John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Good morning. I welcome Mr. Bob Jordan of Threshold.

I draw the witness's attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2008, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to do so they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence.

They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website after this meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome Mr. Bob Jordan of Threshold to this morning's meeting. I ask him to summarise Threshold's full submission, which has been made available to the members of the committee. I am sure they will have a number of questions after he has concluded.

Mr. Bob Jordan:

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee. I am delighted to be here today. Our chairperson, Dr. Aideen Hayden, sends her apologies. She wishes the committee well in its deliberations. She is a strong advocate for reform in the private rented sector, which is the subject I am going to talk about today. One in five households now lives in the private rented sector. After owner-occupation, it is the second largest form of housing tenure and the single biggest cause of homelessness at the moment.

I should declare my own interest in the private rented sector. I am a tenant. I have lived in the same apartment in the same building with the same landlord for over 20 years. Throughout that time, my property has been upgraded and my rent has increased and decreased as we have got older together. There are many people like me whose good experiences of the private rented sector are based on their relationships with their landlords. Unfortunately, over the past couple of years in my day job as the chief executive of Threshold I have met people who have had different experiences.

We, in Threshold, see ourselves as standing between tenants with severe housing problems and homelessness. Last year, we helped more than 32,000 people with housing problems. Approximately 20% of them were at immediate risk of homelessness. Clearly, every single one of those people has a family crisis behind closed doors and needs support from an organisation like Threshold. In the past couple of years, in collaboration with the Department of Social Protection and the local authorities we have been able to give people money under the rent supplement scheme to keep them in their homes. Clearly, that is working and needs to continue.

An important point to make about the private rented sector is that even though it has expanded in size, it has not grown up. Many of our recommendations relate to giving people more protection in their homes, improving the standard of accommodation and dealing with problems like illegal evictions. All members of the committee know people who live in the private rented sector. They want to know how long they can stay in that sector and how much they will have to pay from year to year. They want to know to whom they can they turn when things go wrong with their properties. These are simple things, but when it comes to policy they have been pretty fraught. It is time to deal with them.

It is important for every member of the committee to get a copy of a minority report produced by Threshold as part of the work of the Commission on the Private Rented Residential Sector in 1999 or 2000. It is probable that there are fewer copies of this report than there are original copies of the Magna Carta. Much of the thinking around the private rented sector was done when this report was being formulated over 16 years ago. Some of the ideas we are proposing today, such as giving people rent certainty or indefinite tenancies in the private rented sector, were included in the report.

In Threshold's minority report, we made it clear that we opposed the commission's recommendation that the rents applicable to tenancies in the private rented sector should be open-market rents. While we accepted the position that initial rents should be freely negotiated between tenants and landlords, we were of the view that the later evolution of those rents should be based on an annual index. We included that recommendation in our report but it was rejected. The same page set out Threshold's view that tenants should have a continual conditional right to occupy their rented homes without it being subject to any upper time limit. As the committee is aware, an upper time limit of four years was introduced.

Threshold has been totally consistent in what it has been seeking for the private rented sector. Contrary to what has sometimes been said in the media, our responses are not knee-jerk - they are based on what is best for the private rented sector. That is why it is very important for the members of this committee to get a copy of our report. The positions set out in the report are still our positions. The private rented sector has changed.

The private rented sector has changed, with an increasing number of families living in private rented accommodation. Security of tenure of four years does not cut it for families as their children will attend school for 12 or 13 years. There is no legal impediment to introducing indefinite security of tenure in the private rented sector and it should be introduced.

As members will be aware, there was a great deal of toing and froing on rent certainty last year. Rent certainty is the norm in modern developed European economies. With the exception of the United Kingdom, rents are linked to inflation in one way or another throughout Europe. This approach is good for landlords and tenants because rents will start to fall once the rented market returns to normal supply. In 2008-09, rents fell by 30% and the only reason landlords did not exit the market in droves was that most were in negative equity and there was a ratchet effect. The next time rents decline sharply, landlords will leave the market. Rent certainty would ensure the rate of decline would be tapered over a period, thereby protecting supply in the rented sector and landlords. That is an important point which is rarely made. Rent certainty provides a bandwidth, as it were, within which rents can increase or decrease. That they can currently rise or fall at any rate is not good.

No one has evidence to show whether the recently introduced rent freeze worked. The Private Residential Tenancies Board does not have such evidence because it registers new tenancies and does not measure changes in rent between tenancies. The daft.iewebsite does not measure changes because it advertises new properties. Based on our work, however, Threshold believes the rent freeze has had some effect. Last year, approximately 1,000 people who were facing unaffordable rent increases contacted Threshold and we were able to help them to remain in their homes. These individuals and families will not contact us again this year.

