Mr. Tom Dunne:

If I go back and look at the creation of the board, the intention was to remove what was contentious at the time, namely, dispute resolution, from the courts. Effectively, it was not working because if a landlord wanted to deal with a tenant, it was difficult to get the matter before the courts because it was very expensive. Solicitors were charging a lot of money because the issues were contentious and there were many difficult issues under landlord and tenant law. From a tenant's perspective, he or she could not access justice effectively because court procedures were complex and he or she would have to be supported by a solicitor. The intention of the original Act was to take all of it outside the courts and create a dispute resolution process which would enable landlords and tenants to come to some conclusion on their differences. Importantly, even at the time it was seen that tenants might be in their accommodation for longer than the norm. They were mostly in place for one year at the time, but the commission foresaw a period when that might change and tenants would spend longer in tenancies and that as a result, they would have an ongoing relationship with their landlord. The intention, therefore, was to create a structure which would allow disputes to be resolved in a way that would not sunder the relationship between the landlord and the tenant.

Tenants, therefore, would have to leave the accommodation and that is why the idea of mediation was brought in, adjudication followed by tribunals. Senator Conway calls the RTB a watchdog and while it has that function, it is more a dispute resolution service. It has to be impartial to maintain the integrity of that role. Landlords and tenants might not see it as being impartial but it is. One of the most important issues the chairman and the board of directors need to keep an eye on is making sure the dispute resolution service is seen as being as impartial as the courts in resolving disputes between landlords and tenants.