# Taoiseach: "Possible ban on evictions during energy crisis"



## Brendan Burgess

Possible ban on evictions during energy crisis remains under review, Taoiseach says
					

Legal issues to be resolved in respect of any move to halt evictions, Micheál Martin says




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Brendan Burgess

So, effectively, owners of buy to lets would not be able to sell them. 

Brendan


----------



## Groucho

I've got no problem with a short-term ban on evictions, just so long as the government commits to pay any unpaid rent to the landlord!

Failing this, it's just an cowardly and inept government punishing innocent parties for its own incompetence.


----------



## Delboy

We're not far off having a permanent ban on evictions. Has any other country ever gone this route? Even the likes of communist Cuba?


----------



## Mocame

A friend has just served notice on a tenant only last week.  She had to let out her home because she moved in with her elderly mother during her mum's final illness.  Sadly my friend's mum died recently and her house is now being sold so the proceeds can be distributed amongst all her children.  Since her mothers' death I have been begging my friend to serve notice on her tenant, but she was just overwhelmed with grief and all the hundreds of practical tasks you have to do following a bereavement.  I am so relieved she has done so because this move by the government was predictable and was predicted by me!


----------



## wondering

Brendan Burgess said:


> Possible ban on evictions during energy crisis remains under review, Taoiseach says
> 
> 
> Legal issues to be resolved in respect of any move to halt evictions, Micheál Martin says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com


Seems to be a deliberate policy to get people to sell, under a guise of caring about tenant security.


----------



## Rasputin

wondering said:


> Seems to be a deliberate policy to get people to sell, under a guise of caring about tenant security.


There will be a lot of rushing around over the next few weeks with landlords trying to get their legal notices issued prior to this.  If anyone was borderline or anyway unsure on selling about making a decision, its made now.


----------



## Horatio

Groucho said:


> I've got no problem with a short-term ban on evictions, just so long as the government commits to pay any unpaid rent to the landlord!
> 
> Failing this, it's just an cowardly and inept government punishing innocent parties for its own incompetence.


Yes, exactly. This is license to not pay rent and to hell with the (absent) consequences.


----------



## lomber

You can sue the tenants civilly for rent so I guess if they are or will be ie if a student 'credit worthy' your definately ok on that front at least.


----------



## Groucho

lomber said:


> You can sue the tenants civilly for rent so I guess if they are or will be ie if a student 'credit worthy' your definately ok on that front at least.



In most cases you'd be far better advised trying to get blood from a stone.    And that would cost you a lot less!

Even if you win your civil case (in 2027 or thereabouts!)  you'll still have to try to collect from the delinquent tenant.


----------



## lomber

Groucho said:


> In most cases you'd be far better advised trying to get blood from a stone.    And that would cost you a lot less!
> 
> Even if you win your civil case (in 2027 or thereabouts!)  you'll still have to try to collect from the delinquent tenant.


Sure, your dead right. But any solvent tenant would repay the debt with the thought of a judgement registered against them. Also wouldn't it affect their ability to access credit? Can you not petition for bankruptcy?
I'm simply not a believer in long term rent to tenants who can't afford to buy, never will be able to and don't want to move somewhere cheaper. Anyone who is although providing a very useful service could be in for a rough ride..


----------



## wondering

Rasputin said:


> There will be a lot of rushing around over the next few weeks with landlords trying to get their legal notices issued prior to this.  If anyone was borderline or anyway unsure on selling about making a decision, its made now.


There's nothing in the article to say it will happen:


> “we’ll see how things evolve” over the coming weeks and months.


It's a non-story really put out there to spook landlords into selling. The question is why do they want private landlords gone so badly.

If I was in that position I'd want to do the opposite. Many seem to be caving to the peer pressure / government pressure.


----------



## Groucho

wondering said:


> There's nothing in the article to say it will happen.



Agreed - one interpretation of MM's comment that “_we’ll see how things evolve over the coming weeks and months_" could be " _we'll leave that one until Leo has taken over as Taoiseach in December_"!


----------



## Peanuts

wondering said:


> Seems to be a deliberate policy to get people to sell, under a guise of caring about tenant security.


I don't think there's any great policy behind it. Its just a populist decision IMO.


----------



## Leo

lomber said:


> But any solvent tenant would repay the debt with the thought of a judgement registered against them. Also wouldn't it affect their ability to access credit? Can you not petition for bankruptcy?


That whole process will take years and cost thousands with the very real prospect of getting nothing in return.


----------



## wondering

Peanuts said:


> I don't think there's any great policy behind it. Its just a populist decision IMO.


There's nothing populist about it though? It's not in the interests of either tenants or landlords for landlords to be penalised. 

It is deliberate, part of a long-term policy to destabilise the sector, putting pressure on both landlords and tenants.


----------



## Silversurfer

Groucho said:


> Agreed - one interpretation of MM's comment that “_we’ll see how things evolve_” over the coming weeks and months" could be " _we'll leave that one until Leo has taken over as Taoiseach in December_"!


During the Pandemic this was brought in with no notice. The energy crisis could be used. Shortage of accommodation etc., A long series of reasons given. It is a very worrying time for tenants and landlords.


----------



## Peanuts

wondering said:


> *There's nothing populist about it though*? It's not in the interests of either tenants or landlords for landlords to be penalised.
> 
> It is deliberate, part of a long-term policy to destabilise the sector, putting pressure on both landlords and tenants.


Oh, but there is. SF are clamouring for it and there was a representative of a renters group on the radio this morning asking for it to be introduced.
I'm not saying its a good thing mind you.

In relation to your second sentence, why would the government want to  'destabilise the sector'.


----------



## wondering

Peanuts said:


> Oh, but there is. SF are clamouring for it and there was a representative of a renters group on the radio this morning asking for it to be introduced.
> I'm not saying its a good thing mind you.


I wouldn't equate what some political party wants with it being popular.  The media is a tool for shaping opinion more than anything else.

As mentioned, there is nothing definite about it.  It's unlikely to happen IMO.

The real story is that they want people to think it might, creating panic.



> In relation to your second sentence, why would the government want to  'destabilise the sector'.


That's the million dollar question!


----------



## Peanuts

wondering said:


> I wouldn't equate what some political party wants with it being popular.  The media is a tool for shaping opinion more than anything else.
> 
> As mentioned, there is nothing definite about it.  It's unlikely to happen IMO.
> 
> *The real story is that they want people to think it might, creating panic*.
> 
> 
> That's the million dollar question!


Again, why would the Government want to do that?

It was quoted on another thread recently and I think is applicable here and that is

 "never attribute to _malice_ that which is adequately explained by _stupidity_.


----------



## Silversurfer

wondering said:


> I wouldn't equate what some political party wants with it being popular.  The media is a tool for shaping opinion more than anything else.
> 
> As mentioned, there is nothing definite about it.  It's unlikely to happen IMO.
> 
> The real story is that they want people to think it might, creating panic.
> 
> 
> That's the million dollar question!


There have been several news stories this week about our accommodation crisis. This morning a converted restaurant in Carlow was highlighted as not providing a high standard of accommodation.  The Government response was innovative solutions have to be found. Likewise the numbers of people fleeing the war in Ukraine have been given as 55,000 and rising. The Irish Refugee Council have come out and spoken about the tented accommodation.  I do not believe MM is shooting the breeze.