To summarise, a second commission on the private rented sector is required. I ask the committee to support our recommendation that a new commission be established. The danger with introducing piecemeal legislation on the private rented sector is that we will deliver the wrong outcomes because of the large number of issues arising in the sector. When I meet the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Coveney, tomorrow I will put to him our recommendation on establishing a new commission.

Our submission raises many other issues, including in respect of rent supplement, bedsit accommodation and standards in the private rented sector. I would like to address these issues, perhaps in response to questions from members.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Jordan for his opening remarks.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Jordan for appearing before the committee. I also congratulate Threshold on the work it does, particularly in the specialised area of emergency housing. It is appropriate that organisations and agencies are available to deal with this issue. I disagree with Mr. Jordan, however, regarding the degree to which the rental market can be regulated to any great effect in so far as consumers are concerned. I am glad the report of the first commission on the private rented sector has reappeared after so many years later because I opposed its recommendations on the basis that they could not work and unfortunately I was right.

I should declare an interest in that I rented for ten or 12 years. While my landlord was not great at doing repairs, he was a good landlord. I estimate that 90% of landlords are conscientious and reasonable people. However, there is a small group of poor landlords. Threshold and many members will have encountered cases where landlords have given tenants 24 hours to vacate a property. Such ultimatums are not in line with regulations and require interventions to protect tenants. In other cases, landlords have physically ejected tenants from their properties, leaving them on the side of the road with nothing. This is not in accordance with the law, irrespective of whether we like it. Some landlords refuse to sign a lease and the rent support system has difficulty providing support to tenants who do not have a lease.

The only resolution to the current problem is to rapidly increase the number of directly built local authority homes.

That does not mean that the local authorities hire plumbers and plasters. Rather, they contract the work out and get projects done as quickly as possible. I am of the view that it would be possible to do what I have outlined.

I will conclude by saying that I heard some comments during the week about a reference I made last week to affordability. Affordability is a simple matter: it was always deemed to be two-and-a-half times the gross income of the earner. That was the maximum which could be tolerated. If a person has €100,000, the maximum mortgage or equivalent in terms of rent would be €250,000. That is a long way from where matters stand in the context of both the rental and purchase markets. The position is unsustainable. I have dealt with cases in the past week whereby rents have increased from €900 to €1,700 to €2,000. We can talk about this issue as long as we like but that what is happening. There will be no immediate resolution unless we can accelerate the delivery of publicly-funded houses by local authorities and eliminate the concept of social housing. It is a local authority housing programme that is badly needed.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome very much the submission from Threshold. I am deeply concerned about what is happening to people who have been put out of rented accommodation. Approximately 80 families per week are being put out on the road. It is an appalling disgrace that this very day, homeless children are being placed in adult hostels and obliged to sleep on bunk beds. That is an appalling vista. It is clear that urgent and immediate action is required. We need to communicate with the Minister as a matter of urgency to encourage him to take whatever steps are necessary and to deal with the concerns of the different organisations that are commenting on this absolute scandal. One step would be to commandeer hotel rooms or any available space. It is unacceptable to have children sleeping, as I understand it, in staff rooms so that they are safer than in other rooms. That is absolutely appalling. As a committee, we must deal with this issue and make our recommendations.

Why are there 80 families going out onto the roads each week? It is because landlords can say the law allows them to act in a particular way. If a landlord is going to sell accommodation he or she owns, he or she will give his or her tenants three months to get out. I accept that one of the final acts of the then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, was to place an obligation on landlords to sign a statutory declaration stating that it is the intent to sell properties they own. I think we need emergency legislation to not allow that to happen in future and that for a period of, say, a year or whatever, people could not be put out of their accommodation if they are paying their rent. If they are not paying their rent, then the matter could go to arbitration. We cannot accept that families are being put out on the streets of our cities and towns by callous and cowardly landlords who are abusing their position. They are exploiting the market and seeking people who will pay more. As a result, they are creating appalling conditions for families. I feel strongly about this.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Durkan, that the question of affordable housing is a myth. The scandal of councils refusing to accept houses from NAMA in this city is another disgrace. Thousands of houses have been offered to county councils, up and the country, which they have not taken. In my view, they are failing in their statutory duty of care to the prospective tenants. We should also insist - I know we have been pushing an open door in this regard - that rapid build housing, which some of us have seen in Ballymun, be used as an immediate solution. Such housing could meet the needs of thousands of families in a short period. That is what we have to do. Speaking on my own behalf, I strongly recommend that the chairman be delegated to meet the Minister, as a matter of urgency, on those two issues today because we cannot allow this situation to continue.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy O'Dowd. I call Deputy Wallace and I will then come back to Mr. Jordan.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Jordan for attending.

