English: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to acknowledge the research support I've had from the National Assembly's staff, including very clear legal advice. I'd also like to thank Catherine Iannucci, a final year student who did an effective day's work gathering information about Cardiff Lettings agency, following up recent work done by Shelter on the state of play with letting agencies across Wales. In light of the Shelter report, I'm slightly surprised that no other Member has requested to speak, but I'm very happy that so many of you seem to be wishing to stay. On my way here this morning, on my bike - today is Cycle to Work Day - I was delighted to see an advert on the back of a bus telling landlords that they need to register by the 23 November deadline. That's one innovative way of getting the message across that will hopefully educate both landlords and tenants on this topical and important change in the law, but I fear it's unlikely to be sufficient to capture all the people who need to know about this, and 23 November is not very far away. How well is Rent Smart Wales, who've been tasked with covering the registration and licensing of landlords for the whole of Wales, or any other agency of Government, making clear the changes now required by the 2014 housing Act? By mid June, nearly 13,000 landlords had registered. By 1 September, 19,500 had registered - so far so good, but that's out of a potential number of somewhere between 70,000 and 130,000 private landlords operating in Wales. So, we still have some considerable way to go. Are landlords not aware of the change in the law? Are they planning to ignore it in the hope that there'll be no comeback, or are they just going to leave it to the last minute, which, of course, they are entitled to do, but it could delay the issuing of their licence? If thousands of landlords and letting agents leave it to the last minute, I hope we will not see any relaxation of the assessment by Rent Smart Wales that they are a fit-and-proper person to whom it is appropriate to grant a licence. This is not a minor regulatory matter. After owner-occupancy, private renting is the second biggest type of housing tenure across the UK. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that nearly 40 per cent of all young people will be living in private rented accommodation by 2020, which is just round the corner. This, of course, reflects the failure of successive Governments over the last 30 to 40 years to build enough social housing and to assume, in the boom years of easy money, that anyone and everyone could aspire to own their own home. That mirage came crashing down in 2008, and we're still paying the price in terms of the huge cost to the public purse of housing benefit. Let's remember that most of the homes bought by tenants under the right to buy eventually end up in the hands of the private rented sector, not happy householders, making it ever more difficult in estates to identify who is responsible for noisy neighbours or disrepairs. The cost in terms of the well-being of families living in private rented accommodation is often being forced to move every 12 months. Private landlords can evict without giving any reason, using what's called the section 21 notice. The impact on children is particularly awful. The combination of a seller's market and the cap on housing benefit makes it almost impossible to find suitable alternative private rented accommodation in the Cardiff area, if that's where they come from; that is my experience as a Cardiff representative. Being forced to move every 12 months, even if you are model tenants, exacts a huge price in preventing families putting down roots, making and retaining friends and being able to complete your education at just one primary school and just one secondary school. Other families, I acknowledge, have