Member

While I understand the intent behind these amendments—that tenants should always be compensated when they are evicted due to a landlord breaking the rules—I believe that the Bill already takes the right approach on this issue. A court is best placed to decide, on a case-by-case basis whether compensation should be paid, as is currently provided in the Bill. There can be circumstances where a landlord is subject to enforcement action due to actions of the tenants, for example, cases of overcrowding. As such, it would not be appropriate to dictate that compensation must be paid in all circumstances before possession can be granted, nor for those circumstances and the level to be set in regulations that would be unable to account for the nuances of each case.