The debate on the rented properties legislation has unleashed a torrent of indignation. The indignation is not confined to one side. I have had considerable correspondence from landlords over the past few weeks. They sound about as happy as a penguin in a microwave. They claim that the new law will seriously interfere with their rights over their own property. They are correct. However, I think it’s a fair price to pay for the new resetting rights which they are gaining. The landlords have indicated their intention to fight the legislation in the highest courts in the land and beyond. Surely this must be the first time that a group which is allegedly benefiting from legislation is fighting tooth and nail to have that legislation struck down. Ranged against them on the other side are, not so much the tenants themselves, but their self-appointed champion-mainly politicians.
I am very rarely contacted by landlords. The people who come to me at my constituency clinic are generally tenants. They are not coming to speak to me about “resets” or to complain about how complex the legislation is. They are coming simply because they cannot find a property to rent. Experience has shown that there are bad landlords and greedy landlords. It also shows that there are also bad tenants. However, the fundamental problem here is not a surfeit of bad or even excessively greedy landlords or indeed of bad tenants. It is simply a lack of places available to rent.
If sufficient rental properties are not being provided, then obviously the providers of rental properties (ie Landlords) must be encouraged to supply more. This is not an easy ask in a Country which produces more indignation about landlords per square foot than any where in Europe. It is as if ownership itself or an act of privileged to be punished. However, any policy based solely on the notion that every landlord is a mustachioed- twirling villain, and every tenant is a helpless victim is not serious politics. It is theatre with real world consequences. Basically, tenants deserve strong protection, and landlords must get a fair return for risk and capital invested. Landlords should not feel hunted and tenants should not feel disposable.
Tenants will enjoy considerable protection and security of tenure as a result of this legislation. A tenant is now virtually guaranteed lifetime occupation of a rented property if it is what they want. There will also be transparency about rent levels in the form of a public rent register and rent caps are being extended nationwide.
Some argue that it is pointless to supply extra properties when people cannot afford the rents. This is a truly extraordinary proposition which flies in the face of the law of supply and demand. The whole notion of increasing the supply of rental property is to increase choice and reduce price. admittedly there will be some short-term rent increases. However a steadily increasing supply will ensure that rents will gradually fall due to the re-balancing of supply and demand. It is also worth nothing that” market” rents now are so high the market will not be able to be bear much more. Consequently those who will be resetting rents will not be able to raise them to a level where so few people will be able to afford them that they entire system will collapse and instead of an island of saints and scholars we will have an island of saints scholars and sofa surfers.
However, the narrative is truly mind boggling. The indignation is so pure and morally inflated that it could be piped into a hot air balloon and floated over the country. It would almost move one to tears if it were not so obviously rehearsed and synthetic. This narrative is not about fairness its about theatre.
Listening to some of the speeches in the Dail last week conjures up a scene from a Bond movie. You can almost picture the Minister in the role of the pantomime villain stroking a purring landlord in a penthouse and murmuring ” soon we will be rid of those damned tenants”
Leaving things as they are when landlords are withdrawing from the market in droves is quite simply an abrogation of responsibility. A system cannot keep bleeding providers and pretending to be surprised when prices rise, and choice evaporates. What we need here is regulation not retribution.
The legislation is trying to square a particularly difficult circle therefore it is complex. It is complex because it is a compromise. Of course It is an imperfect compromise. It is messy and difficult and hard to understand and to explain and will give rise to anomalies. However, real reform here requires confrontation with complexity. Of course, complex legislation cannot compete with rousing speeches. However, rousing speeches will not increase the supply of rental properties.
The legislation is not a love letter to either landlords or tenants. It is simply an acknowledgement that a properly functioning rent market depends on both sides being able to stay in the game. Tenants deserve strong protection, and they are getting it. Landlords must get a fair return for risk and capital invested and the legislation attempts to give them that.