----------



## valery

The Irish Times quotes a senior source pointing to eviction bans in France which last until the end of March next.  Very selective quote on French tenancy rules.  Maybe the senior source could also advise the Irish Times how France taxes rental income.  
For gross earnings under €72,600, 50% is allowed as expenses and the remaining 50% is taxed at a far lower rate than most landlords pay in Ireland.


----------



## Leo

wondering said:


> I wouldn't equate what some political party wants with it being popular.


Politicians are mostly driven by being elected, that is inherently populist. Opposition parties pretty much only ever either criticise current government policies or call for what the masses want. 



wondering said:


> The media is a tool for shaping opinion more than anything else.


The media for the most part is a tool for making money. Some more than other strive to shape public opinion in their owners' interests. 



wondering said:


> The real story is that they want people to think it might, creating panic.


There's nothing in that for them. You're confusing incompetence and poor decision making with malice.


----------



## blanketyblank

I think the government is so terrified of sinn Fein that they'll do anything to try and give them nothing to moan about.    There would be nothing wrong with this perhaps as long as they made an exception for those who stop paying because of it.


----------



## wondering

Peanuts said:


> Again, why would the Government want to do that?
> 
> It was quoted on another thread recently and I think is applicable here and that is
> 
> "never attribute to _malice_ that which is adequately explained by _stupidity_.


Except it's not explained by stupidity.
 If you look at the past number of years, starting with rent caps or tax on rentals, you see a pattern of measures against landlords consequently affecting tenants. At the very least, most landlords increased rents because of ridiculous tax imposed on them. I don't blame them for that, but most would, because the media puts out landlord-vs-tenant stories all the time, and vice versa - they switch sides to create illusion of being balanced.

It's divide and conquer basically, the oldest trick there is.


----------



## Silversurfer

With the large numbers relying on the Government to house or help them. Small private landlords are of no consequence. The Corporate landlords are being taken care of.


----------



## Peanuts

Leo said:


> Politicians are mostly driven by being elected, that is inherently populist. Opposition parties pretty much only ever either criticise current government policies or call for what the masses want.
> 
> 
> The media for the most part is a tool for making money. Some more than other strive to shape public opinion in their owners' interests.
> 
> 
> *There's nothing in that for them. You're confusing incompetence and poor decision making with malice.*


That's exactly it


----------



## galway_blow_in

wondering said:


> Except it's not explained by stupidity.
> If you look at the past number of years, starting with rent caps or tax on rentals, you see a pattern of measures against landlords consequently affecting tenants. At the very least, most landlords increased rents because of ridiculous tax imposed on them. I don't blame them for that, but most would, because the media puts out landlord-vs-tenant stories all the time, and vice versa - they switch sides to create illusion of being balanced.
> 
> It's divide and conquer basically, the oldest trick there is.


No it’s lily livered politicians making poor choices at the behest of media and other left wing ideologues , their is no conspiracy on the part of FG/FF to either drive out landlords or make things worse for tenants in terms of rental availability


----------



## The Horseman

Silversurfer said:


> With the large numbers relying on the Government to house or help them. Small private landlords are of no consequence. The Corporate landlords are being taken care of.


I would not agree with this. The Govt needs the small landlord as we are an uncoordinated group of suppliers. 

We take all the risk (non paying tenant etc), the state takes all the reward (tax). 

The institutional landlords are not interested in the low cost tenants and have the preferential tax rates etc. When the state changes these dynamics the institutional landlords have the coordination to significantly impact the market and they will have the financial fire power to do so.

It is political suicide to be seen to support the small landlord but if the govt don't engage collaborately with us then they will be controlled by a small number of large suppliers ie the institutional landlords.


----------



## wondering

galway_blow_in said:


> No it’s lily livered politicians making poor choices at the behest of media and other left wing ideologues , their is no conspiracy on the part of FG/FF to either drive out landlords or make things worse for tenants in terms of rental availability


I'd agree they are in some way at behest of media. There's more to it. 

You probably should ask why, if they aren't a so-called left-wing group themselves, why FF/FG would be considering caving to something they supposedly think is wrong.


----------



## wondering

The Horseman said:


> It is political suicide to be seen to support the small landlord but if the govt don't engage collaborately with us then they will be controlled by a small number of large suppliers ie the institutional landlords.


I don't get this. Political suicide? 
The whole point of politics, or its talent, is to sell ideas to people: small landlords and tenants have interests in common.


----------



## The Horseman

wondering said:


> I don't get this. Political suicide?
> The whole point of politics, or its talent, is to sell ideas to people: small landlords and tenants have interests in common.


We want to let everyone have their "forever home" but we don't want to evict people for non payment of rent or mortgages. The State has moved the responsibility to house people to the private sector and tied our hands at the same time. 

No politician will ever say someone should be evicted for non payment of what they owe. Most people believe that they should pay what they owe but of there are no consequences for those who don't then why bother. 

Can you provide an example of what the state has "sold" to the small landlords over the recent past that benefits us?


----------



## galway_blow_in

wondering said:


> I'd agree they are in some way at behest of media. There's more to it.
> 
> You probably should ask why, if they aren't a so-called left-wing group themselves, why FF/FG would be considering caving to something they supposedly think is wrong.


Because public discourse in Ireland is entirely controlled and dictated by left wingers , FF and FG haven’t the steel or conviction to follow through on what needs doing or tell the media and NGO sector where to go, we don’t have any Margaret Thatcher’s in politics in this country who see things through regardless of the tut tutting of the chattering classes


----------



## wondering

The Horseman said:


> We want to let everyone have their "forever home" but we don't want to evict people for non payment of rent or mortgages. The State has moved the responsibility to house people to the private sector and tied our hands at the same time.


I don't think 'forever home' is a priority for them at all. The opposite I would say - they want to house a moving population of nomads. (Rentals I mean. Mortgages, a separate issue)

Security of tenure is a reality only for those totally dependent on the state for housing (i.e. council house).



> No politician will ever say someone should be evicted for non payment of what they owe. Most people believe that they should pay what they owe but of there are no consequences for those who don't then why bother.


I still don't get it. What would happen if they did say this? I don't recall them ever saying it. What are they afraid of ?!



> Can you provide an example of what the state has "sold" to the small landlords over the recent past that benefits us?


No, that's what I've been saying. They want small landlords gone from the picture.


----------



## The Horseman

wondering said:


> I don't think 'forever home' is a priority for them at all. The opposite I would say - they want to house a moving population of nomads. (Rentals I mean. Mortgages, a separate issue)
> 
> Security of tenure is a reality only for those totally dependent on the state for housing (i.e. council house).
> 
> I still don't get it. What would happen if they did say this? I don't recall them ever saying it. What are they afraid of ?!
> 
> No, that's what I've been saying. They want small landlords gone from the picture.


But forever home is exactly what they want. Currently we have almost indefinite leases to the benefit of the tenant. 

Our historical experience of landlords is still ingrained in our minds. Housing is the number one political issue in Ireland. Do you honestly think a politician who agrees to evictions will be voted for?


