Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Rónán Mullen and Gerard P. Craughwell for raising this issue. I have raised the issue of receiverships and their conduct in the House a number of times. Although he is not present in the Chamber, I also thank Senator Sean D Barrett for raising this matter on a number of occasions. In particular, he has raised it with the Minister for Finance in respect of the treatment of tenants in buy-to-let properties and the issue of the lack of a code of conduct on the treatment of tenants in properties.

I wish to address some of the issues relating to the specifics of the motion. We need to remind ourselves what it is about. It is about receiverships. In essence, the Minister of State is correct in that it does not concern, in effect, principal residences. One of the things that concerns me about the debate so far is that there have been many references to family homes in the context of owner occupied mortgaged properties but not in the context of rented homes.We need to be very clear. One Irish family in five lives in a rented home. It is a sector that has been growing substantially. These are family homes and if any family living in a rented home is told that it is not its home and that it is not entitled to protection, I would like to be standing beside the person who is saying this to it.

I am not entirely happy with the Government's amendment to the motion. It does not refer to the issue in hand, namely, receiverships, but instead talks in general about mortgage arrears. It is most welcome that the motion has been put forward. I went to the trouble of obtaining a legal opinion on what was being proposed and there are issues with the motion, as drafted. I could spend some of my time going into these issues, but if he wishes, I can supply Senator Rónán Mullen with a copy of the legal opinion at the end of the debate. One of the issues that concerns me most is what can or cannot be done with the law as it stands. One of the points that may have been missed in the motion takes into account the fact that most receiverships concern buy-to-let properties which are rented as homes. We should remind ourselves of the extent of the problem we face. There are approximately 40,000 buy-to-let properties - approximately 25% of the entire rental market - in mortgage arrears for more than 90 days. To date, approximately 7,000 receivers have been appointed for buy-to-let properties. I could not possibly accept the notion that there is no compelling evidence that the sector requires the introduction of regulations to govern the conduct of receivers. That suggests we have had no difficulties with the appointment of receivers for buy-to-let properties.

With this in mind, I will refer to a case study in Threshold's annual report 2013. At the time of its publication, a far lower number of receivers had been appointed for rented properties - the exact number was 503. The case involves Maria, who had been living in a rented house for five years with her four children when she received a letter addressed to "the occupier". She tried telephoning the landlord, but there was no answer. As a result, she put the letter to one side and thought no more about it. A few days later there was a knock on the door while she was getting her children ready for school. Two men told her the landlord was not paying the mortgage and that they were now taking over the property. They thought nobody was living in it and told Maria that she had to pack up and that they would be back later that day. This is an unusual case, one Threshold does not deal with on a daily basis.

I have raised the issue of receiverships on a number of occasions with representatives of every one of the principal banks when they have come before the finance committee. In fairness, all agree that there is a need to regulate the actions of receivers.