Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We need to acknowledge that we have a serious and growing problem with anti-social behaviour in residential areas. We also must acknowledge that the current system simply does not work. It does not work because the enforcement of the anti-social behaviour laws in the Residential Tenancies Act is difficult and is being implemented poorly by the PRTB, and the laws are simply not capable of being enforced properly by that kind of body.

With many of the issues I get as a local representative, I feel I can help, do something and advocate, but this the one issue that occurs repeatedly and where I feel utterly powerless to help. People come in to me who have neighbours who cause them misery. These people are enduring behaviour that is sometimes minor but which accumulates, has a grinding effect on them, affects their mental and physical health, community relations and the vibrancy of the neighbourhood, and that completely undermines the quality of life, not only in that person's home but in the entire neighbourhood, and it can all be because of one tenant or one house in that area.

What has happened in the property market, as has been alluded to previously, is that we have gone from people either owning their own home or being in a local authority home and the existence of a small rented sector to a plethora of different housing types. We have private owners, private rented, local authority housing, the residential accommodation scheme, the long-term leasing scheme and rent allowance. As a result of all of these different types of tenancies and housing models, there are no longer areas, as there used be in the past, where there was a private estate and a local authority estate. The different models and different forms of housing provision are spread right across every area of cities, urban areas, towns, etc.

For example, Ballybane, in Galway, the area in which I grew up, has local authority housing that was built in the 1980s and has settled down. It has private residential accommodation that was built but has never been given a chance to settle properly. There has been more local authority housing put in and more private housing during the boom, and it has been over-populated. Coupled with that, there is a third level institution nearby and the area has suffered all of the anti-social behaviour problems that are possible to list. It is a microcosm of the problems we face and an example of how the current infrastructure and tools of the law to deal with anti-social behaviour simply do not work. One couple that came to me were in their 70s and lived in a private house. The local authority had bought the house next door and their life was made hell by behaviour of the children, intimidation, car mechanics operating outside the door, the illegal building of sheds against their wall and all manner of such behaviour. This was an elderly couple who were afraid to speak, act or do anything. They eventually came to me, to other local representatives and to the local authority, but at the end of the day the solution for that elderly couple was to sell their house and move rather than persist in working with the local authority and using the other legal avenues to deal with the anti-social behaviour.

They only way they could envisage enjoying the last two or three decades of their lives was to leave that property. They have sold it and are now living in private rented accommodation. That is how serious it is. That is an issue where a local authority is involved. There are other issues where the PRTB is involved where the service and action to help those people would not be as good.

I can give many examples of people from areas such as Knocknacarra who experienced little things, but the cumulative effect of little things can really impact on people, including rubbish being thrown on the streets, bins being left blocking cars in people's driveways, ten cars parking outside a house and parties in the night. Any of those individually could be regarded as an isolated incident but the cumulative effect on people can undermine their confidence and their enjoyment of their home. It is often a sense of fear and intimidation that can undermine people's lives. When I talk to people I am at a loss as to what to tell them to do. I have never come across anybody who got a successful resolution to these kinds of issues from the PRTB. One of the people who came to me had been to a solicitor, who asked if they had three brothers who might come along, knock on the door and intimidate them, because that would be quicker, cheaper and more effective than taking the legal route which they might not win and would cost them a fortune. If people in the legal sphere are recommending fighting intimidation with intimidation, we are in a seriously difficult position.

I acknowledge that there are some very good landlords. When there is a good landlord there is rarely a problem. However, there are real problems with delinquent landlords who do not care. It is a factor of the change in the housing model. People went from having very little to owning 20, 25 or 30 houses, all for the purpose of making a quick buck. They do not run it as a business or with any professionalism - they run it in a way that it does not matter whom they get in as long as they can pay off the mortgage for 25 years in order to have a vast property portfolio and can retire comfortably. As the sole motivator is paying the mortgage, they do not look after the property - they do not paint it, upgrade it or replace furniture. The windows are often left decaying. All they care about is getting in the rent to pay the mortgage. The landlord of a person living in Shantalla owned up and said as much. The property is then left to decay so much that the landlord will not get tenants who will maintain the property. This is a major issue and the sense of powerlessness people have further adds to the issue. Something drastic needs to be done.

I very much welcome the provisions of the Bill. However, regarding the PRTB we are tweaking around the edges of a failed system. The 2004 Act is quite good in defining anti-social behaviour in very broad and effective terms, but we are missing enforcement of those laws. There is something we have failed to implement in the system and the law. Regardless of whether it is owner-occupied or privately rented, the property owners have responsibility for those properties. Just because they have been leased to tenants does not mean the landlord can step back and claim it is an issue between the tenants and their next-door neighbours. The landlord who is taking the rent is responsible for how the tenants behave in the property and that principle needs to be enshrined. The ability we have now with a proper register of property ownership, and a proper analysis of who owns what properties through the household charge and the property tax, gives us an excellent opportunity to enforce the responsibility of owners of properties to those properties.

When I deal with such cases I often contact the local authority, which has no role if it is not a local authority house, or contact the Garda, which has no role if it is not a criminal matter. However, somehow we can issue on-the-spot fines for speeding, littering and dumping. I do not understand why we cannot issue on-the-spot fines for some of the very simple forms of anti-social behaviour that occur in residential properties, regardless of whether they are owner-occupied. If we know who the owners of those properties are, that fine should be passed on to the landlord immediately and without question. The relationship between landlord and tenant should be one where there is agreement to pass that fine on. However, the landlord cannot be immune from the concerns of neighbours, gardaí and others as to what is happening. However, that is what is happening and they are closing their ears and paying no attention. If the fine were issued to the landlord, who could then pass it on to the tenant, we would have the landlord involved and a landlord would be very quick to act. A landlord who suddenly gets a bill for €80 for a house party, €100 for nappies being thrown into the garden or €1,000 for blocking someone's house would be very quick to act.

We cannot continue with the current system. We need a fundamentally different approach to this issue, which is growing. In certain areas it is completely destroying the fabric of community. Once there is one house it affects the next-door neighbours; they move out and the same thing happens - a private landlord will come in and rent it out, and the problem spreads. Entire areas of Galway city - I can name the estates - are being vacated by people who simply cannot live there anymore and are moving out. Once that happens there is no longer the proper social mix between privately rented and owner-occupied, and it becomes more serious than anti-social behaviour - that is when criminality starts to become an issue and the area becomes a haven for certain kinds of activity. We need to nip that problem in the bud with a proper system that makes landlords and owner-occupiers responsible financially in an easily enforceable way for anti-social behaviour occurring in properties owned by people from which they benefit financially now and into the future. It is not unreasonable to take that approach. We need a task force between the justice and housing authorities to implement such a system. The only way to solve that problem is to take radical and effective steps to deal with it.

See this speech in context