Friday, 8th August 2008 - 16:45CET

GRTU to demand compensation if rent reform proposals are pushed through

The GRTU in a strong statement this afternoon said is would demand record compensation for businesses "robbed" of their rented premises if the current rent law proposals are pushed through.

It said the proposed reform is the "rip-off of the century".

"Thousands of small businesses will be robbed of what they are entitled to under the present laws if what the government is proposing is accepted by Parliament," the GRTU said.

"Whatever (Social Policy) Minister John Dalli and his team of “experts” say, the current law gives tenants in commercial outlets an assurance which is as good as money in the bank.

"What the government is proposing is to rob people of their wealth. It’s as simple as that."

It insisted that the main issue is the safeguard that successive Maltese governments have given to the self- employed and to small business owners that they will not be evicted of their rented business premises at the whim of the land owner.

"What the government is proposing today is tantamount to requisition of private businesses by land owners without compensation."

The GRTU argued that the government is not even putting forward proposals to compensate business owners for what is being taken away.

"The government does not even have an idea of how many thousands of business owners are going to be effected. It is unbelievable that the government is proposing a reform and does not present any statistics
whatsoever to prove and substantiate the arguments presented."

The chamber said that if the government wants to turn its back on small business owners and forget all the Nationalist Party’s past commitments to the self employed and small business owners, then it should be prepared to pay the heavy political price.

"The government, on the other hand, must be prepared to come forward to pay the heavy economic price to
compensate those who by Act of Parliament will be robbed."

The GRTU said it will be demanding compensation to tenants denied their rights at law, warning it will be the highest ever recorded in Malta. "Current estimates indicate tens of hundreds of millions," it said.

Previous article • PM inaugurates trackless 'train'
Next article • Spectacular ceremony opens Olympics

Article © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on Sunday, November 22, 2009. This article is for personal use only, and should not be distributed.

Comments

Michael Cremona (on 9/8/08)

Its a pity we consumers are so complacent. In so many cases, prices are vastly different from shops abroad. Most of the time, you can buy something in a shop overseas, ie with no wholesale discount, post it to yourself, and still save money. So shipping is not the reason. At the same time, power is cheaper, rent is lower and so are salaries. And yet we pay more.

Perhaps someone would like to set up a name and shame web site where landlords can publish the names of the businesses that they rent property to, with the price they pay.

Businesses would have the oppurtunity to declare that they would be willing to pay commercial rents and that they would not be claiming compensation.

Then we consumers can decide whether or not to buy from those businesses which make no such declaration.

John Schembri (on 9/8/08)

U Halluna!!!

Anthony Slater (on 9/8/08)

This is where more transparency is needed from our politicians

A list of politicians who may currently live in low-rented accommodation will give everyone the exact reason why the change to rent law is not being pushed.

...and you will probably find the very same politicians, including their families that 'own' the boat houses in Armier etc...

Joe Scerri (on 8/8/08)

Well done, at last the government is finally steam rolling itself in succession over those who have been having it so good at the expense of others for decades: hunters, public transport, drydocks, GRTU....

Keep it up

Nigel Lawrence (on 8/8/08)

So basically the GRTU wants the taxpayer to subsidise their business interests. Neat! By the way, if the shops don't like it, they can always go strike.

R.Bajada (on 8/8/08)

The reform shall effect different cases in different ways. Most of the comments may be right and even Joseph Attard has done some good reasoning although contrary to others.

What I cannot understand is why a lease that has been agreed between the two parties for a specific amount and for a specific time; after that time has lapsed the hirer shall have the right to continue occupying the premises? The reform addresses the anomaly only partially and in my opinion not sufficiently. I understand that the current old law was intended to safeguard 'social cases ' but in those cases it's the society (the goverment) that must intervene to cater for the hirer not the owner of the property!

j dimech (on 8/8/08)

Mr Farrugia, have a good look and digest the contents of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Edwards v Malta, Ghigo v Malta, Fleri Soler & Camilleri v Malta. You may easily find that this time you have chosen to wage the wrong battle. We are well accustomed to your games, political ransom is not a good negotiating stance, it is purely and simply unethical.