What I am going to ask has been influenced by what the other Deputies have said. Everyone agrees we need to build more social housing through local authorities but we must also accept that there will always be people who want to live in the private rental sector. The lack of regulation and leaving the sector to the markets to regulate have been a failure. Has Mr. Jordan any recommendations as to how we could tackle the issue of rent certainty in the short term? We realise every dimension of the market, including housing supply, is dysfunctional currently. This means we must work in a dysfunctional market and are not trying to operate in a regular situation. What ideas has Mr. Jordan as to how we could make private rental properties affordable again? We are at a high point currently. How can we deal with that? Can we get it down in the short term and how could we move to try to introduce measures to provide rent certainty across the board?

With regard to the point made that it is a disgrace local authorities did not take up the properties offered by NAMA, I would like to point out that much of what NAMA offered local authorities was not fit for purpose. It is a pity local authorities did not get a better choice of what NAMA was selling to vulture funds. In Berlin, there is a rule to provide that certain properties must be made available to the state before investment funds can buy them. This is something we should consider. Our local authorities should have had access to suitable, fit-for-purpose units that have ended up in the hands of vulture funds.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of points Deputies have made will form part of our deliberations for recommendations but questions have also been raised for Mr. Jordan. Deputy O'Dowd said that when properties are put on the market, tenants are generally asked to vacate the property. One of Mr. Jordan's recommendations was to establish legal safeguards so that properties could be sold without the need for the tenant to vacate. That is the norm in the commercial market. If tenants have had a commercial lease for some time, the commercial property is sold "tenant not affected". What are the legal impediments to doing the same with residential properties?

Mr. Bob Jordan:

There are no legal impediments. It is just custom and practice in the residential sector to sell with vacant possession. We have come across situations where tenants are being put out. These tenants were on fixed term leases. Receivers have had no problem selling on properties - in one development there were four or five properties - with tenants in situto a willing buyer. This must change. I totally agree tenants should be allowed to remain in the property, particularly where the property is being sold on again for rental - in other words, where there is no buyer moving into the property. This area needs to be examined. One of the reasons the regulations were introduced last year was because lower paying tenants, perhaps in receipt of rent supplement, were being bumped out of properties in favour of higher paying tenants. We need a stronger rule in regard to moving on tenants in the context of the sale of properties.

The issue of rent certainty in the current market was mentioned. The Minister said at a conference this morning that while he is sympathetic to this, he does not feel he will be able to introduce it in the current dysfunctional market. We must therefore look at the issue of supply because this is the only factor that will impact on rents. A suggestion that arose recently was for purpose built student accommodation. I believe students could be taken out of the mainstream private rental sector. Very often that market does not work for them because they are only in the accommodation for nine months of the year. They sign up to a one year lease and then lose their deposit. Moving students into purpose built accommodation could be done rapidly and I believe firewalling them against the mainstream private rental market would be good. However, if any section 50-type break was introduced again, it would need to be linked to affordable rents for students. I am dismayed by the fact that universities around the country have essentially followed the private rental market in raising rents.

That is totally inappropriate as it is a different market. That area would certainly be one way of freeing up supply.

I know that the Minister for Finance was before the committee to talk about the Living City initiative and creating something similar in rural areas. There has not been huge take-up on that. However, there are spaces - I see them all over Dublin 7 - above commercial properties that could be used for the private rental sector. I believe the main impediment tends to involve issues of fire safety and planning but those things are surmountable. In the absence of the Minister doing anything else other than the rent freeze, we must look at supply. I believe there are possible measures there.

The home renovation incentive was extended to both home owners and landlords. Home owners are extending their properties. They should be encouraged to do so and to take more people under the rent a room scheme. Landlords should also be encouraged to extend their properties. There has been good take-up of the home renovation incentive but perhaps it could be looked at even more.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I deal with many people who deal with Threshold and they have always found the service excellent and very professional. Oftentimes, people are in difficult circumstances and it is good to have a service such as Threshold. I welcome Mr. Jordan's comments about rent certainty with regard to landlords. That is often forgotten about. A number of years ago, at the start of the downturn, it was very handy for many landlords to rely on RAS because it meant guaranteed rent. Now that things are, as landlords see it, on the up, they are pulling out of RAS. That is part of the problem and part of the reason we have such a difficulty.