rented for many years in the same property from a good landlord with whom they have a good relationship, but suddenly they find their home is being taken from them because the landlord's got into financial difficulties and needs to sell. The tenant is the innocent victim. There is no security of tenure in private rented accommodation. In theory, private renting is fine for young people who are on the move and yet to settle down, but the age when you turn to the local authority to be housed once you have children is crumbling under the weight of underprovision of supply over demand. Local authorities are being forced to use the private sector to discharge their duties to house homeless people as they simply don't have enough social housing properties to discharge those duties. So, the housing Act is an important first step in regulating the private rented sector to ensure that there is a minimum of quality standards there when we are referring vulnerable people to be housed by them. In the past, all sorts of amateur landlords have piled into the private rented sector, encouraged by the tax breaks that are on offer and the attractive returns compared with other ways of investing savings. If you bear in mind what you can get from putting your money into a savings account at the bank, you can see why people are investing in bricks and mortar, never mind into the manufacturing industry. Too many have had little regard to their obligations as landlords in exchange for the privilege of assuming rent. Registration will, hopefully, force these people to raise their game or get out. I've dealt with landlords who've not thought it a priority to provide a front door that locks, or who ask contractors to fix the roof on four-storey buildings without any scaffolding, in terrifying contravention of health and safety regulations. Registration should at least allow us to find out who these people are in a timely fashion, as they have to provide the name and contact details, including their phone numbers. This should put a stop to landlords or letting agents who simply fail to provide meaningful contact details. An e-mail address is simply not sufficient if the water's pouring down the walls as a result of a burst water pipe, or there's no lock on the front door. Equally, letting agencies that publicise a phone number but never answer it are just as bad. From November, anyone who does not register will not be issued with a licence, and if you don't have a licence, then, obviously, there are very severe consequences. Is this going to drive out the modern-day Rachmans from the landlord business? Hopefully. These amateur or absentee landlords who are not in a position to meet the licensing obligations can appoint a letting agent to act on their behalf; otherwise they simply will be refused a licence. And if you haven't got a licence, you can be fined - not a very large fine, £150 to £250 - but more significantly, you will not be entitled to issue a no-fault eviction notice against your tenants - what I've previously referred to as the section 21 notice. In the most serious cases, you can also be subject to rent stopping or rent repayment orders. So, we have to assume that there will be a strong incentive to comply, as the landlord, or to appoint a letting agent to comply. I want to spend the rest of my time just looking at the role of these letting agents, which are potentially going to get the lion's share of the business as a result of this Act. They need to comply with a code of practice as part of the licensing arrangement with one of four approved organisations, which include the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which includes enabling you to get a discount. That's a quick way of ensuring that at least they've got a tenancy deposit guarantee scheme, so that that money doesn't disappear if they go bankrupt, and