Matthew F (on 8/8/08)

GRTU stop procrastinating!! It is landlords who should be compensated and not businesses who have been making money for all those years. What do you say of people who have been renting out property to a well known company for cheap money and cannot do nothing?? The proposed reform will put an end to this injustice. In addition to this apart from having the rent on cheap the company is neglecting the place and letting it fall into pieces!!. Thank you Onor Dalli for putting an end to a long injustice with landlords receiving pittance for their rented properties

Albert leone ganado (on 8/8/08)

how about asking businesses to pay record compensation for making profits at the expense of landords who have be robbed of a just return for their property.

I am sure that if the principle of fair compensation was applied for all the years owners have had their properties virtually requistioned by businesses then huge compensation would be due.

Perhaps owners of business properties should come together and take their case to the European cout of justice.

Malcolm Seychell (on 8/8/08)

I think GRTU are making a big mistake on this issue

I have to agree with ABC on this one.

Reuben Balzan (on 8/8/08)

Since the GRTU feels that they are being robbed of what they are 'entitled' (GRTU's words) to if the reform goes ahead, then I suppose the GRTU will be encouraging the shop owners to pay the landlords compensation for having robbed them of what they were entitled to in the first place under the previous legal regime..... multiplied by all these years of course.

Joseph Agius (on 8/8/08)

I'm beginning to like the rent reform proposals. Keep it up!

Steve Sant Fournier (on 8/8/08)

GRTU should realise that they are now on the receiving end of the stick. Landlords had money in the Bank which was robbed from them for a long time. Now it seems this "robbery" has become so secure and watertight (thanks to these archaic rent laws) that many people thought or were under the impression that for these tenants, the acquired properties are as good as "Money in the Bank". It hurts doesn't it, but finally justice I hope. If anything Landlords were robbed and we should be demanding compensation.

Joseph Cilia (on 8/8/08)

What about the unfair advantage on the other business who do not have the luxury of the old rent law and hence rent their premisses at the commercial rates. To whom shall these claim for compensation??

The old rent law has long past its time, and I am amazed how we are in 2008 and we still have this around.

Franco Farrugia (on 8/8/08)

QAS INTKOM WICCKOM BLA ZEJT, UKOLL!
Go and buy your own premises to have your shops in!
Remember when the Valletta shops protested about hawkers working in their own streets? They said that it was not fair that hawkers, without their own premises, made their living, while they, shopkeepers, had their properties to maintain.

Joseph Attard (on 8/8/08)

Can anyone tell me what was Lm 100 in the early sixtees to a business man then? Can someone tell me why the governmentof the day has to get involved between current owners and tenants , when tenants have been made to pay thousands of liri by owners in many sorts and forms which were governed by private lucrative contract to owners. Yes lucrative cause Lm 100 rent in 1960 was not easy money. The simple part is that owners just never ever ever thought that property would incerease hundred fold in value. So they wentinto rental contracts accordingly based onthe business acumen of the day. And well in a business deal you win some and you loose some too....you cant win them all! But a realistic middle ground has to be found cause tenants of properties have gone into great expenses too and each case is a different case, so more ground work is needed, and more data is needed , more tangible actual information required. And when are we going to learn to respect the opinions of others even if we dont agree with them ? Lets be mature and handle this issue with care !

Jean Paul Galea (on 8/8/08)

GRTU sometimes are funny ....Who is robbing who when it comes to property is the business who is making thousands a day and paying lest than hundreds a year. Businesses have been having a good time hiding behind the law for the last years, its about time that land owners starts reaping the money who there grandparents worked for. I guess being robbed might be relative.. but being blind is permanent when it comes to GRTU

Charles bugej (on 8/8/08)

Is Mr Fartrugia real? It seems this time round that he does not have a property rented with pence and shillings. I think the rent reform proposal is a step in the right direction and Mr Dalli should not take notice of Mr Farrugia comments. small business have robbed their property owners for years and now is the time for justice.