I have one question in regard to Threshold's submission. It is under section 5, which deals with more security and protection from eviction. Recommendation 9, which the Chairman touched on, recommends the introduction of legal safeguards. Has that ever been put forward by Threshold to the Department as possible legislation in the past? If so, what was the response Threshold received?

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Jordan's comments about the kind of legislation and changes that are needed to protect people in the private rental sector. I am going to confine my remarks to the private rental sector rather than modular housing, which has nothing to do with Threshold. The majority of social housing units, as it says on page 8 of Threshold's submission, is going to be sourced in the private rental sector. This is something the committee needs to take on board. The private rental sector is an insecure place that is leading to homelessness and yet most of the increased social units are still situated in the private rental sector. Does Mr. Jordan have an idea of how many units will come from the private rental sector? According to the Government's figures, 75,000 units will come from the private rental sector and 35,000 units from the public sector. Even within those 35,000 units, some are leased and are therefore still coming from the private rental sector. Does Mr. Jordan agree that this is a policy that needs to completely change? Threshold's report nailed the absolute lie that the private rental sector can provide security for people when it is based on profit.

I wish to ask Mr. Jordan about overholding. Overholding describes a tenant staying in a property beyond the termination date. According to the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, this increased by 50% between 2013 and 2014. How many people does Mr. Jordan envisage becoming homeless because of termination notices rather than rent increases? Does he have any figures on that? Overholding is the biggest issue about which people contact me for advice and I am sure that is the case for other Deputies too. I understand that Threshold can only advise people to stay within the law. Its website is very good for pointing people in the right direction. However, there is a limit to what Threshold can do. Does Mr. Jordan agree with me that people face overholding or homelessness? Is that now the choice for those people? As a public representative, I have had to advise people to stay in the property and to overhold. I am now advising people to do that because I am not going to be responsible for ringing the council three days later looking for non-existent accommodation for somebody who voluntarily left a property.

Does Mr. Jordan agree that this is the only choice people have?

How much of their incomes are families paying in private rent? What impact does this have on their lives? We will talk to the Department about top-up payments, but research carried out by Threshold indicates that half of all tenants are paying top-up payments to landlords. The One Family Ireland group has found that three quarters of lone parents are having to do this.

With rent increases, security of tenure presents the biggest problem because landlords are using a legal mechanism to get rid of tenants. Sometimes the intention is to sell the property but more often it is not. Landlords have resorted to using all sorts of tactic such as having painters and decorators come while a family are still in situto pressurise them to get out. They send text messages and use other subtle means to get rid of tenants and which causes huge stress. Threshold advocates the introduction of laws on security of tenure to make it similar to the commercial sector in which tenants stay in situ,even if ownership changes. How does this work in the commercial sector? My information is that in the commercial sector NAMA has succeeded in securing rent decreases for 99% of applicants. We need rents to be decreased for residential tenants, but there does not seem to be any way this can be brought about except by legislation. Does Threshold have any idea of what benefit that would have?

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Threshold is based in Dublin 7, Mr. Jordan will know that there are concerns on the part of the community about the massive influx of students and the effects it will have on it. I have also heard stories of landlords who have had tenants for a number of years in adequate accommodation. They are now telling them to leave because they are subdividing what was an adequate bedroom into two units for students. We may get students out of the main rental sector, but this will be an unintended consequence.

Mr. Jordan has said Threshold saved 8,550 people from becoming homeless. Will he explain how and whether it was all to do with increasing the rent supplement? We know that the supplement needs to be linked with the cost of living or the consumer price index, but how can it be balanced with the exorbitant rent increases some landlords are imposing? I have heard of unbelievable rent increases for people who live in extremely meagre accommodation. A part of me hates landlords getting that increase because they are not improving the accommodation provided.

There are tenants who are afraid to complain about the conditions in which they are living. They are afraid that ff they say something needs to be repaired or repainted, it will give the landlord an excuse to evict them.

In the context of our discussion on the rural resettlement scheme, is Threshold finding that there is an interest on the part of some Dublin tenants in moving outside Dublin?