a complaints resolution process. But signing up and complying are two different things. What role might these approved agencies play in raising standards amongst these letting agencies? For example, I spent the best part of a week trying to get hold of a letting agency called Pinnacle about trying to retrieve a former tenant's unpaid deposit, which has been outstanding since the end of June. Two people, perfectly polite on the phone, but neither is the right department for dealing with the matter. I've been informed, as a result of that phone contact, that they are a member of something called the National Approved Letting Scheme. The National Approved Letting Scheme website assures landlords and tenants that their members all have a complaints procedure that they adhere to, and that they respond to correspondence in a timely fashion. Has the National Approved Letting Scheme's chief executive responded to my phone calls and correspondence? Sadly, not yet. The royal institute, RICS, does pick up the phone, but they readily admit that they are only going to be inspecting agencies that benefit from their badge of approval every three years, and only a limited selection of those agencies. So, I fear it will fall on Rent Smart Wales and local authorities to deal with the people who are either not complying or simply not adhering to the terms of the Act. At the moment, the biggest concern I get is from widespread abuse of the issues around fees and charges. For example, landlords and letting agents must return the deposit within 10 days of both tenant and landlord agreeing how much they'll get back, but the loophole is that there's no specified time in which they have to agree how much they'll get back. And, I think, in particular, students are particularly vulnerable to sharp practices. Remember that when they set out to sign these letting agreements, they are somewhere between 18 and 19 years old, this is the first time they'll ever have entered into a legal agreement, their first time away from home, and many of them absolutely not aware of their rights. Shelter, in their research on letting agencies across Wales, did find one letting agency in Rhondda Cynon Taf that they said was a model of exemplary practice, and that's completely excellent, but none in Cardiff. My research of 30 letting agencies in Cardiff is that none of them, unfortunately, meet that standard. There is an organisation called the Cardiff Student Letting Agency, which is owned by the Cardiff University Students' Union, and they could be a model of exemplary practice in Cardiff, but one of the problems they possibly face is they don't have enough properties to meet the demand from their student bodies, never mind anybody else, to ensure that their practice of not charging fees becomes the norm. Looking at the Shelter report and the testimonies I get from constituents, few letting agencies are complying with their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in which we asked the House of Commons to include something on this when it was going through. They're not complying because they're simply not displaying their fees, and students or anybody else only find out rather late in the day what eye-watering fees they turn out to be. So, one student told me they would charge £150 to each tenant in agency fees, and that was just to take the property off the market 'while we sort out the contract'. So, in a six-member household, that is £900 for 10 minutes' work. In another agency, in the small print of the contract it was revealed that they would take £65 from each of the tenants for professional cleaning at the end of the contract, regardless of the condition of the house. This individual was outraged because the house that they inherited was in such a poor state that clearly this professional cleaning had not been carried out after the previous tenants left. Frankly, such activities, if they are going on systematically, are fraud. 