The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
Review: P.24/2025 - Draft Residential Tenancy (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- Submission: Gary Shepherd
Dated: 21 May 2025
As a private landlord, I would like to express my objections to Deputy Sam Mézec 's proposal to change the existing Residential Tenancy Law.
There is no doubt in my mind, that Deputy Mézec 's proposals are very much loaded towards protecting tenants and the idea of an eventual open-ended tenancy is scary.
I have been a private landlord for 16 years, and in that time, I have never had a single issue with any of my tenants, we agree on the basics, lease, rental, extensions of the lease, etc and things run smoothly.
My tenants and I have always known exactly where we stand and have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a harmonious relationship and if anything crops up, then as adults, we get it dealt with, simple.
The other matter I find worrying, is the cap on rent increases, a proposed maximum of 5%. This doesn't take into account or compensate for a multitude of things, in particular the cost of building materials and goods in general, the cost of tradesmen to carry out repairs and improvements, which ultimately are to the benefit of both the landlord and of course, the tenant.
What these proposals also do, in my opinion, is potentially damage a good landlord/good tenant relationship, my reasoning being as follows. I have sometimes not increased my rental charge, because I would rather keep a good tenant in my property at the original agreed rent, rather than risk them leaving due to financial implications and subsequently having not quite so good a future tenant.
What I will be forced to do now, is to raise my rent at every opportunity I possibly can, in order to safeguard my interest.
I heard someone say in a recent meeting, at which Deputy Mézec was present, good landlords will have good tenants, bad landlords will have empty properties', something which I endorse entirely. All of these proposals smack of Big Brother' and my answer would be to bring in legislation that targets bad' landlords and leave us good' landlords alone please.
I was flabbergasted to read in the Spring edition of the Les Nouvelles de St Martin parish magazine, Sam Mézec 's explanations and comments regarding this subject. In particular, the following paragraph;
I am pleased with the feedback that these proposals have received so far, including from good landlords who have told me they make sense and will help raise the bar across the board'.
As a member of the Jersey Landlords Association, I know I can safely say that not one of the landlords, all of which the Association considers to be good I'm sure, believe any of the proposed changes make any sense whatsoever! I cannot stress that enough!
In conclusion, if Deputy Mézec 's proposal becomes law, with, in my opinion, its anti-private landlord policies and over the top legislation, I would not have to think twice about selling my property, I am not a charity to be taken advantage of.
My property will be sold, dare I say, along with a host of others from fellow landlords who feel the same as I do, resulting in fewer rental opportunities for tenants, far from the residential solution Deputy Mézec was looking for, I imagine.