125 / 298
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
GAZETTE
Vol. 75, No. 6
July/August 1981
Rent Control—What Now?
M
UCH print has been spilt in the aftermath of the
Supreme Court decision holding unconstitutional
the two principal parts of the Rent Restrictions Act. A
Bill, effectively restoring for a six month period, the
previous system of rent control has been hustled through
a new Dail and a curiously "lame-duck" Senate.
It is disappointing that all that the Department of the
Environment has been able to produce by way of a
solution to the problem is this "stalling" legislation. It
might have been expected that, once the High Court had,
in April 1 9 80 pronounced that major parts of the
legislation were unconstitutional, steps might have been
taken to draft legislation which could cope with the
situation, if and when the Supreme Court upheld the High
Court's decision. It is unlikely that anything has happened
in the intervening period which would have made the
drafting of such replacement legislation any easier.
Rent control clearly affected only a modest part of the
private letting market. Since it applied principally to
premises built or converted prior to 7th May 1941, the
widest category of excluded premises comprised virtually
all of "flatland" in our major urban areas. Market forces
have been seen to operate in these areas for many years,
so the results of freeing premises from rent control can
clearly be seen.
There have been calls for the extension of rent control
or the provision of security of tenure to all residential
accommodation.
There
are examples from
other
jurisdictions to show that such measures are not entirely
beneficial. Ignoring the position in the U . K ., where rent
control has become a political shuttlecock, examples are
to be found in France and the United States where rent
control has led to a decline of the housing stock, if not in
quantity, certainly in quality. This, of course, has been a
feature of our own rent restrictions legislation, where
numbers of landlords either could not or would not
expend the appropriate sums on repair and maintenance
because of the poor return.
Ifthere is to be rent control and security of tenure given to
tenants, it must not be at the expense of the housing stock.
Too much attention has been given in Ireland to the
provision of new and expensive owner-occupied housing
and too little to the preservation of existing habitable rented
accommodation. One of the most unsatisfactory aspects of
the excessive length of, operation of, and strict control
imposed by our Rent Restrictions legislation was that in
many cases the landlord and the tenant were in an equally
unhappy economic plight; s ome landlords relying on static
rents from controlled premises in periods of high inflation
were little better than their tenants.
The argument for allowing rents to reach market levels
is a strong one; even stronger is the argument that, if
some members of the community need financial aid to
enable them to meet such rents, it is the business of the
State to provide such subvention. A pensioner has as
much right to state assistance in maintaining his rented
home as first-time buyers have of substantial grants for
new houses.
If there is a need for a tribunal to monitor rents, its
jurisdiction, supported hopefully by amending legislation,
should enable it to ensure that the landlords are not
tempted to indulge in extra-legal bullying activities to
obtain possession of rented property, nor to avoid
registering their property with such local authorities as
have introduced byelaws governing rented accommo-
dation. Equally, landlords deserve some protection
against the minority of tenants who cause serious damage
to the rented property or its contents.
It is to be hoped that any new legislation will not
become a mere political football and that the broader
concern of the community in the maintenance of a
substantial market in rented accommodation will take
precedence over narrower sectional interests.D