Page 3691 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is an issue that was of concern to me that there is a possibility for lessors or lessor agents to inflate the expenses that they have incurred and thereby create a situation where someone gets a listing. I was sympathetic to having that issue mediated but I am also persuaded by the attorney and the officials’ arguments that having this process that requires ACAT to make an order before such a listing can take place would make the system redundant, and I am persuaded by that.
However, I am open to persuasion in the future if there are abuses under this scheme. I will be quite happy to bring this matter back to the Assembly if we find that there are substantial abuses under this scheme. As things currently stand, I cannot support amendment No 3 as proposed by Mr Rattenbury, on reflection.
I am happy to support the amendment which is a little modified from what it was this morning, amendment No 7, which inserts an example. Mr Corbell seems to be of the view that this is belts and braces, but we often do belts and braces in legislation. To ensure that there is no ambiguity, I think that this example is acceptable.
I am somewhat torn about the remainder, which are the issues about a listing person. The arguments put forward by Mr Rattenbury and which were put to me by the Tenants Union are pretty much that it is possible that there is someone out there who may say something untoward on a database. However, I am also given considerable comfort by the discussions that I had at lunchtime and the advice from officials that, really, what we are doing in this legislation is creating a very narrow set of circumstances in which a listing can be made.
It is not legally possible—I am going to look for a nod from the gallery in a minute—essentially to say that they had a really objectionable pet, that they were rude to the property manager or to make comments like that on the database. The attorney is nodding. Therefore, seeing that there are some very narrow circumstances in which somebody can get a listing on the database—that is, if they have had their tenancy agreement brought to an end by an ACAT order or if they incur more costs than are covered by the bond—these are such narrow circumstances that I actually think it is not necessary or appropriate to shoot responsibilities to people who will not have the capacity to actually access the database. On reflection, I cannot support those amendments either.
I appreciate that this is an interesting and difficult area and I want both sides to obtain as just treatment as possible. But I also think that it is reasonable for tenants to know that if they behave badly in such a way that they do cause considerable expense to their landlords or to their landlords’ agents, they will be listed on a database. It will become quite clear as time goes on that this database can have an impact on their potential to rent again. It may be a means of ensuring better behaviour from a small subset of tenants who are not well behaved.
This may have some implications for not just the private rental market. There are real issues about the appropriate behaviour of tenants as there are real issues about the appropriate behaviour of lessors and lessor agents. But as the attorney said, if we had a more flexible rental market there might not be such cavalier action there. That might get us back to the debate we are having in the matter of public importance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video