Response to interpellations 2025/26:287 and 314 on tenants' position in connection with renovations and strengthened protection for tenants' living environment
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers that the current regulatory framework provides good conditions for intervening against unserious landlords and that the legislation is well-designed 1 2. M argues that tenant influence must be weighed against the landlord's need for a rational operation 1 and that Sweden should be a country where property owners take their responsibility 3. M argues that certain problems are administrative issues rather than legislative issues 2 and that the Social Democrats previously refrained from reforms due to a lack of preparatory material 4. S considers that tenants' rights are not high on the government's agenda 5 and that the state stands paralyzed in the face of tenants being treated poorly 6. S argues that there are clear problems with the legislation regarding compulsory management 5 and wants to introduce the concept of "reasonable" as a basis for assessment during renovations 7. S will continue to push issues regarding lack of property maintenance and conditions for rent increases 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Markus Kallifatides has asked two questions regarding the area of rental housing which I intended to answer jointly.
The first question is whether I and the government see any reason to carry out a review of the legislation regarding property owners' responsibility for property maintenance in order to strengthen the protection of the residents' living environment.
The second question is what measures I and the government are prepared to implement to strengthen tenants' position in connection with renovations, for example through the legislative amendment that the Social Democrats have proposed and for which there is a preparatory basis.
It is a given starting point for the government that all residents, regardless of housing type, have the right to a safe living environment. The government is therefore working continuously to improve the rental housing regulatory framework and strengthen the protection of tenants. During the mandate period, we have created better conditions for safer residential areas by making it now easier to evict tenants who commit crimes. This leads to increased safety for other tenants.
The Government is working on a broad front to improve the housing market as a whole and has, among other things, promoted the new production of rental housing through an improved rental setting model for so-called presumption rent. The Government has also very recently decided on two referrals to the Council on Legislation with proposals aimed at lowering the thresholds to the housing market and achieving a more efficient use of housing that already exists on the market. It is proposed, among other things, simpler rules for individuals who want to rent out their housing and for companies that want to rent out housing to their employees.
Regarding Markus Kallifatides' first question, I cannot comment on the Rent Tribunal's review of individual cases. That being said, I naturally view, on a more general level, seriously the reports that tenants are living under poor conditions. Such living environments as described in the interpellation, with deficiencies in the condition of buildings, risks to health and safety, and long-term neglected maintenance, are simply not acceptable.
In the Rent Act and the Housing Management Act, there is protective legislation that provides the possibility to intervene against unscrupulous landlords who neglect their properties. The regulatory framework provides good conditions to intervene against unscrupulous landlords who do not manage their properties in an acceptable manner, and the Rent Tribunal has real possibilities to intervene with compulsory management in the most serious cases of neglect. At the current stage, I see no reason to review the rules, but of course, I and the government are following the issue closely.
Regarding the second question that Markus Kallifatides poses, the right to influence regarding renovation measures aims, among other things, to protect tenants against rent increases due to renovation measures that are unjustified from the tenant's point of view. Tenant influence constitutes an important part of the protection under the Rent Act. This must simultaneously be weighed against the landlord's legitimate interest in being able to conduct a rational rental business. Landlords have a management responsibility and must therefore be able to undertake renovations and other standard-improving measures for the dwellings so that the apartments do not deteriorate.
Even in this regard, the regulatory framework provides tenants with protection in connection with renovations. The fact that the rental tribunals often rule in favor of the landlord does not necessarily mean that the rules are incorrectly designed. Many cases do not reach the rental tribunals because the influence of the tenants leads to out-of-court settlements. Regarding the proposal that Markus Kallifatides mentions, I note that the previous government judged that it could not be implemented with the current preparatory material as a basis.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the answer.
Mr. Speaker! Tenants' rights do not stand particularly high in the ratings for this government. Two completely different interpellations are being merged here into one interpellations debate. I note that, and I assume that Sweden's tenants also note it. I will, however, begin with the question regarding seriously lacking property management.
In January last year, Report 2025:5 was submitted by the Commission on Measures to Strengthen Safety in the Built Environment. The report addresses, among other things, issues regarding different forms of mandatory area cooperation. It is an issue that will arise here in the Riksdag during the spring.
The report also provides a current knowledge base regarding order and tidiness in the built environment. It is proposed that an investigation shall be tasked with investigating identified deficiencies in the supervision of the built environment and provide proposals on how these can be addressed. The investigation points to a need for training, templates, and manuals linked to different supervisory authorities' areas of operation and a need for a review of municipalities' tools and incentives to exercise supervision.
Mr. Speaker! Even in cases where supervision actually works or when Hyresgästföreningen pursues a matter of compulsory management, such as in Vårberg in southern Stockholm, there are nevertheless clear problems with our legislation. The investigation sees room for improvements regarding the regulatory framework surrounding just compulsory management.