Mr. Bob Jordan:

On the sale of property, the measures introduced at the end of last year followed our lobbying to the effect that the provisions in the Act on a landlord's intention to sell a property or to move a family member into a home were being abused regularly. We came across properties which the landlord had purported was for sale, but the tenant discovered that another tenant had moved in a few weeks later. These measures have not yet been addressed by the Department, but we go one step further to suggest the sale of a property, under most circumstances, should not be a reason to put a tenant out. There are a lot of people who would be delighted to have somebody paying rent from day one, somebody who was recruited into the property by the previous owner and who has a track record of paying the rent.

It is counter-intuitive to want to get that tenant out of the property when they are there ready, willing and paying.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They do that because they want to increase the rent.

Mr. Bob Jordan:

Absolutely. Rent certainty underpins everything we are talking about in terms of people's tenancies. That is a very good reason a tenancy should continue beyond the sale of a property because if it comes to an end, there is a opportunity to increase that rent to market level rent again. That is the reason having an enduring tenancy is very important.

Deputy Coppinger spoke about the proportions in terms of the sourcing of housing units. A big footnote to the social housing strategy is that most of the units will be delivered in the private rented sector. Threshold is on record as having said that we accept that one third of households will need some State support. They will be in either the social rented sector or the private rented sector and there needs to be a rebalancing of those sectors. The social rented sector comprises 9% and we have said it should be brought up to about 15%. We should at least have a 50:50 situation but it appears the private rented sector will continue to grow. Unless people can be given the kind of security, or close to it, in the private rented sector that those can be given in the social rented sector, then clearly many people do not belong there. Threshold's experience is that there are people living in the private rented sector who should not be there as they cannot cope there. Equally, there are people in the private rented sector who have legitimate aspirations to own their own home and they need to be helped as well.

The issue with overholding is that when people remain in a property beyond the end of the tenancy to some extent that is making a problem for the landlord which is really a problem for the State. That tenancy will ultimately crumble and the tenant will eventually have to find alternative accommodation. The Deputy correctly pointed out the increase in the number of overholding disputes that have gone to the Residential Tenancies Board. If a tenant has a bone fide problem with finding alternative accommodation, there needs to be a protocol between the Residential Tenancies Board and the local authority and it is the local authority's problem to find people alternative accommodation either directly or through an non-governmental organisation or whatever. The tenants should not end up in homeless services for the lack of alternative accommodation. Our experience is that where people overhold the tenancy eventually crumbles. Therefore, it is better to deal with the problem directly and it is more the State's problem than a problem for the landlord.

On the issue of top-ups, we published a report in Cork in 2005 that showed that 20% of tenants even at that time were paying top-ups in the private rented sector. The reason we have a family homelessness crisis since 2013 is that even if some tenants paid all of their welfare to a landlord they would still not be able to meet the rental payment. That is the issue. The issue has moved from one where people have been managing their own poverty for years to one where they cannot even manage their own poverty. It is Threshold's experience that tenants will go to the ends of the earth to pay their rent. They will do that above anything else, above buying food, looking after their children or going to the general practitioner when they need to. Clearly, there is a crisis for them in that area that has gone out of control.

Deputy O'Sullivan made a number of remarks. When I referred to student accommodation I was clear in saying that it should be on-campus and purpose-built and that it would take students out of the mainstream market. Students require a particular type of accommodation for a particular period and it should be affordable. There is an opportunity there to do that. The section 50 tax break introduced a few years ago was one of the most successful tax breaks of all. However, in recent years on-campus accommodation has become as expensive as accommodation in town, so there is no benefit to it. Any measure introduced around student accommodation need to ensure that rent is set at an affordable level for students and their parents.

Preventing people from becoming homeless is not only about protocol, although it is mostly about that. We negotiate with landlords and when we explain a tenant's position some landlords are willing to leave the rent the same. That must be acknowledged. In some cases where landlords issue a valid notice of termination, we can buy the tenant extra time to find an alternative accommodation. Some tenants have got local authority accommodation along the way. One thing that is clear form this service, and it is a second best option, is that if people are given more money under rent supplement, they do not become homeless in the main. This raises the question as to why not provide for this across the board.

One of the issues concerning the rent supplement scheme, which has been mentioned widely, is that if one increases rent supplement across the board, one just inflates rents for everybody.

The problem with the rent supplement scheme at present is that it is a bit of a blunt instrument. Essentially, there is more or less one rate for all of Dublin. All of us here know that rents are very different within different sub-markets in Dublin. The PRTB rent index is accurate to a level of 30 properties. We need to make sure that rent limits are not as visible to landlords. It is none of landlords' business where tenants get their money from or how much they get. It needs to be much more invisible to the landlord how much support a tenant is getting so we can get the best value in the market.

