I WAS so pleased to see that at long last, people who are renting their homes in the private sector will have some degree of protection.

True, the Residential Tenancy Law will not actually come into force until January. Even then, it will only apply to people who are qualified to lease property. Presumably that excludes anyone who has not lived here for the required number of years to qualify for A to H residency, or who is not employed under a J-category licence.

I do wonder how many of the 30,000 or so people who are estimated to be in rented accommodation actually have residential rights.

But not to be too negative about it, at least those who do qualify will have the comfort of knowing that their landlord has to give them a full three-month notice before they – and their dependents, if they have any – are on the street looking for a cardboard box.
The tenant will have to give only one month’s notice, which is only fair because it generally takes far longer to find somewhere suitable to live than it does to find tenants willing to put down a deposit.

I know this because for some years I was among the unfortunates in the rental sector. I must also say that in the main, the private landlords I came across were fair and equitable. Some were more fair and equitable than others, and one was outstandingly fair.

One of the things that astonished me – and still does, when I hear about it – is the amazing range of property out there for rent. For the same monthly rent, there are properties that haven’t seen a lick of paint in years and properties where you could eat off the floor and still be alive to tell the tale.

There are places where I would be reluctant to allow my cat to walk and places that are clean, welcoming and well worth the price. The people who have residential qualies are, of course, the lucky ones. We, at least, are spared the lodging houses and the one-room dwellings where families with small children carry on coping because there is simply no better option.

But even in the A to H category there can be some nasty surprises, particularly for people with pets or – horror of horrors – children. For one thing, once you have found a suitable property, it is more than likely that a number of other people will be wanting it too. It is entirely at the landlord’s discretion to decide whether or not they think you will meet their expectations. It’s a bit like a job interview only worse, particularly if you have young children and desperately need somewhere to shelter.

Then there is the landlords’ right to come and visit, any time that they feel inclined. Some decide to do so when their tenants are out. Some are polite enough to ask, or even give advance warning. Either way, this exposure to scrutiny – which can feel akin to humiliation at best, and downright bullying at worst – is not one which home owners ever have to be subjected to.

As a tenant, whether or not you have a lease, there is also the mortal fear that you will never see your deposit again. Even people who really make a concerted effort to leave the premises immaculate may have to accept that what they consider reasonable may not tally with their landlord’s idea of reasonable. That can be tough on people who haven’t managed, for whatever reason, to save enough of a deposit – which often totals £1,000 or more – to put down on another property.

It is also a large and unsightly blot on the landscape of Jersey’s political Assembly that the housing rights of a third of the Island’s population were first discussed 13 years ago and only now have been brought to any kind of reasonable resolution.

But as I say, I don’t want to be too negative. Let’s hope we don’t wait another 13 years for the new Migration Law, which will, we are told, extend the Residential Tenancy measures to those who are not at present being provided with even the minimum of common decency.

ANOTHER area where there has been need for legal action recently is health and safety in the workplace.

Jersey is actually quite well-catered for in this respect: we do actually have a Health and Safety Law and it has pretty much the same clout as exists in the UK. The general principle is that every employer in the Island is responsible for making sure that their staff are provided with a working environment which is safe and which does not endanger their health.

We also have a team of health and safety inspectors, down at Social Security, whose job it is to make sure that people are doing what the law requires. Hence last week’s successful prosecution of the States of Jersey, who have been fined £10,000 for sub-contracting a private firm to dismantle a property riddled with asbestos, without telling them that there was any asbestos.

The problem with asbestos is that it can get lodged in the lung. I’ve seen pretty pictures of what it can look like once it starts to act on the tissue.

The fundamental problem is that there is too much asbestos in the Island. It’s all over the place. The old Odeon cinema. The Airport. Public sector housing.

One of the reasons, so UK specialists say, is that back in the mists of time, when the UK banned the use of asbestos, Jersey failed to bring in comparable legislation. Suppliers had to dump it somewhere, so why not the Channel Islands? And they did. And goodness only knows how much it is costing the taxpayer to get rid of it.

The failure of the Jersey authorities to act in a timely manner to ban a substance which was widely known to be dangerous is unlikely to be called into question in any courtroom. But at least on this occasion their failure to safeguard the health of two citizens has been made public.

Unfortunately, it will be the taxpayer, once again, who will be footing the bill.