263 / 322
GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER1984
measures to restrict rent while they pondered the knotty
problem were found to be unconstitutional, as was their
first Bill, presented to the Supreme Court by President
Hillery in early 1982. Finally, on July 26th 1982, the
Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act came into
operation.
The Act may have been expected to satisfy both tenant
and landlord. It went some way towards satisfying
landlords' demands by allowing them both a fairer rent,
and the prospect of regaining possession by the year 2001.
It also provided a degree of protection to the tenant by
creating "rent courts" to decide a fair rent in the local
District Court.
Unfortunately, neither landlord nor tenant was
satisfied with the workings of the Act. Not only is Mr.
Madigan bringing a further action contesting the consti-
tutionality of the Act, but tenants' complaints about the
inadequacy of the rent courts have led to the formation of
the Rent Tribunal.
These tribunals have become a further bone of
contention between landlords and tenants. Mr. Madigan
sees no justification for their creation. "The District
Courts were interpreting the Act in a fair and reasonable
manner," he said.
He believes that the formation of the Tribunal was a
result of political pressure, that the nominees on the
Tribunal are political appointments, and that their brief is
to slow down the workings of the Act and to keep rents at
a reduced level. He feels that they are inherently biased in
favour of the tenant.
Tenants, on the other hand, are to date relatively
pleased with the workings of the Tribunal, in operation
since August 2. While landlords had acquiesced
reluctantly to the original rent courts, tenants had found
themselves increasingly displeased.
They believed that the courts had a tendency to decide
in favour of the landlords. They gave increases of over £30
a week in many cases, and while the government provided
a subsidy for some, Mrs. Murphy points out that those
just above the cut off level for aid could find their
standard of living cut by a third. "It's all very well if you
agree to pay a third of your income in rent and know
exactly how much you will be left with," she said, "but
this sudden enormous increase found people totally
unprepared".
A Judge may have no idea of the varying types of
houses around the city, she said, and often assumed the
house was in perfect repair. Where conflict between the
tenant's and the landlord's valuers arose, she points out
that the Judge often merely split the difference between
the two amounts.
A major factor in the creation of tribunals was the
tenants' claim that many people found the District Court
highly intimidating. "You'd be afraid to look crooked,"
she said. Many tenants had never been in court in their
lives, had no idea of their rights, and often refused to
believe that the landlord was responsible for costs.
Mr. Madigan believes that there was a lot of "scare-
mongering" in relation to the workings of the District
Court. He points out that not only were tenants
represented by their own solicitor and valuer, but that the
costs of this were met by the landlord. For landlords a
court case could cost up to £1,000.
He remains dissatisfied with this and many other
aspects of the 1982 Act. He feels that since the means of
both the tenant and landlord are taken into account,
landlords are still not getting a fair market rent. In
addition, their ability to get possession of their premises is
still restricted, as longstanding tenants may retain
tenancy for either their lifetime, or the next twenty years,
whichever comes first.
For Mrs. Murphy, the Rent Tribunal, though not
perfect, is preferable to the rent courts. For Mr. Madigan
the opposite is true. Neither tenant nor landlord is
completely satisfied, and some three years after the
removal of rent restriction the matter is still being
contested.
The due process of law is necessarily a complex matter,
since justice is not a tangible thing, and in some cases there/
is no clearcut "villian of the piece". Mr. Madigan speaks
of the problem of reconciling private ownership wit>i the
public good, and points to the rights of private property
enshrined in the Constitution. Family rights/are also
enshrined in the Constitution, says Mrs. Murphy, and
points out that a decent place to live is a/oasic family
requirement. At present, both rights conJkct, and the path
to reconciliation remains unclear.
ASKL 'S T R AN S L A T I ON S E RV I CE LTD.
TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS
19 d u k e : s t r e e t , m b i . i n 2.
Tel: 779954-770795.
Telex: 91005 \ SK
EI
A comprehensive service to the
Legal Profession
- Secretarial
(Typing, copying and message handling)
- Legal Agents
- Word Processing
(Ideal for multiple Duplication)
- Translators/Interpreters
(Over 50 languages)
A unique range of Services and
a cut above the Competition.
ALLIED
LEGAL
SERVICES
5 2 A d e l a i de R d . ,
D u b l i n 2
7 8 9 7 12
8 2 9 9 23
!255