John Halligan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Data from the 2011 census published by the Central Statistics Office revealed significant growth in the number of rented households between 2006 and 2011. The rate of home ownership dropped from 74.7% to 69.7%, and I have no doubt the figure has dropped again since the information was collated. The need to properly regulate the private rented sector has never been more important. However, this Bill is a missed opportunity to address some well-known and well-documented problems which tenants and landlords face, namely, by bringing in line this useless quango, and that is what I call the Private Rented Tenancies Board.

Although demand for the services of the PRTB is constantly increasing, the board has never lived up to its promise eight years ago of replacing the courts in most disputes in the private rented sector. All the evidence and the facts show that. For instance, the rules for termination of tenancies are a legal minefield. Even after a dispute has been determined by the PRTB, there is no guarantee whatsoever of compliance by either party. I am increasingly hearing of cases coming before the Circuit Court, and I am sure the Minister of State may be too, to enforce a PRTB order, adding further cost and delay to an already difficult process.

The PRTB is supposed to provide a dispute resolution mechanism in a timely manner to both landlords and tenants. In practice, it is taking shy of one year in some cases for this organisation to get even a hearing in place. Both landlords and tenants urgently need a system to fast track resolutions, as was promised originally. However, the PRTB dispute resolution procedure rarely facilitates fast outcomes and this Bill fails to set a statutory timeframe within which a determination order should be issued following an application to the PRTB for resolution. This is of no help to the landlord who has been left short weeks or months of rent and who is struggling to repay a buy-to-let mortgage. It is certainly of no help to the tenant whose deposit has been unlawfully withheld by the landlord, and I understand that the withholding of deposits by landlords accounts for almost three quarters of all complaints by tenants to the PRTB. The Minister of State said she would bring forward an amendment to identify a system to address the problem of deposit retention. That was indicated in the programme for Government. What is the status of that amendment?

Based on some cases in which I have been involved, the PRTB is totally ineffective in dealing with anti-social behaviour among tenants. One of the functions of the PRTB was supposed to be to deal with anti-social behaviour in private rented houses but, in effect, it is actually discouraging people from coming forward about anti-social behaviour because it insists that the people who make the allegations or complaints reveal their identity if they wish to make a complaint about one of their neighbours. I know of an instance where a person is living with threats of violence and intimidation and where drug dealing is going on openly in the street every day. I have encountered several cases along these lines. The last thing those people want to do is to go public. I know decent people who are living in hell because of anti-social behaviour and the PRTB is doing absolutely nothing about it. There is little on record of it evicting people, dealing with the tenants involved in anti-social behaviour or dealing with landlords. All the facts are there and the Minister of State can look at them. At the very least, the PRTB should accept a situation where public representatives or the Garda can make a complaint on behalf of a resident.

Given the many shortcomings of the PRTB, is it worth maintaining this organisation? Either the Government brings forward proper legislation which will effectively deal with the many problems facing landlords and tenants or it should abolish the PRTB as just another quango.

Many landlords are not registered. What effort is the PRTB making in this regard? It was put in place to ensure landlords were registered. In regard to the quality of accommodation, if one gets a local authority house or accommodation under the local authority rental accommodation scheme, the local authority will check the quality of accommodation. What is the role of the PRTB in that regard? As far as I know, it does not check accommodation.

In regard tax compliance, I know many landlords who have five or six houses and they stuff ten or 12 students or people into them. They are not checked by the PRTB. I could bring the Minister of State to places in Waterford and show her five or six such places. Nobody knows whether these landlords pay tax on their earnings and the PRTB is useless in that regard. In private estates - this has been well-documented - there is no recourse whatsoever in regard to anti-social behaviour. What is the purpose of the PRTB in the first place?

Originally, there was a dedicated officer in city councils who dealt with anti-social behaviour in private estates, who would check to see if landlords were registered and tax compliant and who could check the quality of the accommodation people were living in. The Bill, although well-meant, will do absolutely nothing to ensure landlords are tax compliant and provide quality accommodation and to deal with the very serious effects of anti-social behaviour. Individuals buy up seven or eight houses, rent them out and do not even live in the constituency.

If I had my way, I would abolish the PRTB. I will table a question next week to find out the cost of running the PRTB and how many people are employed by it and its effectiveness in dealing with all the points I have made. We should really consider going back to the local authority which is best placed to deal with problems in private housing estates because one has someone on the ground living in the city, county or town. The PRTB is not on the ground in constituencies and it works from an office in Dublin. It is out of touch with what is happening in estates all over the country.

See this speech in context