'So, how is it possible to say there was professional cleaning done if the kitchen is leaking and rotting, and that the ceiling collapsed within a week due to an upstairs leak, and the bathrooms reeked of mould and piss?' Many people argue that the fee is the worst aspect of the relationship that they have with the letting agencies, and the legal advice I've had from the head of the legal service here in the National Assembly is that we do indeed have the powers to follow Scotland's lead and outlaw letting agency fees. It should be the landlord paying the letting agency, not the tenant. Now, I know that the Welsh Government in the past has argued that this comes under consumer protection, which is not devolved, but that's not the legal advice I've had. They say there's a very strong argument that letting agency fees are devolved, so that the Assembly could pass a Bill including banning them. Following on from the success of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, which was adjudicated on in the Supreme Court, it is clear in his view that 'The relationship between a "Landlord" and a "Tenant" forms a long-established and well-understood branch of the law' as being a service rather than a consumer relationship'. So, I would urge the Minister, not least because you need to recall that those on housing benefit end up having to pay the letting agency fee from their income support, because the housing benefit is already being applied to the max to cover the rent. So, that is causing a huge amount of hardship, and, frankly, the letting agencies are getting away with simply not providing a service in exchange for the fee. I think it's something that needs to be stopped as a matter of urgency.
Welsh: Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Hoffwn gydnabod y cymorth ymchwil a gefais gan staff y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol, yn cynnwys cyngor cyfreithiol clir iawn. Hoffwn hefyd ddiolch i Catherine Iannucci, myfyriwr blwyddyn olaf a wnaeth waith effeithiol iawn yn casglu gwybodaeth am asiantaeth Cardiff Lettings, gan ddilyn gwaith diweddar a wnaed gan Shelter ar y sefyllfa fel y mae gydag asiantaethau gosod tai ledled Cymru. Yng ngoleuni adroddiad Shelter, rwy'n synnu braidd nad oes unrhyw Aelod arall wedi gofyn am gael siarad, ond rwy'n hapus iawn o weld bod cymaint ohonoch yn dymuno aros. Ar fy ffordd yma y bore yma, ar fy meic - heddiw yw Diwrnod Beicio i'r Gwaith - roeddwn wrth fy modd yn gweld hysbyseb ar gefn bws yn dweud wrth landlordiaid fod angen iddynt gofrestru erbyn y dyddiad cau ar 23 Tachwedd. Dyna un ffordd arloesol o gyfleu'r neges a fydd, gobeithio, yn addysgu landlordiaid a thenantiaid fel ei gilydd ynglŷn â'r newid amserol a phwysig hwn yn y gyfraith, ond rwy'n ofni ei fod yn annhebygol o fod yn ddigon i ddal yr holl bobl a ddylai wybod am hyn, ac nid yw 23 Tachwedd yn bell iawn i ffwrdd. Pa mor dda y mae Rhentu Doeth Cymru, sydd wedi cael y dasg o gofrestru a thrwyddedu landlordiaid ar gyfer Cymru gyfan, neu unrhyw un o asiantaethau eraill y Llywodraeth, yn egluro'r newidiadau sy'n ofynnol bellach o dan Ddeddf Tai 2014? Erbyn canol mis Mehefin, roedd bron i 13,000 o landlordiaid wedi cofrestru. Erbyn 1 Medi, roedd 19,500 wedi cofrestru - da iawn hyd yn hyn, ond roedd hynny allan o nifer posibl o rywle rhwng 70,000 a 130,000 o landlordiaid preifat sy'n gweithredu yng Nghymru. Felly, mae gennym gryn dipyn o ffordd i fynd. Onid yw landlordiaid yn ymwybodol o'r newid yn y gyfraith? A ydynt yn bwriadu ei anwybyddu yn y gobaith na fydd canlyniadau i hynny, neu a ydynt yn mynd i'w adael tan y funud olaf, ac mae ganddynt hawl i wneud hynny wrth gwrs, ond gallai beri oedi cyn cyhoeddi eu trwydded? Os oes miloedd o landlordiaid ac asiantaethau gosod tai yn ei gadael