----------



## wondering

The Horseman said:


> But forever home is exactly what they want. Currently we have almost indefinite leases to the benefit of the tenant.


Indefinite just means there's no longer a 6-month period every few years where eviction could happen without reason. I think that's fair. After the first 6 months, valid reasons for eviction have to be given - this is unchanged.



> Our historical experience of landlords is still ingrained in our minds.


The culture here is ahistorical now if anything. As well as this, a significant number of the population is not Irish now.



> Housing is the number one political issue in Ireland.


Today it is, maybe, now that it's in 'crisis' mode! Until fairly recently it was nowhere near the top issue (It should have been but wasn't).



> Do you honestly think a politician who agrees to evictions will be voted for?


Today? No, because people have nowhere to move to! They hide behind that which is the main issue by pretending to care about tenants. 

A few years ago they could have come out clearly saying non-payment etc is wrong, and be voted for - they didn't then either.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Its just populist. 

Because most renters can't see that small LLs supply the majority of the properties they need to rent, especially at the cheaper end.  

Will they do it, ban evictions. Well there precedent during lockdown. So saying it will never happen is a bit daft. its already happened.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Perhaps the government should outline a vision of what they want the rental market to look like in two years time.

If it is tenants staying in situ when a house is sold, all landlords have two years to get out of the market. Those still on in two years time got their warning and are now retaining the rental until the tenant leaves and they sell them, or else they sell with the tenant there to another landlord. 

There's nothing worse than spreading false information that poor communication. Be honest and clear and upfront with people. You will gain a lot more respect as a result.


----------



## jpd

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Perhaps the government should outline a vision of what they want the rental market to look like in two years time.


The problem is that the current government will (probably) not be the government in two years time, so any commitments given are (probably) worthless


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Give landlords 18 months to get out or stay in. Then do whatever they want in terms of tenancies. The homeless will hit 15000 maybe 20000 and they can start from their then.

Minister McGrath with his rubbish about hoping to retain landlords and attract more on when the government did nothing for landlords in the budget. Nothing.


----------



## Purple

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Give landlords 18 months to get out or stay in. Then do whatever they want in terms of tenancies. The homeless will hit 15000 maybe 20000 and they can start from their then.


The thing is that there are exactly the same number of homes in the housing stock after a landlord sells their property. Our homelessness figures are as much about people gaming the system as they are about actual homelessness. That's not to say homelessness isn't a problem but if I was able to get a house at way below the market rate then I'd join the queue. 


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Minister McGrath with his rubbish about hoping to retain landlords and attract more on when the government did nothing for landlords in the budget. Nothing.


Ah they did. Maybe not enough but they did do something. Fear of the next government is the problem, not the actions of this one.


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> So, effectively, owners of buy to lets would not be able to sell them.
> 
> Brendan


Effectively another chunk of the cost of funding the social burden of keeping a roof over the head the poorest and least adequate members of society is being shifted onto landlords.
Why not have a ban on charging people for their groceries?


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> The thing is that there are exactly the same number of homes in the housing stock after a landlord sells their property.


But not in the rental market. And there are many hundreds of thousands of people not in a position to buy and who are thus totally dependent on that market, and very vulnerable if its ongoing shrinkage directly impacts on their current home.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Purple said:


> Ah they did. Maybe not enough but they did do something. Fear of the next government is the problem, not the actions of this one.


Pre letting expenses are absolutely nothing. Dont apply to 99% of landlords if not more. I know no landlords who have ever claimed pre letting expenses. They gave renters €1000,why didn't they do likewise for landlords thru reduced taxation. Allow property tax as an expense. Anything. 

No, they gave a token item that will cost the taxman virtually nothing.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> But not in the rental market. And there are many hundreds of thousands of people not in a position to buy and who are thus totally dependent on that market, and very vulnerable if its ongoing shrinkage directly impacts on their current home.


True but if the house is sold it's likely that there'll be one less family in rental accommodation/on a homeless list etc. I do agree that's it's not desirable but it's not as if the house gets demolished.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when interest rates go higher than net yields and the big institutional investors that everyone loved to hate start leaving the market.


----------



## Purple

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Pre letting expenses are absolutely nothing. Dont apply to 99% of landlords if not more. I know no landlords who have ever claimed pre letting expenses. They gave renters €1000,why didn't they do likewise for landlords thru reduced taxation. Allow property tax as an expense. Anything.
> 
> No, they gave a token item that will cost the taxman virtually nothing.


Increases in tax bands help every income tax payer so that's not nothing. The pre-letting costs are not nothing, though they certainly aren't much. Why should landlords get tax breaks on their personal income that other people don't get? Until recently I was a landlord so I know what's involved but I never understood why there was an expectation that they should get some sort of special treatment.

What would have been useful is a reform of the RTB so that it supported landlords as well as tenants. An effective mechanism where tenants could be evicted for non payment of rent or antisocial behaviour would have been much more useful.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> True but if the house is sold it's likely that there'll be one less family in rental accommodation/on a homeless list etc.


No, that assumes that every new buyer was previously renting an entire property in their own right. That ignores for example FTBs living with parents or in rent-a-rooms or housesharing arrangements. 

If your theory held, the rental market wouldn't have experienced the inflationary pressures it saw between 1998 and 2001 and again throughout the past decade.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Increases in tax bands help every income tax payer so that's not nothing. The pre-letting costs are not nothing, though they certainly aren't much. Why should landlords get tax breaks on their personal income that other people don't get? Until recently I was a landlord so I know what's involved but I never understood why there was an expectation that they should get some sort of special treatment.


The changes regarding pre-letting costs approximate to nothing. Nobody asked for them and very few will benefit from them. They merely serve as a "Yes Minister" change that will cost the exchequer practically nothing, while giving the Minister cover against accusations of having done nothing.

I do a lot of rental tax returns and I can't remember anyone claiming anything significant under the previous regime. where up to €5,000 in pre-letting costs could be claimed. (By the way, that doesn't constitute a "tax break on personal income").


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> No, that assumes that every new buyer was previously renting an entire property in their own right. That ignores for example FTBs living with parents or in rent-a-rooms or housesharing arrangements.


That's why I said likely. 



T McGibney said:


> If your theory held, the rental market wouldn't have experienced the inflationary pressures it saw between 1998 and 2001 and again throughout the past decade.


That was primarily due to an increased money supply, increases in HAPS and population increase, though the reduction in average household size is a major factor in increased demand, though it's the extra money supply that's been the main driver in price increases.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> That was primarily due to an increased money supply, increases in HAPS and population increase, though the reduction in average household size is a major factor in increased demand, though it's the extra money supply that's been the main driver in price increases.


Which one? Note that rents stagnated from 2002, after McCreevy loosened rental supply by reintroducing interest deductions for new landlords, even though increased money supply, increases in HAPS-type schemes and population increases persisted right up to the 2008 crash.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> That's why I said likely.



Unlikely would be more accurate.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> The changes regarding pre-letting costs approximate to nothing. Nobody asked for them and very few will benefit from them. They merely serve as a "Yes Minister" change that will cost the exchequer practically nothing, while giving the Minister cover against accusations of having done nothing.
> 
> I do a lot of rental tax returns and I can't remember anyone claiming anything significant under the previous regime. where up to €5,000 in pre-letting costs could be claimed.


