Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:"4. Where the property which is being repossessed is the subject of a residential tenancy, the protections afforded to tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 shall be complied with by the financial receiver who shall comply with all obligations of landlords under that Act.".

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire ar ais go dtí an Teach. I welcome the Minister back to the House.

The purpose of the amendment that is proposed as section 4 is twofold. One is to protect a principal private residence where it is held as a tenancy and the other is to impose duties and obligations on financial receivers in common with other landlords.

I was worried that in the briefing document there was reference to the 0.3% repossession rate and to the need for a more efficient repossession regime, and talk of 3% and 5%. Like the Minister, I would look askance at such developments.

As the Minister will be aware, the rented sector has grown rapidly. I understand it is approximately one fifth of the market nationally, one quarter in Dublin and one third in Galway. In the last big boom year of 2007, apparently 78% of the 98,000 homes built were multiple units. They are rented, including quite a number in the south Dublin area.

The concern is that receivers are seeking vacant possession, in other words, the tenant bears the burden of having a bankrupt landlord. I seek that protection where this is a principal private residence, of which there were not so many in the past but of which there will be now. This was referred to on the last occasion and this would be normal in countries such as Switzerland and Germany where tenants do not face evictions simply because their landlord has gone broke and one simply pays the cheque to a different person. It is probably not a major issue in Ireland when there is such a traditional emphasis on owner-occupancy, but that is changing rapidly.

We want to protect those tenants and to impose the duty and obligation of being a landlord on the financial receiver. The reports that come back from agencies, such as Free Legal Aid Centres, FLAC, and New Beginning, are that financial receivers are seeking vacant possession and seeking to get rid of tenants.

Those are the two issues that I want to raise with the Minister in the context of a changing housing market where there is so much pressure on banks to realise these assets regardless of the sitting tenants for whom it is their principal private residence and the unwillingness of these financial receivers to accept the duties and obligations of maintaining a property which previous landlords had. That is all I have to say on it. That consideration can be taken into account unless the pressure is to make banks solvent again at the expense of sitting tenants, conduct which was not acceptable from previous landlords and complaints about those financial receivers. In general, I fear we will probably have to recapitalise the banks through the Department of Finance route in any case. On the evictions rate being increased, as the Minister stated, from 0.3% to 0.5%, like him, I am against evictions from homes. Some repossession architecture should apply to these tenants for whom it is their principal private residence.