tan y funud olaf, rwy'n gobeithio na fyddwn yn gweld Rhentu Doeth Cymru yn llacio'r asesiad eu bod yn berson addas a phriodol a'i bod yn briodol caniatáu trwydded iddynt. Nid mater rheoleiddio bach yw hwn. Ar ôl perchen-feddiannaeth, rhentu preifat yw'r ail fath mwyaf o ddaliadaeth tai ar draws y DU. Mae Sefydliad Joseph Rowntree yn amcangyfrif y bydd bron i 40 y cant o'r holl bobl ifanc yn byw mewn llety rhent preifat erbyn 2020, sydd ar y gorwel. Mae hyn, wrth gwrs, yn adlewyrchu methiant Llywodraethau olynol dros y 30 i 40 mlynedd diwethaf i adeiladu digon o dai cymdeithasol ac i gymryd yn ganiataol, yn ystod blynyddoedd ffyniannus yr arian hawdd, y gallai unrhyw un a phawb anelu i fod yn berchen ar eu cartref eu hunain. Chwalodd y rhith yn 2008, ac rydym yn dal i dalu'r pris yn sgil cost enfawr budd-dal tai i'r pwrs cyhoeddus. Gadewch i ni gofio bod y rhan fwyaf o'r cartrefi a brynwyd gan denantiaid o dan yr hawl i brynu yn mynd i ddwylo'r sector rhentu preifat yn y pen draw, nid i ddwylo deiliaid tai bodlon, gan ei gwneud yn fwyfwy anodd ar ystadau i wybod pwy sy'n gyfrifol am gymdogion swnllyd neu atgyweiriadau. Y gost o ran lles teuluoedd sy'n byw mewn llety rhent preifat yw eu bod yn aml yn cael eu gorfodi i symud bob 12 mis. Gall landlordiaid preifat droi pobl allan heb roi unrhyw reswm, gan ddefnyddio'r hyn a elwir yn rhybudd adran 21. Mae'r effaith ar blant yn arbennig o ofnadwy. Mae'r cyfuniad o farchnad y gwerthwr a'r cap ar fudd-dal tai yn ei gwneud bron yn amhosibl dod o hyd i lety rhent preifat arall addas yn ardal Caerdydd, os mai o'r fan honno y maent yn dod; dyna fy mhrofiad fel cynrychiolydd o Gaerdydd. Mae cael eich gorfodi i symud bob 12 mis, hyd yn oed os ydych yn denantiaid perffaith, yn costio'n ddrud dros ben o ran atal teuluoedd rhag gallu magu gwreiddiau, gwneud a chadw ffrindiau a gallu cwblhau eich addysg mewn un ysgol gynradd ac un ysgol uwchradd yn unig. Rwy'n cydnabod bod teuluoedd eraill wedi rhentu'r un eiddo ers blynyddoedd lawer gan landlordiaid da y mae ganddynt berthynas dda â hwy, ond yn sydyn gwelant eu cartref yn cael ei gymryd oddi arnynt oherwydd bod y landlord yn wynebu trafferthion ariannol ac angen gwerthu. Y tenant yw'r dioddefwr diniwed. Nid oes unrhyw sicrwydd deiliadaeth mewn llety rhent preifat. Mewn theori, mae rhentu preifat yn iawn ar gyfer pobl ifanc sy'n symud o gwmpas a heb setlo eto, ond mae'r oes pan fyddwch yn troi at yr awdurdod lleol i gael eich cartrefu ar ôl i chi gael plant yn dadfeilio o dan bwysau tangyflenwad o gymharu â'r galw. Mae awdurdodau lleol yn cael eu gorfodi i ddefnyddio'r sector preifat i gyflawni eu dyletswyddau i gartrefu pobl ddigartref gan nad oes ganddynt ddigon o dai cymdeithasol i allu cyflawni'r dyletswyddau hynny. Felly, mae'r Ddeddf tai yn gam cyntaf pwysig wrth reoleiddio'r sector rhentu preifat er mwyn sicrhau bod safonau ansawdd gofynnol yno pan fyddwn yn cyfeirio pobl agored i niwed i gael eu cartrefu ganddynt. Yn y gorffennol, tyrrodd pob math o landlord amatur at y sector rhentu preifat, wedi eu hannog gan y gostyngiadau treth sydd ar gael a'r enillion deniadol o gymharu â ffyrdd eraill o fuddsoddi cynilion. Os ystyriwch yr hyn a gewch o roi eich arian mewn cyfrif cynilo yn y banc, gallwch weld pam fod pobl yn buddsoddi mewn brics a morter, heb sôn am y diwydiant gweithgynhyrchu. Mae gormod ohonynt wedi esgeuluso eu rhwymedigaethau fel landlordiaid yn gyfnewid am y fraint o godi rhent. Bydd cofrestru, gobeithio, yn gorfodi'r bobl hyn i wneud yn well neu roi'r gorau iddi. Rwyf wedi ymdrin â landlordiaid nad oeddent yn credu ei bod hi'n flaenoriaeth i ddarparu drws allan sy'n cloi, neu sy'n gofyn i gontractwyr atgyweirio'r to ar adeiladau pedwar llawr heb sgaffaldiau, gan dramgwyddo rheoliadau iechyd a diogelwch mewn modd dychrynllyd. Dylai cofrestru ganiatáu i ni o leiaf gael gwybod pwy yw'r bobl hyn mewn modd amserol, gan