I'm not getting into a discussion about what constitutes an "approximation of nothing" and "nothing" so I'll leave that one there. 


T McGibney said:


> (By the way, that doesn't constitute a "tax break on personal income").


I never claimed it did. 
I've read numerous posts looking for preferential treatment of income from rentals for private landlords. I don't see why that's desirable of warranted. I do think that there is an unreasonable amount of risk faced by those landlords which they are, not unreasonably, looking to be priced into their yield. I think it is more desirable to reduce the risk than increase the yield.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> Which one? Note that rents stagnated from 2002, after McCreevy loosened rental supply by reintroducing interest deductions for new landlords, even though increased money supply, increases in HAPS-type schemes and population increases persisted right up to the 2008 crash.


Mine didn't. Mine went up significantly during that period.
Increased supply due to cheap money and the labour force increase post 2004 meant that supply increased with demand. Labour is constraining supply now, as it has been for the last number of years.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> Unlikely would be more accurate.


Again, I'm not getting into a discussion on semantics.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Mine didn't. Mine went up significantly during that period.


And...?


Purple said:


> Again, I'm not getting into a discussion on semantics.


Nor am I. But you did say _"That's why I said likely._*"* when I rebutted one of your earlier points.


Purple said:


> I've read numerous posts looking for preferential treatment of income from rentals for private landlords. I don't see why that's desirable of warranted. I do think that there is an unreasonable amount of risk faced by those landlords which they are, not unreasonably, looking to be priced into their yield. I think it is more desirable to reduce the risk than increase the yield.


I agree 100%.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> And...?


See edit but rents did increase during that period. Not to the extent that they have in the last number of years but they did increase.  


T McGibney said:


> Nor am I. But you did say _"That's why I said likely._*"* when I rebutted one of your earlier points.


If it walks like a duck and quacks like aa duck...


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> See edit but rents did increase during that period. Not to the extent that they have in the last number of years but they did increase.


Which edit? They certainly did stagnate for at least a time and despite runaway economic growth generally the rates of increase in rents never again matched those seen in the 98/01 period until around a decade ago.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> Which edit? They certainly did stagnate for at least a time and despite runaway economic growth generally the rates of increase in rents never again matched those seen in the 98/01 period until around a decade ago.


Yes, supply increased in line with demand after the Accession States joined the EU in 2004, bringing an unprecedented inflow of labour to the construction sector. Before that (but post 1998), and after 2008, we have been constrained by labour supply.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Yes, supply increased in line with demand after the Accession States joined the EU in 2004, bringing an unprecedented inflow of labour to the construction sector. Before that (but post 1998), and after 2008, we have been constrained by labour supply.


No, supply was already increasing from early 2002 as the abolition of the interest restrictions from 1/1/02 meant that it again made sense for investors to buy new properties to let. Hence the relative stagnation in rents from that point compared to previously.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> No, supply was already increasing from early 2002 as the abolition of the interest restrictions from 1/1/02 meant that it again made sense for investors to buy new properties to let. Hence the relative stagnation in rents from that point compared to previously.


Supply was increasing but it was the influx of labour post 2004 that allowed the supply to expand as it did up until 2008.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Supply was increasing but it was the influx of labour post 2004 that allowed the supply to expand as it did up until 2008.


Both are true, neither contradict my point that rents stagnated from early 2002 with the relatively minor injection of new supply at that point. 

There's probably a lesson there for today's policymakers if only they'd see it.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> True but if the house is sold it's likely that there'll be one less family in rental accommodation/on a homeless list etc. I do agree that's it's not desirable but it's not as if the house gets demolished.
> It'll be interesting to see what happens when interest rates go higher than net yields and the big institutional investors that everyone loved to hate start leaving the market.


Some rental properties house more than two people however when they are purchased as owner occupied the no of bed spaces reduces.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> Both are true, neither contradict my point that rents stagnated from early 2002 with the relatively minor injection of new supply at that point.
> 
> There's probably a lesson there for today's policymakers if only they'd see it.


Possibly. We certainly need more smaller units, better (not higher) building standards particularly in the area of factory built homes, a way of freeing up building land (that could be through taxation or tax breaks or planning reform or whatever, it doesn't matter as long as it works). 

But back on topic; the State is failing to meet its social responsibility (if one exists) to house the population so it is outsourcing the problem to private landlords and then vilifying them because they aren't meeting a responsibility that isn't their to meet. That screwed up abrogation of responsibility is the root cause of the uncertainty that Landlords feel. 

Tax breaks aren't going to fix it. Pseudo-socialist populism from the Shinners, some backbenchers' and the media aren't going to fix it, soundbites from former People Before Profit Marxists masquerading as academic experts in housing aren't going to fix it. The car crash messaging from the woman from the Private Landlords Association certainly doesn't help. 

Placing the responsibility with the State where it belongs and taking private landlords and institutional investors out of the firing line would be a good start.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> Placing the responsibility with the State where it belongs and taking private landlords and institutional investors out of the firing line would be a good start.



IF that's where it belongs in the first place!   

And, if the state is responsible for housing its citizens, then surely it's also responsible for feeding them, clothing them, burying them and perhaps even changing their nappies?


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> IF that's where it belongs in the first place!
> 
> And, if the state is responsible for housing its citizens, then surely it's also responsible for feeding them, clothing them, burying them and perhaps even changing their nappies?


If there is a responsibility to house citizens then it sure isn't on private landlords to shoulder the burden.


----------



## Bluefin

Purple said:


> If there is a responsibility to house citizens then it sure isn't on private landlords to shoulder the burden.


https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/...-any-eviction-ban-says-sr-stanislaus-kennedy/ Read on Ireland Newspapers http://www.munben.com/newspapers/stores/irl/


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> Why should landlords get tax breaks on their personal income that other people don't get? Until recently I was a landlord so I know what's involved but I never understood why there was an expectation that they should get some sort of special treatment.
> 
> What would have been useful is a reform of the RTB so that it supported landlords as well as tenants. An effective mechanism where tenants could be evicted for non payment of rent or antisocial behaviour would have been much more useful.


Completely agree with this Purple. Biggest issue for me is the threat of bans on evictions and/or selling with tenants in situ. The RTB are often quoted by politicians as being there to aid landlords but I think at this stage everyone knows it is no friend to landlords.


----------



## Purple

Bluefin said:


> https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/...-any-eviction-ban-says-sr-stanislaus-kennedy/ Read on Ireland Newspapers http://www.munben.com/newspapers/stores/irl/


I don't take anything she says seriously. She's nearly as bad as McVerry.
If Focus Ireland were really interested in helping keep private landlords in the market they'd stop advocating for degenerate and criminal tenants who abuse their landlords.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> The RTB are often quoted by politicians as being there to aid landlords but I think at this stage everyone knows it is no friend to landlords.


The RTB are a disgrace in how they treat landlords.  They are a tenant advocacy body.


----------



## wondering

Purple said:


> Increases in tax bands help every income tax payer so that's not nothing. The pre-letting costs are not nothing, though they certainly aren't much. Why should landlords get tax breaks on their personal income that other people don't get? Until recently I was a landlord so I know what's involved but I never understood why there was an expectation that they should get some sort of special treatment.


