Brian Stanley Questions 'Top-up' Rent Payments and Market Resets

Could I ask Margaret about what their organisation is doing about under-the-counter, top-up payments that landlords are demanding? And the problem is that tenants don't declare it. Tenants, it doesn't get out into the public domain. It doesn't show on any figures in terms of what the official rent is, in terms of what's reported to the RTP or anybody else. What's your organisation doing about that practice? Now, we don't hear from it because our members tend to follow the rules. We would not ever defend the undefendable. Majority do, yes. I'm sorry to say, that is the same for everything, every walk of life. But we do not defend the undefendable. Where rent should be a certain amount, it should be that amount. And as such, if a call came into the Office of Any Description, we would inform our landlords of that. We educate our landlords. And again, like IPAV, we have had a number of educational events around the new proposals. We again had the Department of Housing as well, and we had a substantial number at that hearing. We also have an event in Dublin, very, very recently, which is what frightens us, and in Cork. At these events, okay, and that's good. At these events, have you specifically, at any point, addressed this particular practice? It's not something that comes up for us. We educate, and we would have discussed HAP, and we've also had the Department in discussing HAP as a webinar and giving out information. And they would have made it clear at those webinars that it is unacceptable to breach the law. We make it clear all of the time that it's unacceptable to breach the law. If there was... So, in short, because we have limited time, in short, are you telling me that you have addressed this at your seminars and at your meetings? We would always, at every meeting, tell our members that they must abide by the law of the land. But specifically, that's very broad, in relation to this specific practice, which happens. If there was a question that came up at a meeting... That's caused a huge difficulty for tenants. If there was a question that came up at the meeting, or if there was a call into the office of any description, then we will actually address an issue. So, going forward, could it be addressed maybe more directly? Well, again, we are happy. If we did a presentation on HAP, we would explain the rules around it and make it very clear to all our members that they need to abide by the law. Thanks for that. Could I just turn the threshold, and thanks for your submission. Just in relation to, you know, you expressed concern about the market rents, the move to market rents. And you, you know, you set out some reasons why. And in relation to lets, I mean, it's an issue that was raised at the point of, I think we'd agree that, I mean, there's a general feeling among everybody that policy certainty would be a good thing because, you know, everybody would know where we're going. And I think the other thing that's important to address is that the number of actually lets the last time I looked is actually increasing. The number of actually units let has increased fairly significantly in recent years. I think it's important to say that on the record. So, because the impression sometimes is given that the whole thing is collapsing out there. But just in relation to the threshold, the short-term tenancies, what's your concern about that? And rents increasing, you know, being each time with the market rent. If Gareth, maybe herself and Marie would just maybe talk us through that, where you see that problem. Thanks. Thank you for your question, Deputy. So, we'll start with the short-term... Put your hand on the mic, please. Thanks. It's on now. Yeah, I'll start with the short-term tenancies. One of the concerns that we have about that is, while it is somewhat positive that you can move from basically no reason to a reason, one of the notable reasons that you can cite is, well, any other reason. So, it doesn't really add too much to any of the protection for tenants to begin with. Because, well, currently, you can issue an eviction for no reason for less than six months. And now, well, any other reason can be cited. But it doesn't add any additional protections, per se. So, that's the first concern that we have. Regarding the market rent resets, well, we have a lot to say about that. But that probably would be justified to pick our biggest concern. It would be that. As I said, we, like, currently, since 2016, rents have gone up more than wages have, with the exception of the year 2020. There's plenty of statistics that can be found from Silk, the CSO, and so on, that basically highlight that there are lots of tenant people who are renting who are living in material deprivation. I have a lot of concern, and this is before the changes have already come into place. So, the overarching concerns that we have about the density reset is that, while you can increase by 2% each year, there could be a very, very large rent increase at the end of six years. And the housing agencies review the rent pressure zones. Actually, one of the things they actually outlined was that the new mechanisms allowing landlords to raise rents to market rents will need to be carefully managed to avoid very high rent increases. And we believe that the proposed market rent reset does not take this recommendation on board. Additionally, there are... And you were saying at this point in the legislation, there needs to be provisioned for, potentially, for a rent break. Have you mentioned that in your statement and in your submission? Yes, the other recommendation we perhaps could be made is to end the rent reset for, at the end of a voluntary end of a tenancy, because there could be, potentially, some unintended consequences there. The first one is a shift in behaviour to, potentially, landlords renting to shorter-term tenants, because, for example, if you bring in a student... The point you're making is, there's an increase in the number of opportunities to actually reset to a market rent. That's the basics. Theoretically, you could do one every year, maybe. I could have just asked you, in relation to, in relation to the technical thing with the legislation, in relation to notifications, and you addressed this, that, you know, surely we should be looking for, or insisting on, in the legislation, that paper form of notification is used. I mean, if electronic's used, I mean, correctly, you know, you articulate in it, you look at the options in terms of the different methods where people can be used, people can be contacted, but surely we should be, in terms of, you know, somebody receiving a notice of termination, a tenancy, you know, for the landlord, it's a big deal. It's a huge deal for the, it's an enormous deal for the tenant, because this is it, right? And, you know, roof over your head is gone, and it's getting more difficult to put a roof over your head in the private rented sector, you know, because there's a greater number of people, there's a higher population. But could I ask, in relation to that, should we not insist on a paper, a paper, and a hard copy notifications also? Regarding electronic communications, I might pass it over to my colleague, Zachary. Yeah, so we've been very clear about this, Deputy, in our submission. We feel that the current wording around the service of notice by electronic means is quite broad. It could potentially include commonly used platforms, which we don't really feel, I suppose, pay due adherence to the formalities and the importance of meeting those formalities around something as serious as serving a notice. So we've absolutely made that point clearly in our submission. But I suppose just in a broader sense as well, about sort of manipulation, if you like, around notices, service is one aspect, but we do also share Caddo's concern in shorter-term tenancies, as you've mentioned, that there is a potential for no-fault evictions to increase due to the fact that potentially the grounds that are currently put forward in the proposed heads could be effectively spun a little bit and that could lead to more notices being served. But to speak firstly to the electronic service point, absolutely, we're not happy particularly with the wording on that. OK, OK, we need to move on. Thanks, Deputy. Senator? Senator?