fod yn rhaid iddynt roi enw a manylion cyswllt, gan gynnwys eu rhifau ffôn. Dylai hyn roi diwedd ar landlordiaid neu asiantaethau gosod tai sy'n methu'n llwyr â darparu manylion cyswllt ystyrlon. Nid yw cyfeiriad e-bost yn ddigon os yw'r dŵr yn arllwys i lawr y muriau o ganlyniad i bibell ddŵr wedi byrstio, neu os nad oes clo ar y drws allan. Yn yr un modd, mae asiantaethau gosod sy'n rhoi cyhoeddusrwydd i rif ffôn, ond byth yn ei ateb yr un mor ddrwg. O fis Tachwedd, ni fydd neb sy'n methu cofrestru yn cael trwydded, ac os nad oes gennych drwydded, yna, yn amlwg, bydd y canlyniadau'n ddifrifol iawn. A yw hyn yn mynd i gael gwared ar Rachmaniaid modern o'r busnes landlordiaeth? Gobeithio. Mae'r landlordiaid amatur neu absennol hyn nad ydynt mewn sefyllfa i gyflawni rhwymedigaethau trwyddedu yn cael penodi asiant gosod tai i weithredu ar eu rhan; fel arall gwrthodir trwydded iddynt. Ac os nad oes gennych drwydded, gallwch gael dirwy - nid yw'n ddirwy fawr iawn, £150 i £250 - ond yn fwy arwyddocaol, ni fydd gennych hawl i gyhoeddi hysbysiad troi allan 'dim bai' yn erbyn eich tenantiaid - yr hyn y cyfeiriais ato'n flaenorol fel rhybudd adran 21. Yn yr achosion mwyaf difrifol, gallwch hefyd fod yn ddarostyngedig i orchmynion atal rhent neu ad-dalu rhent. Felly, mae'n rhaid i ni gymryd yn ganiataol y bydd cymhelliad cryf i gydymffurfio, fel landlord, neu benodi asiant gosod tai i gydymffurfio. Hoffwn dreulio gweddill fy amser yn edrych ar rôl yr asiantau gosod tai, sydd o bosibl yn mynd i gael y gyfran fwyaf o'r busnes o ganlyniad i'r Ddeddf hon. Mae angen iddynt gydymffurfio â chod ymarfer fel rhan o'r trefniant trwyddedu gydag un o'r pedwar sefydliad cymeradwy, yn cynnwys Sefydliad Brenhinol y Syrfewyr Siartredig, sy'n cynnwys eich galluogi i gael gostyngiad. Dyna ffordd gyflym o sicrhau o leiaf fod ganddynt gynllun gwarantu blaendal i denantiaid, fel nad yw'r arian yn diflannu os byddant yn mynd yn fethdalwyr, a phroses datrys cwynion. Ond mae cofrestru a chydymffurfio yn ddau beth gwahanol. Pa rôl y gallai'r asiantaethau cymeradwy hyn ei chwarae yn codi safonau ymhlith yr asiantaethau gosod tai? Er enghraifft, treuliais y rhan orau o wythnos yn ceisio cael gafael ar asiantaeth gosod tai o'r enw Pinnacle ynglŷn â cheisio adennill blaendal i gyn-denant, blaendal sydd heb ei dalu ers diwedd mis Mehefin. Dau o bobl, perffaith gwrtais ar y ffôn, ond nid y naill na'r llall yw'r adran gywir ar gyfer ymdrin â'r mater. Rwyf wedi cael gwybod, o ganlyniad i'r cysylltiad ffôn, eu bod yn aelod o rywbeth a elwir yn Gynllun Gosod Tai Cymeradwy Cenedlaethol. Mae gwefan y Cynllun yn sicrhau landlordiaid a thenantiaid fod gan eu holl aelodau drefn gwyno y maent yn glynu ati, a'u bod yn ymateb i ohebiaeth mewn modd amserol. A yw prif weithredwr y Cynllun wedi ymateb i fy ngalwadau ffôn a fy ngohebiaeth? Ddim hyd yn hyn, yn anffodus. Mae'r sefydliad brenhinol, RICS, yn codi'r ffôn, ond maent yn barod i gyfaddef mai arolygu asiantaethau sy'n manteisio ar eu bathodyn cymeradwyaeth bob tair blynedd yn unig y byddant hwy yn ei wneud, a detholiad cyfyngedig o'r asiantaethau hynny'n unig. Felly, rwy'n ofni mai Rhentu Doeth Cymru a'r awdurdodau lleol fydd â'r gwaith o ymdrin â phobl sydd naill ai'n methu cydymffurfio neu'n methu glynu at delerau'r Ddeddf. Ar hyn o bryd, y pryder mwyaf sy'n cael ei leisio wrthyf yw'r camddefnydd eang a wneir o faterion yn ymwneud â ffioedd a thaliadau. Er enghraifft, rhaid i landlordiaid ac asiantau gosod tai ddychwelyd blaendal o fewn 10 diwrnod i gytundeb rhwng y tenant a'r landlord ynglŷn â faint y byddant yn ei gael yn ôl, ond y man gwan yw na roddir amser penodedig ar gyfer cytuno ar faint y byddant yn ei gael yn ôl. Ac rwy'n meddwl bod myfyrwyr, yn arbennig, yn agored i arferion amheus. Pan fyddant yn mynd ati i lofnodi'r cytundebau gosod tai hyn, cofiwch eu bod rywle rhwng 18 a 19 oed, dyma'r tro