They should if they're providing an essential item(service/commodity, not sure which applies here) - i.e. long-term tenancy. 
There should be 0% tax on long-term rentals in my opinion. 
Short-term rentals or where the person has a home already somewhere else, should be taxed.
The kind of blanket tax that exists at the moment is wrong.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Why should landlords get tax breaks on their personal income that other people don't get? Until recently I was a landlord so I know what's involved but I never understood why there was an expectation that they should get some sort of special treatment.


Just for the laughs, it's worth noting that there's a very generous tax exemption for income from long-term letting of farm land, up to €40,000 per annum. https://www.revenue.ie/en/personal-...and-and-property/leasing-farm-land/index.aspx


----------



## Ceist Beag

wondering said:


> They should if they're providing an essential item(service/commodity, not sure which applies here) - i.e. long-term tenancy.
> There should be 0% tax on long-term rentals in my opinion.


Property rental is one of the few (maybe only?) sectors where the asset being rented out appreciates rather than depreciates during the rental period. Most other rental industries that I can think have to replace stock over a period of time. Does any other rental sector gain special tax treatment (I see Tommy has already pointed out one farm related exception)?


----------



## T McGibney

Ceist Beag said:


> Property rental is one of the few (maybe only?) sectors where the asset being rented out appreciates rather than depreciates during the rental period.



No market can realistically expect perpetual capital asset price appreciation. Even in the past 15 years there have been significant swings, up and down, in residential property values. There are houses and apartments out there that have still not recovered their 2006 values for example.


Ceist Beag said:


> Property rental is one of the few (maybe only?) sectors where the asset being rented out appreciates rather than depreciates during the rental period. Most other rental industries that I can think have to replace stock over a period of time.


A residential investment property must be maintained over the years at considerable cost, as otherwise it will become uninhabitable and ultimately worthless. The country is full of properties that are now uninhabitable because they weren't maintained properly.


----------



## Purple

wondering said:


> They should if they're providing an essential item(service/commodity, not sure which applies here) - i.e. long-term tenancy.


So power supply employees, truck drivers, Irish Water employees and other essential workers should also get these tax breaks as they are  providing essential services? What about non-essential but important sectors such as healthcare and education, should they get them too?


wondering said:


> There should be 0% tax on long-term rentals in my opinion.


Why? 


wondering said:


> Short-term rentals or where the person has a home already somewhere else, should be taxed.
> The kind of blanket tax that exists at the moment is wrong.


Why?


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> A residential investment property must be maintained over the years at considerable cost, as otherwise it will become uninhabitable and ultimately worthless. The country is full of properties that are now uninhabitable because they weren't maintained properly.


Do you think there should be zero tax on rental income?


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> Just for the laughs, it's worth noting that there's a very generous tax exemption for income from long-term letting of farm land, up to €40,000 per annum. https://www.revenue.ie/en/personal-...and-and-property/leasing-farm-land/index.aspx


Sure most of the income farmers get is in the form of handouts. It would be unfair to tax them as well!


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Do you think there should be zero tax on rental income?


I'd abolish income tax altogether, and the public expenditure it finances.

Seriously, what on earth motivated you to pose that question?


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Sure most of the income farmers get is in the form of handouts. It would be unfair to tax them as well!


Note that it's not farmers who benefit from the long term land leasing exemption, but landowners who have quit farming or who have never farmed.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> Note that it's not farmers who benefit from the long term land leasing exemption, but landowners who have quit farming or who have never farmed.


I'm a Dub so they're all the same to me.


----------



## wondering

Ceist Beag said:


> Property rental is one of the few (maybe only?) sectors where the asset being rented out appreciates rather than depreciates during the rental period. Most other rental industries that I can think have to replace stock over a period of time. Does any other rental sector gain special tax treatment (I see Tommy has already pointed out one farm related exception)?



The farm thing is interesting, but that would come more under employment / creating employment ?

Something as fundamental as a place to live can't really be compared to other rental industries I don't think. 

Short-term and long-term rentals are very different and should be in separate categories when it comes to tax, etc.


----------



## wondering

Purple said:


> So power supply employees, truck drivers, Irish Water employees and other essential workers should also get these tax breaks as they are  providing essential services?


None of those charge the consumers directly.



> There should be 0% tax on long-term rentals
> --Why?


It would bring down the price of rents because the landlord wouldn't have to factor tax into the price.  (Assuming an otherwise functioning market. In the current mess, who knows.. it would probably have no effect until supply increases).


----------



## Purple

wondering said:


> None of those charge the consumers directly.


So what?


wondering said:


> It would bring down the price of rents because the landlord wouldn't have to factor tax into the price.  (Assuming an otherwise functioning market. In the current mess, who knows.. it would probably have no effect until supply increases).


The market sets the price of rent, not the taxation system. If demand, supply and the capacity of the purchaser stayed the same then the rents would stay the same. All your proposal would do is increase the net income of the landlord.


----------



## Mocame

Scotland is experiencing a student housing supply crisis after implementing an almost identical set of policies to Ireland, including rent controls, stricter regulation of landlords and the latest one - a winter ban on evictions! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/student-housing-crisis-driven-by-scottish-greens-8t6z7qzfg


----------



## wondering

Purple said:


> So what?


The landlord-tenant relationship can't be compared with, to take your example, someone fixing a power line's relationship to the consumer of the electricity.



> The market sets the price of rent, not the taxation system. If demand, supply and the capacity of the purchaser stayed the same then the rents would stay the same. All your proposal would do is increase the net income of the landlord.


I do not have details off the top of my head of when property tax on rentals was increased, etc.  I think it's fair to say that many landlords did factor it in as a cost and increased the rent because of it - in particular those paying a mortgage, whereby they would be left with little to no profit if they didn't.
I definitely remember discussions of this online (approx 7 years ago ?) where landlords shared that they would pass the cost of this increased tax to the tenant, with others arguing that this is wrong etc.


(Apologies for going off-topic with this tax issue. I should probably have started a new thread)


----------



## Purple

wondering said:


> The landlord-tenant relationship can't be compared with, to take your example, someone fixing a power line's relationship to the consumer of the electricity.


Again, so what?
Getting rid of income tax on landlords won't decrease rents by a cent. The market sets the price.


wondering said:


> I do not have details off the top of my head of when property tax on rentals was increased, etc.  I think it's fair to say that many landlords did factor it in as a cost and increased the rent because of it - in particular those paying a mortgage, whereby they would be left with little to no profit if they didn't.
> I definitely remember discussions of this online (approx 7 years ago ?) where landlords shared that they would pass the cost of this increased tax to the tenant, with others arguing that this is wrong etc.
> 
> 
> (Apologies for going off-topic with this tax issue. I should probably have started a new thread)


Thy can only pass them on if the market will stand the increase. If supply exceeds demand then prices will stagnate or decrease.
If demand exceeds supply prices increase.
The landlords costs set a floor on the market, not a ceiling. If the prospective buyer can't afford the price of the product at the price of the input costs (breakeven price for the landlord) then the market shrinks.


