The Gazette 1984

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)

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

A unique range of Services and a cut above the Competition.

!255