We have asked in the past why the Department of Social Protection should not just bargain directly with landlords and get a good deal. There are many landlords who are making significant money from the rent supplement scheme. Why not have some economies of scale in this regard?

With regard to people being afraid to complain, the Deputy is absolutely correct. People are afraid to make contact with their landlord in any way at all. That is why organisations such as ours are really important. The proof of this is that one of the biggest issues we are still dealing with is substandard accommodation in the private rental sector. Not carrying out repairs is an issue. In this regard, 1,800 people came to us in 2014 and 1,400 came to us in 2015. That is really the tip of the iceberg.

Much has been said about people moving outside Dublin. For some who have tried this, it has worked but it has not for many. The reason it has not worked is because they have moved too far away from their family support networks. The Deputy knows better than I do that if one does not have the support of one's extended family, it does not quite work out. One needs to be very careful about a rural resettlement scheme.

Deputy Coppinger asked about the commercial sector. Her question was very good. The point about the commercial sector is that there are long-term leases. A property may be sold but the tenant might have a 35-year lease, for example. In the private rental sector, there are no 35-year leases anymore. However, if we gave people indefinite security of tenure and the right to remain in the property after its sale, the arrangement would be something of the equivalent of that in the commercial sector.

I cannot tell the committee how one could drive down rents in the private rental sector by any measure other than increasing supply at the moment. It is a very tricky issue that, dare I say, would lead to constitutional problems. It is probably the one issue that would. If all these other measures were implemented, circumstances would improve considerably for people.

With regard to the homelessness problem, there is considerable focus on the provision of emergency accommodation. That prevents people from being on the streets but the rebalancing regarding homelessness needs to focus on preventing people from becoming homeless at all costs and moving people as quickly as possible out of homelessness. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, has increased the number of rapid-build units from 500 to 1,000 but the number obviously needs to be much higher. However, the relentless focus should be on preventing people from becoming homeless and on moving them on. Otherwise, the number in emergency accommodation will only continue to grow.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take the final series of questions. I call Deputy Frank O’Rourke.

Frank O'Rourke (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Jordan for all his help with various tenants down through the years. I have a number of points and questions on which I would like him to comment. We know one of the main reasons for homelessness is that there is no activity in construction in either the private or public sector. That is the real problem. Without prejudging the outcome of the proceedings of this committee, one of the outcomes we would like to see is the actioning of construction activity. We need to improve supply urgently.

I acknowledge Mr. Jordan is not here to comment on the rapid-build initiative. I do not share the view on rapid-build units because it has already been demonstrated the cost is way in excess of the cost of building a conventional property. This needs to be taken on board.

The lifespan of rapid-build properties is of concern. The construction time has not proven to be any faster than with a conventional build. That is a concern. I acknowledge there is a massive crisis. We need to have supply and when we have it, it will deal with all the issues we are all speaking about this morning. However, if there is a knee-jerk reaction, we will be back here having this discussion with hindsight, having to learn from it. That is important.

Tenant protection is also vital. For all of the landlords in the private rental market who do excellent work, there is a minority that does not do good work. What are Mr. Jordan's views? Is he in favour of temporary rent supplement increases to assist people at risk of becoming homeless until supply is back in the market? Whether we like it or not, we must currently rely on the private sector to keep people off the streets. In my constituency of Kildare North, I engage with tenants and landlords to get properties. They are not an attractive tenant for landlords because there is such a demand from people who do not depend on social welfare payments to rent the property. As such, one has to engage to persuade the landlord to take them as tenants. Without that engagement and supply from the private sector, we would have a lot more homeless families.

I would also like to hear Mr. Jordan's views on the HAP scheme. It is currently geared towards one's accommodation need. Due to shortage of supply, one has three choices if one is looking to get a property which has one room more than one needs. One stays homeless, makes the top-up or there has to be flexibility within the HAP scheme to allow that to be approved to avoid the family being homeless because that is a reality. Anyone who believes top-ups are not happening is not on the ground. A number of families want a one-bedroom unit, but these are not available. If they get a two-bedroom unit to avoid becoming homeless, they must make up a huge differential in the rent because the HAP scheme is only geared at their need.

Is the risk of compulsory long-term leases going to eliminate properties being available for those availing of social welfare payments like rent supplement, the HAP and the RAS? My concern is that while we have to protect the tenant, some of the measures we need to put in place as a matter of urgency equally have associated risks which might remove these tenants from consideration by landlords. That will mean they remain homeless.

