Mr. Tom O'Brien:

I am interested in understanding where members believe the incentive is to invest in property in the circumstances I described. There is the matter of financial returns and legal obligations to be taken on. I understand a political agenda is driving this but, nevertheless, the problem is greater than politics. People face sanctions and penalties for renting out a one-bedroom apartment. If they rent it at €1,050 when they are meant to rent it at €1,020, they face a fine of €30,000. There needs to be a reasonable and proportionate basis to what we are considering. If everybody is honest around the room, they would admit politics rather than economics or need is driving this. We would like to bring reason to the debate.

We would like clarity on rent control and caps, particularly as they relate to the imbalance between properties that are below the market rate and those being newly brought to the market. Most of the properties newly brought to the market are from REITs, which do not pay tax. Investors such as us pay 53% tax on our received rent but we cannot increase that to market value. The REITs can buy new stock and they do not pay income tax. They can rent at the full market rate and we would like that imbalance addressed. There are people who were good to tenants in the downturn and did not increase rents when the market increased, although they could have. They may have wanted to look after a good tenant in that way. We have many examples of that, although they will never hit the media. Those people need redress under this legislation.

We would also like clarification on the definition of when and how one can escape rent cap measures by refurbishing a property. It is currently a fudge.

It seems that one cannot avoid the rent cap without insulating one's entire house and building an extension, even though one could transform an apartment for €10,000 or €15,000 and make it a more enjoyable residence for a tenant. However, under the current definition it is hard to see how or if that would allow a landlord to avoid the rent cap. We would like clarity and some detail on that issue rather than a blanket fudge.

We seek clarity on the termination of tenancies. A landlord could unwittingly err in a notification to a tenant at the end of a four-year tenancy and be stuck with an additional six years because of a technical error on the notice or it not being in the prescribed format even though the intention and substance of what was done was in order.

We would like rent arrears to be addressed. We have numerous examples of people who have taken disputes to the RTB on over-holding and rent arrears. The tenant can appeal the decision and continue not paying rent, knowing that when he or she eventually has to leave at the end of that process, he or she will not be pursued for the rent because the RTB does not have the funds to do so and, even if it did, the tenant will not have the rent anyway. We would like a fair acknowledgement that if landlords have to go through the elongated process to have a person not paying rent removed from a property that, as in any other commercial dispute, there would be a requirement of security for costs whereby a tenant could not appeal a notice of removal for not paying rent if he or she did not lodge the rent in court. A tenant would have to lodge the rent with the RTB prior to disputing the case in order that the board has the ability to compensate the landlord should the tenant lose the case. It is only fair that if one takes a case in any aspect of business, one is required to show that one is good for damages in the event that one loses, and that should be the case in this regard.

Overall, we are disappointed but not surprised by the Bill, which is one-sided. I am a little concerned by Deputy Ó Broin's opening comments that several members support the legislation and are seeking to move it to approval. I wonder why we were invited to the committee if that is the case. On the basis that supply is at the heart of this issue and that people are leaving the market because of the financial and legal obligations that are now upon them, I urge a rethink in favour of property owners.