If a rental tribunal decides on compulsory management, it shall simultaneously appoint a compulsory manager. The municipality shall submit proposals for managers, but the municipality has no powers to force anyone to be a manager. If neither the municipality nor the rental tribunal can find a suitable manager, the entire issue of compulsory management falls. One question from the commission's work is therefore whether someone should be designated as obligated to take on the responsibility for compulsory management. Is it the municipality or perhaps a state-owned real estate company?
The investigation has identified a further series of clear deficiencies and problems, for example that extensive evidence is required in the cases. It requires tenants who are prepared and not afraid to testify in the Rent Tribunal. It is also not uncommon that tenants who are both able and willing to testify manage to move out before the issue of compulsory management is taken up in the Rent Tribunal.
Mr. Speaker! Despite this, the Minister for Justice informs here today that he currently sees no reason to conduct a review of the rules on, among other things, compulsory administration, but he also emphasizes that the government is following the issue closely.
Mr. Speaker! Now that I have informed the Minister for Justice about what the state actually knows about this area, I wonder if he is prepared to reconsider the decision regarding his position.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for the opportunity to discuss these pressing issues today!
I want to emphasize that the number of interpellation answers provided to Kallifatides' questions is not what determines the commitment to the issues, but it is, of course, the quality of the answers and also in the policy pursued.
Many of the questions and circumstances that Markus Kallifatides raises are truly worth taking seriously. I say that we are following the questions closely, and I know that it is a so-called standard answer from all governments when it comes to how one handles questions of different kinds. But when I say that, I can assure you that there is a very serious intention to follow exactly how these questions develop.
It is also, of course, a matter of asking the question: What are application problems rather than legislative problems? What scope is there for the rental law system to handle issues in a more efficient way?
It concerns, for example, a question that Markus Kallifatides raised, namely that tenants can manage to move out before issues reach a sharp stage in the legal review. This is not necessarily a legislative issue but a processing issue, which concerns how the issues are prepared in practice, when they are handled and decided, at what tempo the process is moved forward, and so on.
The fact that a well-designed piece of legislation is not currently subject to a major review is not the same as saying that there are no issues, not least processing issues, in the system that are undoubtedly worth following up on and certainly also addressing in individual cases.
In summary, I think it is very good that the questions are raised. Even though I cannot go into an individual case such as the one in Vårberg, I can possibly go as far as to say that it certainly brings to the fore a number of questions that different actors in the system have reason to reflect upon. One can then see if there are also possibilities within the framework of today's existing regulations to make adjustments so that one can handle this type of problem in an even better way when looking forward.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Minister of Justice, for the answer!
It has happened a few times during the parliamentary term that our interpellation debates have prompted initiatives from the Minister for Justice. This has included, among other things, new instructions to the Swedish Companies Registration Office and the question of equating the responsibility of housing cooperative members and tenants for safety in the local area.
One effect of merging two interpellation debates, Mr. Speaker, is that the interpellation debate becomes shorter. There will be less time for the interpellor to explain the background to their two completely different questions regarding the very significant interests of different groups of tenants.
I appreciate that the Minister for Justice obviously listened carefully to my first contribution and pointed out that there are administrative issues to discuss here. I would, however, like to emphasize that there is also a one-year-old government investigation here, which points to clear legislative issues in light of the state of knowledge that is summarized.
The investigation 2025:5 actually proposes that requirements for permits for property owners to rent to residential tenants should be investigated. The investigation's mapping has shown that there is a problem with deeply unprofessional property owners who do not manage the administration of residential properties. A property with lacking maintenance can negatively affect an entire area. The investigation assesses that at least municipalities need stronger means of pressure in relation to property owners in order to both address existing problems and make it more difficult for unprofessional property owners to enter the market at all.
This government will reject previous proposals regarding new acquisition legislation. This is also a matter that will come up here in the Riksdag during the spring in connection with extensive liberalizations regarding second-hand rentals and so-called corporate housing. These are concrete steps towards market rents, Mr. Speaker.
It is probably not to be expected that this government will also review the conditions for tenants in connection with renovations, which is the second interpellation question. The problems with very substantial rent increases in connection with renovations and tenants who feel overridden in those processes are dismissed, despite completed investigation proposals.
The question that I nevertheless want to have recorded in the minutes here in the Riksdag is, therefore, about introducing the concept of "reasonable" as a basis for assessment when the Rent Tribunal is to grant permission for renovation measures. The assessment of reasonableness shall concern whether the tenants have had sufficient influence in the consultation process. It shall also concern whether adequate, meaningful alternatives with different consequences in terms of rent levels have actually been presented to the tenants to take a position on. This is something that shall be required of the property owner.
