of a much smaller pool. Under the United Kingdom system, even in cases where there have been in excess of 500,000 registered tenancies, such a scheme has not proved financially viable.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Most of the representations I receive in respect of rent and deposit disputes come from tenants. However, there are good landlords. I know of one landlord who could not get his house back for his own family's use. Will the delegates comment on what happens in that situation?

There is potential for confusion where tenants pay a deposit that is equivalent to their rent instalment. When it comes to the end of a lease, it is often unclear whether the last instalment may be missed in lieu of the deposit. I am aware of a case of three people renting an apartment in Galway for €1,100 per month, and who paid the equivalent sum as a deposit, where this type of uncertainty has arisen. This seems to come up for students in particular and is an issue they should perhaps raise with the Union of Students in Ireland. When May comes around, there may be examinations to repeat and problems with tidying up the place. Before they know it another rent instalment is due and they want to use the deposit in lieu of payment.

Chairman

Does the Deputy have a question?

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Will the delegates comment on this confusion as to whether the deposit can be used in lieu of the last rent instalment, particularly in the case of students?

Ms Anne Marie Caulfield

We were asked earlier for a breakdown of dispute applications. I invite my colleague, Mr. Gallagher, to talk us through the categories of cases.

Mr. Frank Gallagher

During 2010, 59% of applications for dispute resolution came from tenants. A total of 37% of applications concerned deposit retention. A total of 37% of all applications came from landlords, mainly in regard to rent arrears related issues, and 4% of all applications came from third parties. That would mainly relate to alleged anti-social behaviour type issues, although it should be borne in mind that there are three times as many tenants registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, than landlords. Members should take that into account in regard to the proportion of cases that come before the PRTB.

On the issue of a situation where a tenant who is overholding a property and is not paying rent, providing the landlord has served the proper notices of termination, a situation like that will always be prioritised for hearing because we do not want a situation where a tenant is abusing the PRTB process to try to remain in the property. Those would be put through as quickly as possible. Regarding some cases due to come before the board tomorrow, they were dealt with in less than four months, which was quite quick, because they were put at the front of the queue, so to speak.

Chairman

All members will probably be interested in this question. When does the PRTB hope to complete its report to the Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, on the examination of such a scheme?

Professor Eoin O’Sullivan

Next April or May.

Chairman

I thank Professor O'Sullivan. I thank Ms Caulfield, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Coyne and Professor O'Sullivan for attending and contributing to our discussions on this matter. We will suspend briefly to allow our next witnesses take their seats and the PRTB representatives to leave the room.

Sitting suspended at 4.52 p.m. and resumed at 4.55 p.m.