----------



## wondering

Purple said:


> Thy can only pass them on if the market will stand the increase. If supply exceeds demand then prices will stagnate or decrease.
> If demand exceeds supply prices increase.
> The landlords costs set a floor on the market, not a ceiling. If the prospective buyer can't afford the price of the product at the price of the input costs (breakeven price for the landlord) then the market shrinks.



Yes, that's basic economics.

The main issue as mentioned already in the thread, more than once, is the lack of supply.
Everything else is a distraction, including the eviction thing.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> Again, so what?
> Getting rid of income tax on landlords won't decrease rents by a cent. The market sets the price.
> 
> Thy can only pass them on if the market will stand the increase. If supply exceeds demand then prices will stagnate or decrease.
> If demand exceeds supply prices increase.
> The landlords costs set a floor on the market, not a ceiling. If the prospective buyer can't afford the price of the product at the price of the input costs (breakeven price for the landlord) then the market shrinks.


In a normal functioning market yes the market does set price but the rental market is not allowed function as a normal market because of govt interference.

If you want a balance extend rent a room to landlords. Once rent over a certain amount then tax it all. If kept under this limit tenants pay less, landlords are no worse off and both benefit. 

Everyone says we have a housing crisis so during times of crisis the State offers support to deal with the crisis not the private sector. We did it during covid with the PUP we didnot expect businesses to pay employees when they were closed.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Getting rid of income tax on landlords won't decrease rents by a cent. The market sets the price.



You are of course correct in the short term but in the hypothetical case that landlords, new landlords or newly-rented properties were exempted from income tax for a stated number of years, I think it would be incontestable that at least some property owners who heretofore weren't tempted to let out vacant properties or to refurbish them to let out, would suddenly be tempted to take the plunge, and if enough of them did so, this should in time add to supply and help to defuse rents.

The fly in the ointment is that meddling politicians and third parties like the RTB have spooked landlords and potential landlords so badly that it will take a long time for a lot of them to regain confidence in buy to let as a viable business model.

So, for the moment at least, I agree that any tax exemption plan is probably doomed to fail.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I think tax is the minor factor here. 

If the market wants lifetime tenancies and increased supply they have to make it attractive to get LLs into the market and stay long term. That doesn't always mean high profit margins. Its more likely to mean lower risk.


----------



## valery

AlbacoreA said:


> I think tax is the minor factor here.
> 
> If the market wants lifetime tenancies and increased supply they have to make it attractive to get LLs into the market and stay long term.



For me the issue is lack of control over my asset.  Control of private rental property from a landlords perspective is increasingly being ceded to the RTB which landlords fund. No proposals from government to deal with tenants not paying their rent, tenants overholding, anti social tenants etc.
The final straw for anyone thinking of entering the buy to let market should be Sinn Féin’s proposal that rental properties be sold without vacant possession.


----------



## wondering

Buy to let is fine if you want short-term tenants, airbnb, etc.  

Buy to lets should probably not be catering to people looking for something longer-term (I hesitate to define that exactly, but say 18 months or longer). 

Buy-to-let people can't always know how long tenants will stay.  They could ask beforehand, or specify in their ads 6-months max etc.  Some landlords tend to just assume they might stay 2-3 years max (in the case of singles). I think that's about average, but should not be assumed or taken as given.

Other landlords prefer longer-term, the longer the better to save hassle and cost of reletting. These tend to _not_ be buy to let people, but who inherited the property or for whatever reason have no intention of ever selling the place.

So in general, I think buy-to-lets are a bad idea, for all concerned, unless you're a business-minded person, capable of decision-making, planning, keeping lets to short-term only, or unless you have no intention of selling in which case obviously long-term lets should in general be a non-issue. 

It seems that many buy-to-lets these days, they have selling in the back of their mind even from the time of purchase.


----------



## AlbacoreA

People lie. 

Life forces change on you.


----------



## Simpli

wondering said:


> It seems that many buy-to-lets these days, they have selling in the back of their mind even from the time of purchase.


I think age plays an issue too. I bought a BTL with the intention of keeping it for 20 years, to pass on to one of my children. Im early 30's and it makes up 20% of my diversified portfolio. Bought it so I could claim mortgage interest against the rent.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> The RTB are a disgrace in how they treat landlords.  They are a tenant advocacy body.



To be fair - and being fair to the RTB isn't easy for me! - I think that their biggest problem is that they are obliged to implement the Legislation as it stands.     Thus, it's the anti-landlord elements of the legislation - as voted through both Houses of the Oireachtas by the usual blend of half-wits, cretins and brain-dead backbenchers, let's not forget  - that sets the RTB's agenda.    It can't apply common sense because there's no provision in the legislation for so doing.


----------



## valery

For anyone interested, the RTB currently have an online survey for “stakeholders who have experience of living in and providing accommodation in the rental sector“. 

They say the results will be used in preparing their Statement of Strategy for period 2023-2025.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Link there... https://www.rtb.ie/news/statement-of-strategy-public-consultation-survey


----------



## wondering

AlbacoreA said:


> If the market wants lifetime tenancies and increased supply they have to make it attractive to get LLs into the market and stay long term. That doesn't always mean high profit margins. Its more likely to mean lower risk.


There should be some vetting done by a third-party. 

On the long term thing, they should incentivise based on time, similar to what was shared here


T McGibney said:


> Just for the laughs, it's worth noting that there's a very generous tax exemption for income from long-term letting of farm land, up to €40,000 per annum. https://www.revenue.ie/en/personal-...and-and-property/leasing-farm-land/index.aspx


----------



## AlbacoreA

The idea of third party bonds (as exists in other countries) has been kicked around for decades. 

Certainly some means to cool the boom and bust with property and buy to let is needed. The market probably has to move where a rental can't be chopped and changed between rental and LL 2nd home. 

But some control and protection needs to be given to landlords whatever happens. A lowering of financial risk.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> The market probably has to move where a rental can't be chopped and changed between rental and LL 2nd home.



Do you mean that if someone buys a property and rents it out, they can never thereafter occupy it themselves nor can a family member or someone else close to them?


----------



## AlbacoreA

You have to consider if in Ireland we have very short term mindset when it comes to rentals. We have the mindset that is temporary accomodation. But actually many people will rent for most if not all of their life. We also have the mindset that is not really a business premises, but the landlords personal accomodation. Temporarily borrowed by a tenant. 

Is this really a professional approach. 



> Almost everywhere in Europe, rental periods tend to be longer than in the UK. In many countries, such as Austria and Norway, it’s three years; in Belgium, it’s nine. Though shorter periods are allowed, notably for furnished holiday lets, nine is the standard and if a shorter let exceeds three years in duration, it will automatically become a nine year lease, backdated to the initial period of the tenancy. In Germany, on the other hand, it’s illegal to write a fixed term rental contract; all leases are by their nature unlimited in duration. Indeed, most areas of the contract are covered by legislation; there’s not much room for negotiation on the part of either tenant or landlord.











						How do rental markets in Europe compare to the UK?
					

As reform looms for the UK lettings market, The Negotiator looks at how the different European countries on the continent operate theirs.




					thenegotiator.co.uk


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> You have to consider if in Ireland we have very short term mindset when it comes to rentals. We have the mindset that is temporary accomodation. But actually many people will rent for most if not all of their life. We also have the mindset that is not really a business premises, but the landlords personal accomodation. Temporarily borrowed by a tenant.
> 
> Is this really a professional approach.