cyntaf y byddant wedi llofnodi cytundeb cyfreithiol, eu tro cyntaf oddi cartref, ac mae llawer ohonynt yn gwbl anymwybodol o'u hawliau. Yn eu hymchwil ar asiantaethau gosod tai ledled Cymru, daeth Shelter o hyd i un asiantaeth gosod tai yn Rhondda Cynon Taf a oedd yn batrwm o arfer da, yn ôl yr hyn a ddywedai, ac mae hynny'n gwbl wych, ond nid oes yr un yng Nghaerdydd. O fy ngwaith ymchwil ar 30 o asiantaethau gosod tai yng Nghaerdydd, nid oes yr un ohonynt, yn anffodus, yn cyrraedd y safon honno. Ceir sefydliad o'r enw Cardiff Student Letting Agency, sy'n eiddo i Undeb Myfyrwyr Prifysgol Caerdydd, a gallent fod yn batrwm o arfer rhagorol yng Nghaerdydd, ond un o'r problemau y maent yn eu hwynebu o bosibl yw nad oes ganddynt ddigon o eiddo i ateb y galw gan eu cyrff myfyrwyr, heb sôn am unrhyw un arall, i sicrhau bod eu harfer o beidio â chodi ffioedd yn dod yn norm. O edrych ar adroddiad Shelter a'r dystiolaeth a gaf gan etholwyr, ychydig o asiantaethau gosod tai sy'n cydymffurfio â'u rhwymedigaethau o dan Ddeddf Hawliau Defnyddwyr 2015, lle gofynasom i Dŷ'r Cyffredin gynnwys rhywbeth ar hyn yn ystod taith y ddeddf drwy'r tŷ. Nid ydynt yn cydymffurfio oherwydd nad ydynt yn arddangos eu ffioedd, ac nid yw myfyrwyr neu unrhyw un arall yn cael gwybod nes ei bod braidd yn hwyr yn y broses pa mor uchel yw'r ffioedd hyn. Felly, dywedodd un myfyriwr wrthyf y byddent yn codi £150 ar bob tenant mewn ffioedd asiantaeth, a hynny'n unig er mwyn tynnu'r eiddo oddi ar y farchnad 'tra byddwn yn datrys y contract'. Felly, mewn cartref gyda chwe aelod, mae hynny'n £900 am 10 munud o waith. Mewn asiantaeth arall, ym mhrint mân y contract datgelwyd y byddent yn mynd â £65 oddi wrth bob un o'r tenantiaid ar gyfer glanhau proffesiynol ar ddiwedd y contract, waeth beth oedd cyflwr y tŷ. Cynddeiriogwyd yr unigolyn gan fod y tŷ a gawsant mewn cyflwr mor wael fel ei bod hi'n amlwg nad oedd glanhau proffesiynol wedi digwydd wedi i'r tenantiaid blaenorol adael. A bod yn gwbl onest, mae gweithgareddau o'r fath, os ydynt yn digwydd yn systematig, yn dwyll. Felly, sut y mae modd dweud fod glanhau proffesiynol wedi digwydd os yw'r gegin yn gollwng ac yn pydru, a bod y nenfwd wedi cwympo o fewn wythnos oherwydd bod dŵr yn gollwng i fyny'r grisiau, a bod yr ystafelloedd ymolchi yn drewi o lwydni a phiso? Mae llawer o bobl yn dadlau mai'r ffi yw'r agwedd waethaf ar y berthynas sydd ganddynt â'r asiantaethau gosod tai, a'r cyngor cyfreithiol a gefais gan bennaeth y gwasanaeth cyfreithiol yma yn y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn wir yw bod gennym y pwerau i ddilyn esiampl yr Alban a gwahardd ffioedd asiantaethau gosod tai. Y landlord ddylai dalu'r asiantaeth gosod tai, nid y tenant. Nawr, rwy'n gwybod bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn y gorffennol wedi dadlau bod hyn yn dod o dan ddiogelu'r defnyddiwr, maes nad yw wedi'i ddatganoli, ond nid dyna'r cyngor cyfreithiol rwyf wedi ei gael. Maent yn dweud bod dadl gref iawn fod ffioedd asiantaethau gosod tai wedi eu datganoli, fel y gallai'r Cynulliad basio Bil sy'n cynnwys eu gwahardd. Yn dilyn ymlaen o lwyddiant Bil Sector Amaethyddol (Cymru), y dyfarnodd y Goruchaf Lys yn ei gylch, mae'n eglur ei farn fod y berthynas rhwng y 'Landlord' a 'Thenant' yn ffurfio cangen hirsefydlog a ddeellir yn dda o'r gyfraith fel gwasanaeth yn hytrach na pherthynas defnyddiwr. Felly, byddwn yn annog y Gweinidog, nid yn lleiaf am fod angen i chi gofio bod y rhai sydd ar fudd-dal tai yn y pen draw yn gorfod talu ffioedd asiantaethau gosod tai o'u cymhorthdal incwm, oherwydd bod y budd-dal tai eisoes yn cael ei gymhwyso i'r eithaf i dalu'r rhent. Felly, mae hynny'n achosi llawer iawn o galedi, ac a dweud y gwir, mae'r asiantaethau gosod tai yn cael rhyddid i beidio â darparu gwasanaeth yn gyfnewid am y ffi. Rwy'n credu ei fod yn rhywbeth sydd angen rhoi diwedd arno ar fyrder.