I share Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's views on the standard of accommodation and tenant protection in that regard. While it is a minority, I have a number of constituents for whom the standard is appalling. If they complain, they are asked to move out while the work is being done and are not then allowed to move back in. That is a problem. What is the way around that? There is no immediate answer until we get supply back into the system.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Jordan for his presentation. Most of my questions were asked by Deputy O'Sullivan and have been answered so I am happy with that. I have dealt with Threshold over a number of years and I know its service is very good. It really gives solace to people who are in very difficult situations. The website is excellent and one can easily download the letters to give to landlords and tenants. In a number of cases we have dealt with, that has prevented people from becoming homeless. Does Mr. Jordan have any idea of how many landlords have been brought to court or convicted for issuing illegal notices to quit? Are there any statistics on that? Who, if anybody, monitors this? We deal with a lot of people who say, for example, that a daughter is coming back from Australia, so the tenants must get out of the house or that a house is to be sold but that house is never sold and is rented out to someone else. Is there anybody who monitors that? I do not believe there is.

If Mr. Jordan had a chance tomorrow, what two things would introduce to stop people who rent privately becoming homeless due to increased rent?

Brendan Ryan (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Jordan for his presentation but also for his more substantial document which will be very useful to us in our considerations. Under the section on reforming the rent supplement scheme, Mr. Jordan has come up with a number of recommendations on administration which seem to be no-brainers in terms of implementing change. They are essential and clear in the main with the exception of Mr. Jordan's final point, on which I ask him to elaborate. The recommendation is to introduce clear guidance for Department of Social Protection representatives who deal with circumstances where receivers are appointed to properties with rent supplement tenants. Mr. Jordan might expand on that.

Certainly in my experience the tenancy protection service is working well. Community welfare officers, outside the tenancy protection scheme, are applying flexibility too. Threshold recommended that the tenancy protection service be extended nationwide. To what extent is there a lack of consistency across the country in applying the flexibility the community welfare officers have?

On increasing rent supplement limits to reflect market rents, Threshold has indicated they should be more targeted, related to local sub-markets, tailored to individual circumstances and less visible to the market. From this, it seems Threshold is not arguing for an across the board increase in rent supplement. What is the methodology for achieving the best outcomes and best use of resources?

Kevin Moran (Longford-Westmeath, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Threshold for its excellent report. In Athlone up to 6,000 students attend the institute of technology. One must consider the amount of accommodation they take up. In the past we have looked to get accommodation campuses built for these students through public private partnerships. However, the Department will not allow this to happen, as it is completely against public private partnerships. What is Threshold’s view?

All the talk is about tenants being pushed out of houses. What about houses which are taken by tenants who are taking quality accommodation but will not pay for it? There is no help for the landlord in removing them from the accommodation to free it up for those who deserve it. We have much experience of this around the country. However, the issue is being ignored, with the people affected being told to go to this or that board. I know that in the area I represent, Longford and Westmeath, there is a lot of this going on. Could some legislation be introduced to help landlords to move troublesome tenants out? As well as this, troublesome tenants can move on and find accommodation elsewhere in other towns. This is an issue which needs to be examined.

Mr. Bob Jordan:

On tenants who are not paying rent, the first commandment in the private rented sector is, “Thou shall pay thy rent.” That is the basis of the landlord-tenant relationship and there are plenty of rules around it. It is a question of whether someone cannot or will not pay. Where someone cannot pay, we are trying to identify supports.

The Private Residential Tenancies Board is the regulatory body for the private rented sector. A landlord can bring a dispute with a tenant to it. One of the issues in the private rented sector is that disputes continue to take a considerable time to be heard. Obviously, from a landlord's perspective, the sooner they are heard, the better.

It has been talked about how well public private partnerships have worked in the school accommodation sector. I am not well versed enough to comment, other than to say we need purpose-built student accommodation. It could be modular or drop-down units and provided in campuses quickly. I would be in favour of this because it would free up supply immediately in the private rented sector.

One of the things about the rent supplement scheme is that it is not always about the limits, although they are extremely important. The administration of the rent supplement scheme hinders tenants in a lot of ways too. For instance, a landlord could have two prospective tenants, one of whom who depends on rent supplement, while the other does not. The tenant who is not dependent on rent supplement will have a deposit and the first month’s rent to hand. The rent supplement tenant, on the other hand, will have a form and the landlord might not see rent or any money from him or her for six to nine weeks. He or she might not see it at all if the tenant is not approved for payment of rent supplement. The administration of the rent supplement scheme, therefore, needs to be dealt with. Tenants need to be preapproved under the scheme, the administration of which needs to be speeded up. Tenants need to be given deposits and all the support they need in order to be able to compete in the market.

