Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Coppinger that it is more difficult to evict on the basis of rent increases. That is due to the protections in place and the recourse tenants have to the PRTB and the courts, if necessary. They have protective rights in legislation.

I will deal first with amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 51 which places additional requirements on landlords who are selling their dwellings. As we know, many people do not use estate agents to sell their property and, as such, a requirement to produce correspondence with estate agents would be unfair on those landlords who wish to sell their own dwellings. In addition, the requirement is that a landlord must have an intention to sell, not have sold the dwelling or have a buyer in place. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to provide that the landlord must provide correspondence from a prospective buyer. The requirement for landlords to give evidence that they would suffer significant financial hardship unless they sell the dwellings would introduce significant and unfair limitations on their freedom to make decisions about their private property and infringe on their property rights. The Seanad amendments provide that the notice of termination must be accompanied by a statutory declaration. To make a false statement in a statutory declaration is an offence. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Seanad amendments will be effective in preventing fraud in this regard.

In addition to the strengthened measures being introduced in this Bill, there are already significant protections in the 2004 Act to prevent this type of fraud. Section 56 provides that where a tenant vacates a property on foot of a notice of termination on the grounds the landlord wants to sell the dwelling or needs it for a family member and the tenant subsequently finds this was not the reason for the termination, the tenant can bring a complaint to the PRTB, which may award damages against the landlord and may make an order that the tenant resume possession of the house. Taken together with the new measures I have introduced, I believe there are sufficient protections for tenants in the Act against invalid terminations.

There are plenty of examples of tenants being successful before the PRTB and being awarded compensation. It is important we take the opportunity in this debate to say that tenants are made aware of their rights under existing legislation. There has been a successful outcome from the tenancy sustainment protocol operated through Threshold, which manages to keep thousands of people in their homes by giving proper information for tenants to know their rights and resist fraudulent terminations of tenancies. That is a fact which is there to be seen.

In respect of the retrospective reporting mentioned by Deputy Cowen, that would be a matter for the PRTB in determining its decisions. It is independent and quasi-judicial. Where the PRTB decisions or awards are not upheld by either party, there is recourse to the courts. In this legislation, we are improving access to the courts and the timelines for disputes because when this legislation is passed, the District Courts will be able to hear cases whereas before now, people were waiting to have their cases heard in the Circuit Court which was causing delays.

With regard to amendment No. 2 to Seanad amendment No. 51 where further evidence is required that a landlord needs the dwelling for family occupation. In effect, the amendment provides that a landlord may only terminate a tenancy where he or she requires the dwelling for himself or herself or for his or her family in circumstances where to do otherwise would be to cause the landlord significant financial hardship. As with amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 51, this amendment would introduce significant and unfair limitations on a landlord’s freedom to make decisions in relation to his or her private property and infringe on his or her property rights. As such, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

With regard to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to Seanad amendment No. 53, which refers to the longer notice periods for termination that Deputy Clare Daly and others have mentioned, these amendments all relate to the notice periods for the termination of tenancies. The additional notice periods provided for in the Seanad amendments increase the notice periods for landlords and tenants. In doing so, they have been calibrated so as to maintain the proportional relationship between the notice periods. This means, for example, the maximum notice period that long-term tenants of eight years' duration or more must give is 112 days, half as long as the landlord must give in such circumstances.

The Act is carefully constructed to be fair to landlords and tenants alike. Where a tenancy has been in existence for eight or more years, it is important that the landlord also receives adequate notice so that he or she can source the right tenant for the dwelling concerned. In amending the termination notice periods, we have maintained the principle behind the notice periods already established in the Act and for that reason, I cannot accept the amendments. Under section 69 of the Act, the landlord or the tenant may agree to a lesser period of notice being given at the time or after the time the intention to terminate the tenancy has been given.

In response to opposition amendment No. 4 to Seanad amendment No. 53, which refers to the application of new notice periods to notices already served, these amendments seek to provide that the new notice periods would apply to notices of termination already served at the commencement of these provisions. As I have already stated, it is not possible to retrospectively apply the new provisions and, as such, I will not accept this amendment.

See this speech in context