Residential Tenancies and Valuation Bill 2020: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2020-07-31
============================================================

Barry Ward (FG), Industrial and Commercial Panel

I may be mistaken but it is my understanding that Part 4 - and specifically section 67(2)(b) - relates to the obligations of a tenant under an agreement which he or she has made as part of a tenancy. Where such tenants fail to abide by conditions, whether paying rent or another condition, this section puts a limit on the time it takes for a landlord to take action against them. Section 67(2)(b) provides for 28 days. Section 5(5) of the Bill we are discussing does not allow for the period during which, as Senator Ruane said, tenants were under compulsory lockdown due to the Covid crisis to be counted.
I am very sympathetic towards the notion that tenants should be allowed to count that time but, as I said earlier, all the provisions of this Bill involve the balancing of rights. When talking about these issues, there is sometimes a danger of thinking only of the nasty landlord and the helpless tenant who may be out of pocket due to a lack of pay and of therefore thinking the benefit should always be given to the tenant. As a general statement, I have sympathy with that but we should consider a situation in which a person was in a tenancy in March and had not paid rent for a month before the commencement of the lockdown. This amendment would allow such persons to continue in their tenancies without paying rent or attempting to do so. I do not think it is common for tenants to wilfully take advantage but it does happen.
The danger of this amendment is that it may allow tenants in that position to live rent-free at the expense of the landlord who might have to make significant mortgage repayments to a bank. The person who owns the apartment - and who may own it in title only because the bank actually owns it - may still have significant financial obligations which could easily drag them under. The danger with this amendment is that it does not balance those rights. People who are behaving badly may avail of the law to protect them and to allow them to continue to behave badly.
As stated, I have sympathy with the notion that we must protect people who are left at the end of a short rope during a lockdown such as that we experienced in response to Covid. I have sympathy with such a notion but the problem is that we must always have balance in these things. Section 5(5) seeks to create that balance and not to allow people who are already behaving badly to avail of the law to continue to do so. I understand the intent and the import of the amendment but I am concerned that, if it were implemented and section 5(5) removed, it could create unforeseen difficulties for people who have obligations to banks.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2020-07-31/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:48:31+00:00
Sitting date: 2020-07-31