Ms Deirdre Ní Fhloinn:

I thank the Senator for her questions. I might start at the end and the point the Senator raised about institutional investors and owner-occupiers. As our multi-unit developments system works, if one has a single institutional owner for an entire block with everyone living in the block a tenant of the block, that is much simpler in one way. The Senator might recall that approximately five years ago, the media reported on a block that had defects in Dundrum, Dublin 14 that was all owned by a single pension fund. All the tenants were decanted out of it, the work was done and they were all decanted back into it because there was a single payer and a single purse. In theory, that should be more straightforward.

Going back to the questions the Senator raised in order, the new homes ombudsman was a recommendation of a parliamentary committee report in the United Kingdom from approximately four years ago. They had a similar type of report to our safe as houses report. I draw the committee's attention to the date on it, which is December 2017. I was a fellow to that report. That is almost three years ago. Around the same time, a parliamentary report in the UK recommended a new homes ombudsman. One of the reasons for that is that, as I said, when individual house owners or apartment owners find they have a problem, they have to go through this very convoluted system that is not too different from the legal system that would apply for somebody who is a big commercial developer or a big commercial tenant. The homeowner has to go through the same route. It is High Court litigation or it is arbitration. It is really expensive. There is not a simpler way to get access to a remedy. When I spoke to the committee previously, I talked about a system they had in Australia where one can ring up a local regulatory tribunal, which sends an inspector out to look at the house, and the inspector puts a price on the work that has to be done and makes a recommendation.

The tribunal also has the power to impose sanctions if the builder does not go back and fix the problem or to make an award in favour of the homeowner for the cost of fixing the defect. The homeowner pays approximately $400 and the process is simple and quick. The process in Ireland is the opposite of that.

The position of new homes ombudsman is proposed in a section of the UK's new building safety Bill, which was introduced in light of the regulatory review after the Grenfell fire. It proposes that a position of ombudsman be set up. The ombudsman could direct particular types of businesses to subscribe to a scheme that the ombudsman will set up. The ombudsman could receive complaints, make compensation awards and provide further types of remedy such as an apology or another type of relief, but the principal relief would be compensation. It is outside the court and arbitration systems so it should be faster and cheaper.

In a way, this is a good time for us to start looking at regulatory reform because we can examine what is being proposed in the UK. Substantial proposals are being made for the reform of the building control system in the UK. Mr. Nugent mentioned the fire authority and building control authority. In England, they are proposing that local authorities will have the building control authority function taken from them and given to the new regulator for high-rise residential buildings. That regulator will have oversight of the entire regulation of safety in high-rise buildings and will focus more on the safety of people living there rather than whether they are an owner or tenant. Those are some of the things that we might consider.

It would be relatively simple to establish a new homes ombudsman and the idea is that it would provide a simpler way of making a complaint, somebody for people to call and a way of getting compensation.

The Senator also mentioned-----