Joseph E Briffa (on 8/8/08)

My mother-in-law had a garage in Sliema going back to pre-war days that was rented for about Lm100 p.a in the 1960s. The tenant converted it into an ironmongery store and made thousands during the building boom of the late 1960s. When she asked the tenant for Lm130 p.a. he refused. The store remained rented at Lm100 for another decade and a half, and the tenant was making a daily profit equivalent to a year's rent. Does Vince Farrugia think this is fair on the owner?

Corinne Vella (on 8/8/08)

Is the GRTU for real? "What the government is proposing is to rob people of their wealth"? That's what's happening under the current regime.

"Current estimates indicate tens of hundreds of millions"? That must be the tens of hundreds of millions that property owners are missing right now.

mario agius (on 8/8/08)

the grtu should be ashamed of making such declarations when there are hundreds of business premises paying peanuts as rent while earning thousands of euros. i am one of those who hope to get a decent rent from a premises which came to me by inheritance and for which i paid succession duty on the market value. but of course, mr. farrugia of the grtu has other businesses which render and not a store or a shop rented at 100 or 200 euros per year.

J. Buhagiar (on 8/8/08)

We have what was once a Garage on a main road, taken over by Goverment and used to date a as lotto maltco office for a few Liri a year.

What happens to that ?

The value of a property - any property - be it a piece of land a garage house or villa was never the sum of its parts. It was and still is it location and potential.

I think finally, this is good news if what applies for the goose applies for private property used by Goverment too.

Paul Barrett (on 8/8/08)

Simple Solution.
1. Govt pay tenants compensation.
2. Tenants pay property owners compensation.
3. Govt re-claims money in windfall tax.

Forgot the number 4.

Add Vat to each transaction - Govt well in pocket :-)

apgrech (on 8/8/08)

GRTU is acting stupid. So the landlords who had ueseless properties and never made a penny out of them have to suffer. The tenants who saved thousands and were able to live a very comfortable life thanks to the low rent they had been paying, those re the victims, right?

The low rent had been a huge rip off which no government wanted to change for fear of losing votes.

GRTU needs to take a course in logic.

Paul Barrett (on 8/8/08)

Simple Solution.
1. Govt pay tenants compensation.
2. Tenants pay property owners compensation.
3. Govt re-claims money in windfall tax.

david anastasi (on 8/8/08)

....how ridiculous.....what would Vince Farrugia have to say should he own a property rented out for a pittance, knowing that this same property could earn him a decent revenue rather than being a burden? Property owners are being robbed of the rightfull enjoyment of their own properties, and not the contrary.

I. M. Dingli (on 8/8/08)

I think this is the first time I fully agree with ABC!! Anyway, as to the GRTU ..... buuuuuu

Dr. D. Pollina (on 8/8/08)

Sooooo... Should the property owners in turn claim 'tens of hundreds of milions' from the government for the decades THEY were 'robbed' of the basic human right to negotiate the rent for their properties on the free and open market??? What nonsense.

The GRTU should be standing for free markets and the right to trade - not Soviet era socialism.

Andrew Borg-Cardona (on 8/8/08)

hmmmmm..... could landlords whose assets were exploited by the ridiculous rent paid by business tenants sue in their turn, for deprivation of the enjoyment of their property? could keep the courts occupied for years!

H.Borg (on 8/8/08)

I know of a lady who rents her property to a business who does hundreds of thousands a year and they pay her 45 Euros a year!!!! What does the GRTU has to say about that???

	18 °C
Mostly Clear Feels like: 17.4°C UV Index: 3

GRTU to demand compensation if rent reform proposals are pushed through

Comments

Poll

Fun Stuff