If you want to confine rental property investment to professionals who will be happy to let out properties indefinitely and never utilise these properties whenever they or their dependents need them, fire away, but do bear in mind that this would turn the current exodus of buy to let owners into a veritable flood.


----------



## AlbacoreA

"...utilise these properties whenever they or their dependents need them..."

You realize ".. whenever..." hasn't been allowed for many years.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> "...utilise these properties whenever they or their dependents need them..."
> 
> You realize ".. whenever..." hasn't been allowed for many years.


No, I didn't realise that. Care to illuminate me?


----------



## The Horseman

AlbacoreA said:


> You have to consider if in Ireland we have very short term mindset when it comes to rentals. We have the mindset that is temporary accomodation. But actually many people will rent for most if not all of their life. We also have the mindset that is not really a business premises, but the landlords personal accomodation. Temporarily borrowed by a tenant.
> 
> Is this really a professional approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do rental markets in Europe compare to the UK?
> 
> 
> As reform looms for the UK lettings market, The Negotiator looks at how the different European countries on the continent operate theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thenegotiator.co.uk


Renting a property is a commercial transaction nothing more nothing less. Both parties have a right to terminate the contract on agreed terms.

This is exactly the same principle when it comes to work. Employers and employees have the right to terminate an employment contract under the agreed timeframes. Do you expect an employer to continue employing people when the employer is no longer in business.

If tenants want to rent for the long term and landlords want to agree to this arrangement then fine. Institutional landlords are perfect for this situation but what has happened and continues to happen is the tenants get more rights and the landlord gets less.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I thought I just did.

Landlord rights is one thing. But there's another conversation around treating it like a business.


----------



## Silversurfer

AlbacoreA said:


> I thought I just did.
> 
> Landlord rights is one thing. But there's another conversation around tasting like a business.


Another conversation we should have is our population has increased by 1,000,000 since the last census. Most of the high earners are comfortable with large institutional investors to rent from.  The real issue is small Landlords  have taken over the role of the Government by providing social housing for those reliant on housing payments.


----------



## wondering

AlbacoreA said:


> The market probably has to move where a rental can't be chopped and changed between rental and LL 2nd home.





T McGibney said:


> Do you mean that if someone buys a property and rents it out, they can never thereafter occupy it themselves nor can a family member or someone else close to them?


Not chopping and changing is a good way to describe it. The business-owner has to make a decision at the start on what kind of business, as in airbnb, etc. 

They can rent to the relative if a property becomes vacant. 
This idea of asking someone to leave to move a family member in, is just wrong.  (I have a relative who's a landlord and I would never ask or suggest to move in while there's someone living there, though legally it's possible).



AlbacoreA said:


> But some control and protection needs to be given to landlords whatever happens. A lowering of financial risk.


Of course, evictions for non-payment, if that's what you mean, should be enforced.  

Any eviction ban that might be brought in should be on the condition that rent is paid. 

If not then then the landlord should be compensated for any rent that isn't paid.  Actually would say that regardless of whether eviction ban is brought in or not. If a tenant has no choice of place to move to, and does not pay due to affordability reasons, the government should compensate the landlord, because the government has failed to provide accommodation for people who should be able to move if they need to.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Silversurfer said:


> Another conversation we should have is our population has increased by 1,000,000 since the last census. Most of the high earners are comfortable with large institutional investors to rent from.  The real issue is small Landlords  have taken over the role of the Government by providing social housing for those reliant on housing payments.



In fairness the govt forced that business on landlords. They changed the legislation to do that. The reason that was needed was because the govt has stopped building and providing  social housing.


----------



## AlbacoreA

wondering said:


> Not chopping and changing is a good way to describe it. The business-owner has to make a decision at the start on what kind of business, as in airbnb, etc.
> 
> They can rent to the relative if a property becomes vacant.
> This idea of asking someone to leave to move a family member in, is just wrong.  (I have a relative who's a landlord and I would never ask or suggest to move in while there's someone living there, though legally it's possible).
> 
> 
> Of course, evictions for non-payment, if that's what you mean, should be enforced.
> 
> Any eviction ban that might be brought in should be on the condition that rent is paid.
> 
> If not then then the landlord should be compensated for any rent that isn't paid.  Actually would say that regardless of whether eviction ban is brought in or not. If a tenant has no choice of place to move to, and does not pay due to affordability reasons, the government should compensate the landlord, because the government has failed to provide accommodation for people who should be able to move if they need to.


Well exactly..


----------



## T McGibney

wondering said:


> Not chopping and changing is a good way to describe it. The business-owner has to make a decision at the start on what kind of business, as in airbnb, etc.
> 
> They can rent to the relative if a property becomes vacant.
> This idea of asking someone to leave to move a family member in, is just wrong.  (I have a relative who's a landlord and I would never ask or suggest to move in while there's someone living there, though legally it's possible).
> 
> Of course, evictions for non-payment, if that's what you mean, should be enforced.
> 
> Any eviction ban that might be brought in should be on the condition that rent is paid.
> 
> If not then then the landlord should be compensated for any rent that isn't paid.  Actually would say that regardless of whether eviction ban is brought in or not. If a tenant has no choice of place to move to, and does not pay due to affordability reasons, the government should compensate the landlord, because the government has failed to provide accommodation for people who should be able to move if they need to.


Look it's very simple. The more restrictions you introduce on what a rental property owner can do with their own property, the fewer rental properties you will have, and the higher the rents and homelessness crises will escalate.


----------



## AlbacoreA

It's either a rental or is isn't. 

Is that simple enough.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> It's either a rental or is isn't.
> 
> Is that simple enough.


If you take that attitude, you can safely bet that soon enough it won't be a rental.


----------



## Maggs065

AlbacoreA said:


> It's either a rental or is isn't.
> 
> Is that simple enough.


There has to be fluidity in the private rental market or you won't get people investing and those that have are running for the hills. The government have shifted the blame for lack of housing on the small private landlord, while quietly pocketing up to 50% of the rental income. And now they are threatening us with indefinite tenancies. And landlords are still the bad guys!


----------



## AlbacoreA

T McGibney said:


> If you take that attitude, you can safely bet that soon enough that it won't be a rental.



This "attitude" you refer to is actually the law. Had been the law for considerable number of years.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic if so why? Or genuinely not know the basics, if so also why?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Maggs065 said:


> There has to be fluidity in the private rental market or you won't get people investing and those that have are running for the hills. The government have shifted the blame for lack of housing on the small private landlord, while quietly pocketing up to 50% of the rental income. And now they are threatening us with indefinite tenancies. And landlords are still the bad guys!



Did you read what I posted about other countries. 

What do you mean by fluidity and what do you understand by the term security of tenancy.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> This "attitude" you refer to is actually the law. Had been the law for considerable number of years.
> 
> I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic if so why? Or genuinely not know the basics, if so also why?





T McGibney said:


> No, I didn't realise that. Care to illuminate me?


I'm still waiting...


----------



## AlbacoreA

T McGibney said:


> I'm still waiting...