If the Minister for Justice does not like the investigation proposal that exists and that we Social Democrats want to implement – what does the Minister for Justice want to do instead? A question that is perhaps even more of interest is this: What do the Sweden Democrats want?
The Minister of Justice can perhaps also inform us about that. As we know, we do not have the possibility to submit interpellations to the party that largely governs this government's initiatives.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I can, to begin with, feel sympathy for what Markus Kallifatides said at the very end. There are many Moderate members who, over the years, have wanted to ask questions to the Left Party, which in practice has governed the Social Democratic government at least since the 70s and onwards.
But now it is what it is. It is the parties and ministers who are part of the government that can be subject to questions, and for the sake of clarity, I would like to pose a control question. When Markus Kallifatides now speaks of the preparatory basis, he surely means the Hyresgästutredningen's report from 2017? A friend of order would then think that 2017 is some years ago, which also means that the Social Democratic government had at least five years to carry this out. They did not do so but found reasons to abstain, likely because they analyzed the content and did not quite think it was sufficient for this type of reform. The preparatory basis was not enough to do this.
Possibly that information can serve to provide some nuance as to why this government is not rushing to achieve and implement exactly what is stated in that investigation; obviously, the Social Democrats, during many years in government, made the same assessment to refrain for those reasons.
In other words, this should not be confused with a position that would mean that one does not care about the conditions for the tenants. I understand that one might possibly be able to describe it somewhat differently depending on what perspective one has, but I think we should take note that what comes to the Rent Tribunal and is to be decided is that which is in dispute. Much else that has been in dispute has, for various reasons, nevertheless been able to be settled, and solutions have been found that both landlords and tenants can live with. That is, in itself, an expression that our system, despite everything, in the normal case functions as intended.
Then there will always be questions that are so contentious that an agreement cannot be reached, and in those cases, they will be subject to a judicial review. Even if in more cases the outcome favors the landlord, I cannot simply draw the conclusion from this that the legislation overall would be biased in favor of landlords and against tenants. It could, quite simply, be that the judicial assessment is such that in those cases it still seems reasonable that the landlord gets the better end of the deal.
With that said, I think the entire problem picture is very urgent to discuss. Our legislation has grown over a long period, not least through social democracy over the years, and even though the legislation has its highlights and room for reforms, it nevertheless sees both of these legitimate interests and tries to find a way to balance them.
There is therefore currently no plan for a major reform or review of the rules in this area from our side. This should, however, not be taken as a lack of interest or, for that matter, an expression of a one-sided landlord perspective on the issues. I think the balance that exists in the legislation is good. We then, of course, closely follow how it is used in practice. I do not rule out at all that in the future there may be reasons for changes of various kinds.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the answer!
When it comes to the prepared proposals regarding changes in the legislation concerning the review by the rental tribunal of renovation measures and their reasonableness or unreasonableness towards the tenants, I would like to remind that there were other majority conditions in the Swedish Riksdag during that parliamentary term, which very well may be an important factor in how the then S-led minority government positioned itself regarding which proposals could be submitted with good chances of being voted through in the Swedish Riksdag. I believe that the Minister for Justice recognizes this.
I would like to thank you for the debate. I note Gunnar Strömmers pragmatic rather than confrontational line, but I still want to share my impressions from a visit to Vårberg in southern Stockholm on Wednesday. It looks terrible, Minister of Justice! It is about tenants who absolutely do not get what they are entitled to. They have paid rent, but they do not get what they are entitled to. People are afraid and exhausted, Minister of Justice, and we, the state, stand there rather lamely and watch.
I have met many – countless – tenants who are treated poorly by their landlords. That is the reality, Minister of Justice, and that is why we Social Democrats will continue to push issues regarding both seriously lacking property maintenance and the conditions for rent increases in connection with renovations.
I would like to thank you for the debate. I mean that it has clearly shown both important issues and the importance of more political measures.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for raising the questions and for a genuine commitment to people who may find themselves in a very vulnerable position! That can be done as a tenant; there is no doubt about that.
I have personally participated in safety walks together with Hyresgästföreningen and also together with representatives from the property owner side, and I have also walked through areas where one can see with the naked eye which tenants live with landlords who take their responsibility, property owners who are keen on it becoming good both for the tenant and for the local community where they operate, and in the same areas I have seen examples of property owners who are obviously not at all prepared to take that responsibility. There is, therefore, a legitimacy in the issue, seen both from the individual tenant's point of view and from a broader societal perspective. There is no doubt about that whatsoever.
We can, of course, discuss to what extent a better development forward requires further intervention from the legislature or not, but in any case, we can agree that we want Sweden to be a country where people live not only under decent conditions but under good conditions, where people have rights that are respected and where the owner of properties takes their responsibility both for the tenants, if that is what it is about, and for the surrounding local community. I am happy to continue that dialogue, and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss under these forms today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.