A Rent Reform Bill presented in June failed to address decade-long issues related to properties leased before 1995 and introduced confusing concepts in a rather sporadic manner, the Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Enterprise has warned. 

Moreover, the Bill was empowering the Housing Authority to make unannounced random inspections in “any private premises”, as part of its enforcement responsibility. 

Chamber president David Xuereb highlighted the chamber's position on the Bill in a news conference on Wednesday, during which the chamber also put forward a number of proposals. 

One of the major criticisms levelled was the lack of provisions regulating shared-bedroom accommodation, whereby tenants rented a bed rather than the entire apartment or dwelling. 

The chamber noted that such practice was becoming increasingly popular, fuelling rent rates and simultaneously causing a dramatic decline in the quality of accommodation on offer.

Furthermore, couples were being outpriced as they ended up competing with groups of people willing to share the same apartment, whose overall spending power was higher.

In this respect, Mr Xuereb called for detailed regulations on room sizes, the maximum number of tenants permitted per square metre, and measures to regulate health and safety. 

Though the Chamber welcomed the proposal for the establishment of a register of lease contracts, it said that such measure in itself would not contribute to the betterment of the rental market particularly in making it reasonable and affordable.

It called for more clarity on leases of between six months and a year, as these did not fall in either the short- or long-term lease category. 

In the case of the latter, the Chamber welcomed fiscal incentives to encourage long-term contracts but pointed out that this proposal was skewed against landlords. It noted that tenants would have the right to terminate the lease with a few months’ notice, but landlords would have no such right.

Another major concern raised was a particular provision regulating enforcement.

One of the articles in the Bill, empowered the Housing Authority chairperson or a person authorised by him to “enter any private premises” to inspect the tenement in terms of the act or “take any photographs after entering” regardless of whether the property was subject to a lease agreement or not, “with the right to do anything that is ancillary or consequential thereto”. 

This clause was obscene and went against the individual’s fundamental right to privacy, the Chamber said. 

With the proposed legislation, rental rates could marginally stabilise for a minority of longer-term tenants, it added. However, it would not address rising rental rates and their multiplier effect on the labour market, while the illegalities of substandard shared accommodation would persist. 

As for pre-1995 commercial and residential leases, the Chamber remarked that this Bill failed to tackle the many unfair situations which had persisted for decades, leaving lengthy court proceedings as the only means of redress.

It seemed that the individual’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their property was being placed in jeopardy, it remarked. 

In view of this, the Chamber called on the government to go back to the drawing board, to prevent having a Bill that was only addressing existing problems in “cosmetic fashion”.