Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for giving Threshold the opportunity to present our observations on the general scheme of the residential tenancies (right to purchase) Bill.

As members will know, Threshold is a national charity that provides advice and support services to people experiencing difficulties in their private rental tenancies. In addition, we advocates for a better and fairer housing system. There are many positive elements set out in the general scheme, but notably, only two heads out of the 27 relate to the tenant’s right to purchase. The remainder deal with numerous other matters which are complex in nature, have far-reaching ramifications for tenants and landlords alike, and must be given due and careful consideration.

Given the significance of these proposed changes, we advise that the Bill cannot be hastily progressed through the legislative process. If there is a desire for the Bill to be enacted promptly, the matters not associated with the tenant’s right to purchase must be removed in order that they are afforded full legislative scrutiny in separate legislation.

Today, I will offer Threshold's observations on the tenant’s right to purchase, followed by our observations on changes to the grounds of termination in the case of a transfer and the expansion of the slip rule. Much more is contained in the scheme. However, time does not permit us to expand on those during our opening statement, but our detailed response and observations are set out in our full written submission which we forwarded yesterday.

Threshold is largely supportive of the proposed amendments that will allow tenants the opportunity to buy their home based on the first right of refusal principle. Head 6, which requires that landlords issue a copy of the invitation to bid to the Residential Tenancies Board for the notice to be valid, is a necessary step to ensure the effectiveness of the right to purchase process. There is no valid reason for the exclusion of non-Part 4 tenants from holding the right to purchase, nor for the exclusion of tenants whose tenancy termination is subject to the Tyrrelstown amendment. Tenants in such scenarios are in no less need of a long-term home than others.

In respect of some of the other measures, we are seriously concerned about the proposed provision regarding the transfer of property for no or partial consideration, as set out under head 5. Our concern is that this provision appears to create a new ground for a landlord to terminate a tenancy. The proposed amendment would potentially allow for a landlord to terminate a tenancy if they are transferring the property to another with unclear indication of the accompanying payment. Such scenarios could take the form of inter-familial transfers or the inter-transfer of properties by large or corporate landlords. Threshold is strongly opposed to such a change. There is no valid reason for the property to be vacated for this type of transfer to occur. There are already sufficient grounds within the existing legislation for landlords to terminate a tenancy when there has been no wrongdoing by a tenant.

There are a number of changes to the procedural standards by the RTB. These changes relate to the procedures to be followed by adjudicators and tribunal members, principally in terms of slips and omissions in notices, and determination orders. Strict compliance with the formalities of ending a tenancy is the least a tenant can expect when being evicted from their home. We find the proposal to apply the slip rule to statutory declarations particularly worrying. Statutory declarations are an established mechanism for ensuring veracity across the legal landscape. Threshold does not feel that amendments which allow for a lax approach to be taken around compliance are permissible in any context, not least in that of landlord and tenant law in the private residential sector.

I thank the members for their time today and we welcome their questions.