Clearly, having broad geographical regions with a single rent supplement limit does not make sense.

In view of the data on the rented market that was not available when the rent supplement scheme was introduced but that we have now, we need localised limits for the areas under pressure, such as Dublin 15, 24, 1 and 2. Community welfare service staff should be given a bandwidth in which to operate, however it should be less visible to landlords. The exact amount of money that landlords can aim for should not be put on a notice board or on the Department of Social Protection or Citizens Information Board websites. It does not make much sense. This is our experience. The Government should increase rent supplement for a local sub-markets.

A number of years ago, a directive was introduced that rent supplement could be increased for people at risk of homelessness. The same circular specified, in bold writing, that if a person makes this decision he or she must report to the Minister. This created a chill factor on discretion in the community welfare service. To some extent, Threshold's tenancy protection service is the outsourcing of discretion. Increasingly, the community welfare service is using more discretion. However, it must be mainstreamed back into the mainstream rent supplement scheme.

Often, the Department of Social Protection ends payments for tenants when the landlord changes. Regulations must be put in place to ensure the payment continues, even when a receiver is in place. This has been a problem in the private rented sector for a long time. One way for a landlord to get tenants out of a property was to telephone the community welfare service, say something about the tenant and stop the payment. We are working on delivering temporary rent supplement increases for people, and it works. It should be available to everybody, as far as possible, across the board.

Landlords are not familiar with the HAP scheme, although there are many benefits to it in some respects. People at risk of homelessness should not have to fall into homeless services in order to qualify for the HAP. We hope to deliver a service at least with Dublin City Council whereby we can move people who are genuinely at risk of homelessness directly onto the HAP scheme without having to access homeless services. There could be benefits to it.

Landlords will come before the committee this afternoon and talk about bedsits. Much has been said in the public domain about the new bedsit regulations bringing properties out of the market and landlords being forced to put tenants by the side of the road. None of it is true. The bedsit regulations have been very successful. Environmental health officers do not have the power to shut down any property, even if it is substandard. According to figures from Dublin City Council, approximately 90% to 95% of landlords have complied. For example, they previously had properties that had shared toilets on a landing, but now, each individual unit has a toilet. This is what the bedsit regulations were all about. This means there is better accommodation available. However, in the course of its inspections of bedsits, Dublin City Council has discovered approximately 50% of properties did not comply with fire safety regulations. This has been the major issue.

The bedsit measures have had a bootstrapping effect on the private rented sector. They have made bad accommodation into better accommodation. The question is where all the bad accommodation has gone. Based on registrations in the PRTB, more than 1,000 bedsits from last year have been registered, which means tenants are living in them. I do not know where properties have disappeared from the market. It appears the bedsit regulations have increased supply. This has happened because many of the older private rented properties were in such poor condition that they were approximately 60% occupied. Given that landlords were, to some extent, compelled to bring them up to scratch, more properties have become available. Counterintuitively, the bedsit regulations may have increased supply. We cheered this on from the outset and we believe it has been very successful. The figures are publicly available from Dublin City Council. Any roll-back on the bedsit regulations would reward the very small number of landlords who have not complied with the regulations but who are still allowed to rent out their properties.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Jordan for his response to the questions. That concludes this stage of the presentation. I thank Mr. Jordan for attending and for his written submission. I would say to colleagues that a number of the answers Mr. Jordan gave, particularly the last few answers in regard to rent supplement, will form questions for our next round of witnesses as there is a natural follow-on from a number of the issues he raised.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked a number of questions that were not answered.

Mr. Bob Jordan:

Deputy Quinlivan might remind me of the questions.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked about the number of landlords brought to court for giving illegal eviction notices and what two things Mr. Jordan would do tomorrow to stop people being evicted.

Mr. Bob Jordan:

The two things are, first, to give people more money under the rent supplement scheme across the board but in a different way, based on local submarkets, so it is not obvious to landlords. Second, to give people indefinite security of tenure and the right to remain in their home beyond the sale of the property.

In terms of landlords being brought to court, I am not aware of the illegal eviction numbers as it is the Private Residential Tenancies Board that deals with the issue. From our own figures for last year, over 20% of the clients who came to Threshold had a problem in regard to their security. Overall, over 1,500 people came to Threshold last year in regard to tenancy terminations, which could have included illegal evictions, so it is a very substantial number.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Jordan. That concludes this session.