Time to amend Rent Restriction Act

In this, the final part in the series of four articles on landlord and tenant issues, I wish to highlight some aspects of the Rent Restriction Act, which underscore the need for the act to be amended:

1 All properties which are subject to the act are known as 'controlled premises', which include all building land, dwelling houses as well as some public and commercial premises.

2 The Rent Assessment Board is the body established under Section 9 of the act to hear complaints regarding overcharging rent or illegal increase and consider applications for exemption certificates. This exemption is usually enjoyed by commercial premises, but the stipulation as to what premises may qualify for exemption uses a reference date of 1980.

3 Pursuant to section 3 (1) of the act, an application can be made for certain premises to be excluded from being governed by the act.

4 The board relies on rent assessment officers, who are empowered to determine what is known as the standard rent at which it is appropriate for premises to be rented.

5 The standard rent is usually well below current market rental and the method of calculating employed by rent-assessment officers underscores one of the very important reasons this act demands review.

6 Any landlord who demands rental in excess of the standard rent is guilty of a an offence under section 20 of the act and may be liable to pay a fine of up to $4,000, depending on whether it is a person or a body corporate, and the individual could be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

7 Pursuant to section 24 of the act, no landlord should charge a premium as a condition for the grant of a tenancy. Many persons argue that this makes it unlawful to charge a security deposit. However, there is hardly a lease which is drafted today which does not include a provision for the payment of a security deposit to ensure that the landlord can cover bills which are left unpaid, or to repair any damage which has been done to the premises.

8 Security deposits need to be declared legitimate, as it is often extremely difficult to locate a tenant after he or she has vacated the property to allow the landlord to enforce his right to compensation for any damage done to the premises.

9 Landlords are limited to an annual increase of 7.5 per cent. Any increase in excess of that amount would require the permission of the board.

10 The fines for any breach of the act range between a low of $500 and a high of $5,000. The question is whether those sums create any deterrence at all.

The last time any portion of the act was amended was in 1983; so it causes little surprise that many of the provisions are so outdated.

Sherry-Ann McGregor is a partner and mediator in the law firm of Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co. Send feedback and comments to lawsofeve@yahoo.com or lifestyle@gleanerjm.com