In August, my colleague Kevin Hargaden posted a blog on the scramble for student accommodation and dignity in housing, drawing important attention on how we see quality housing contributing to the “common good”. The piece argues that we need affordable housing near to campuses, and I agree. But what we also need—and a thought that I personally believe is not discussed enough in wider discourse—is for those students to feel secure in their tenancy.
“Digs” are a type of rental accommodation, usually aimed at students, where a homeowner will rent a room out at a “reduced” rate. The positive of digs for many students coming from outside their university city is that you are only paying for days you are there, i.e., Monday-Thursday or Monday-Friday. The positive for homeowners is that they are entitled to the Rent-a-Room scheme, allowing them to earn up to €14,000 tax free. Another positive for the homeowner is that they are not considered landlords and do not need to meet physical standards of a rented home, provide a lease to the tenant, be subjected to the Residential Tenancies Board, or be accountable to anyone really, plus “kid-free” weekends. Sounds like a fair trade off…right? It’s only a student, they should just be grateful…right?
A quick look at digs.ie or daft.ie will show rooms for rent in Dublin ranging from €550 to nearly €900 a month in properties you are not allowed to stay in over the weekends. Because there is no regulation around digs, homeowners can change that price whenever they see fit, as in the case of a Donegal student whose weekly rent changed from €110 to €170 with no notice. Other cases of students feeling unsafe in their house due to the homeowner’s drinking and drug use, lack of access to water for basic hygiene, and the inability to use the kitchen, as infamously seen with Fianna Fáil Dublin City Councillor Deirdre Conroy, are not uncommon stories. Overwhelming, students put up with this treatment out of fear of homelessness or long commutes to class.
Proverbs 22:22 explicitly tells us “Do not take advantage of the poor just because you can; do not take advantage of those who stand helpless in court”. It doesn’t take a theologian to understand that the Bible is clear in asking us to not abuse our powers over those who cannot speak up for themselves. Students are young, often leaving home for the first time and presumably do not have the kind of money that is now required to rent in Irish cities, especially not in Dublin. With no legal protection, they quite literally would stand helpless in court if a matter ever came down to legal proceedings.
Why is it that just because they are a student that it should mean they are not entitled to protection? Do we really think an 18, 19, 20+ year old is less deserving of basic living standards and legal standings all because they are trying to better themselves and society by receiving an education? We at JCFJ are acutely aware of the housing crisis and its impact on students, but surely the answer to this is not “suck it up and deal with it”. If you are granted (some) protections in purpose-built student accommodation and private rented accommodation, then it is not outside the realm of possibility to extend this to students who are privately renting in the landlord’s personal home.
While purpose-built student accommodation (also called student-specific accommodation, or SSA) have been ushered into the Residential Tenancies Act (amended 2019) granting them rights against price hikes and living standards, this same “courtesy” (basic human right) has not been extended to all students. Essentially, you are only granted this right if you have the ability to pay €1,200/month. This means students are having to choose between the government seeing them as worthy of rights if they will line the pockets of the investors who run the SSAs or as someone who does not matter because they can’t meet the extortion price.
We should not get rid of digs – they serve a valuable role. And we should not discount those landlords who welcome students who take a room in their house as if they were part of the wider family. But surely we do no harm to the good actors by protecting vulnerable people from the bad actors. We should not be differentiating rights based on socio-economic class. God shows no partiality, so why should we?
