Mr. Tom O'Brien:

On the point made about compensation, we have heard a great deal about the importance of balance, but there is no balance provided for in the Bill and we have highlighted why. Tenants can sit in properties and not pay rent. They can challenge an appeal through the RTB without having to put up funds or put the rent payments in an escrow account in the event that they lose their case. Landlords are expected to wait 12 to 18 months to have their cases heard. There is no balance in that regard. RPZs have been introduced retrospectively, while landlords who were fair with tenants and have not increased the rent have no redress to bring it up anywhere near the market rent. There has been no balance in the discussion so far.

On the issue of compensation, we all have experience. We have had tenants who signed a one year contract and left after six months. I presume - I am not being facetious - that under the proposal, if a tenant were to leave before the lease was up at the end of the sixth month, he or she would owe the landlord the last six months of rent payments in order that it would apply both ways in the interests of balance.

Equally, in relation to RPZs, although I understand they are not a feature, when there is another downturn similar to that in the period 2010 to 2014, inclusive, when rents slid by 50%, I presume that the proposed measures would apply to tenants also in that the decrease would be limited to 4% every two years. If we are to have balance, there should be balance on all sides. That is really all I have to say.