I refer to my letter ‘An unjust rental law’ (November 30).

Apart from the fact that the impact I wanted to make was diminished by alterations made to the letter, there are also other changes that have gone contrary to the message I intended.

I wrote that “come the year 2028, those owners who have stuck to their property will be reinstated in full ownership after virtually 100 years”.

This was, however, edited to read: “So, come 2028, they will be reinstated in full ownership...” ‘They’ here, grammatically, as a result of the editing, refers to ‘tenants’ in the previous sentence, who will be reinstated in full ownership. What I stated, of course is the contrary. It is the owners who will be reinstated in full ownership after 100 years.

I have received a number of comments about this mix-up.

Another point that has been completely omitted is the reference to the parliamentary secretariat, which I consider important. I also attempted to clarify the meaning of ‘lacuna’ in this context.

Thirdly, I qualified my reference to the new rent of €185 with the words “without going into details and exceptions”. This was because of the fact that the law provides for these exceptions. This qualification was omitted.