You can't evict people "whenever". 

You need one of the valid reasons and valid notice period.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> You can't evict people "whenever" *you need one of the valid reasons* and valid notice period.


Exactly.

And it's being argued here that the list of currently _valid reasons_ should be shortened.

Your claim that a landlord evicting a tenant whenever one of their dependents needs the property to live in "hasn't been allowed for many years" is totally inaccurate.


----------



## AlbacoreA

My comment was in relation to the "whenever" in your comment. Which is why I specifically quoted it. 

But as an aside we've had a an eviction moratorium the lockdown, (27 March 2020) if they bring in another it will be the second one.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> My comment was in relation to the "whenever" in your comment. Which is why I specifically quoted it.


That's a fairly weak basis upon which to accuse me of sarcasm or "genuinely not know(ing) the basics".


AlbacoreA said:


> But as an aside we've had a an eviction moratorium the lockdown, (27 March 2020) if they bring in another it will be the second one.


Beside the point. That didn't last "for many years" so it doesn't advance or justify your claim.


----------



## AlbacoreA

My claim was you haven't been able to evict people "whenever" for years.

The reason I posted the link to the length of tenancies in other countries is to give context to the issue with Irish perspective on  the length of tenancies and why it causes so many issues here, and why people find it so divisive.

Because on the back of the moratoriums, is pressure to have much longer tenancies. That why it is interesting to consider.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> My claim was you haven't been able to evict people "whenever" for years.



If you wish to debate respectfully, please don't persist in attempting to misrepresent me by cherrypicking single words out of sentences I've written, where the meaning is obvious and clear once the entire sentence is read.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Language in the rules is specific and exact for a reason. 

It's the tenants "home" for example. Not the Landlords home, 

Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## T McGibney

AlbacoreA said:


> Language in the rules is specific and exact for a reason.


Beside the point again. Your charge that I "genuinely (did) not know the basics" fell flat on its face. As did your parallel claim regarding evictions for stated reasons, which gave rise to that bogus charge.


----------



## Silversurfer

AlbacoreA said:


> Language in the rules is specific and exact for a reason.
> 
> It's the tenants "home" for example. Not the Landlords home,
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger.


It is only the ‘tenants home’ for the duration of the lease. Otherwise why would anyone bother taking out a mortgage? Most of us did for security of tenure and spent 30 years paying it back. If it wasn’t paid then the property was repossessed and you were evicted. Unlike what is happening when tenants over hold and are then not responsible for arrears or damage. One of the reasons for small landlords was people bought property for their pension. Either as an income or a capital lump sum when they sold it.


----------



## galway_blow_in

Maggs065 said:


> There has to be fluidity in the private rental market or you won't get people investing and those that have are running for the hills. The government have shifted the blame for lack of housing on the small private landlord, while quietly pocketing up to 50% of the rental income. And now they are threatening us with indefinite tenancies. And landlords are still the bad guys!


“ the beatings must continue until morale improves “


----------



## AlbacoreA

Silversurfer said:


> It is only the ‘tenants home’ for the duration of the lease. Otherwise why would anyone bother taking out a mortgage? Most of us did for security of tenure and spent 30 years paying it back. If it wasn’t paid then the property was repossessed and you were evicted. Unlike what is happening when tenants over hold and are then not responsible for arrears or damage. One of the reasons for small landlords was people bought property for their pension. Either as an income or a capital lump sum when they sold it.



You're overlapping and conflating disparate issues there. 

Your personal home is one thing. A property you've rented is entirely different. if you want to discuss repossession of private homes with a mortgage that is a different issue. But it won't be repossessed whenever the bank likes. There's a process, often it taken over a decade to repossess in certain situations. But its a different topic. 

If you have rented out a house where a part IV tenancy is established, there is a set of rules  - RTB Rules

Tenants are responsible for arrears and damages but being responsible, getting a judgement and getting it via the legal route is often not economically viable due to costs and time. 

Then in terms of income, if they do enough damage and cost you so much time and money that it wipes out any profits from income for a couple years, then it's pointless renting. You might as well leave it empty and get the capital appreciation. Though if you rent for 10, 20, 30yrs how many of those years will you have no income? 4, 8? You still will come out ahead in terms of income. 

This is all slightly off topic. The issue is moratoriums on evictions. Most of these will simply be tenancies that end. They won't be in dispute.


----------



## AlbacoreA

galway_blow_in said:


> “ the beatings must continue until morale improves “



The majority of cases the LL is no hardship as a result of this. Rolling on the ground like a soccer player isn't going to convince anyone.


----------



## Purple

Maggs065 said:


> There has to be fluidity in the private rental market or you won't get people investing and those that have are running for the hills.


Agreed. Certainty is an important factor with any major investment. 


Maggs065 said:


> The government have shifted the blame for lack of housing on the small private landlord,


I think the institutional investor that is actually funding the building of housing is, bizarrely, getting more of the blame. 


Maggs065 said:


> while quietly pocketing up to 50% of the rental income.


They pocket half of my earnings as well. That's income tax for ya.


Maggs065 said:


> And now they are threatening us with indefinite tenancies. And landlords are still the bad guys!


It's a fear of the next government that's really frightening people.


----------



## wondering

T McGibney said:


> If you want to confine rental property investment to professionals who will be happy to let out properties indefinitely and never utilise these properties whenever they or their dependents need them, fire away, but do bear in mind that this would turn the current exodus of buy to let owners into a veritable flood.


There should be training or verification to ensure a basic standard of professionalism in a landlord, regardless of whether they are a big or small landlord. 

For a long time I was on the side of the smaller landlord. Now, it matters less, because the main thing I care about is professionalism (by which I mean just the basics of how to treat people, respecting boundaries, knowing the law, etc).


----------



## T McGibney

wondering said:


> There should be training or verification to ensure a basic standard of professionalism in a landlord, regardless of whether they are a big or small landlord.


_(shakes head in despair and logs off)_


----------



## wondering

The Horseman said:


> Renting a property is a commercial transaction nothing more nothing less. Both parties have a right to terminate the contract on agreed terms.
> 
> This is exactly the same principle when it comes to work. Employers and employees have the right to terminate an employment contract under the agreed timeframes. Do you expect an employer to continue employing people when the employer is no longer in business.
> 
> If tenants want to rent for the long term and landlords want to agree to this arrangement then fine. Institutional landlords are perfect for this situation but what has happened and continues to happen is the tenants get more rights and the landlord gets less.


It is not just a commercial transation. There are people's lives involved.

It's not the same as work/employment either. If you leave a job, generally speaking you can get another job before long.

If you leave your apartment/flat, in this country at the moment, you're looking at homelessness in most cases.

As well as this, it's a very big step for most people to move (unless you live out of a suitcase).

Long-term tenants (i.e. non-short term) should not be forced to move unless there's an exceptional reason to do so.

The duration of a tenancy should be worked out prior to moving in. If someone signs up for say, 5 years, then that should be guaranteed (Obviously a change of law would be needed for this).

This idea that all tenants in Ireland should live in a permanent state of '_what if_' is not on!



> what has happened and continues to happen is the tenants get more rights and the landlord gets less.


There are basic human rights involved. They are basic!

It is definitely not zero-sum or doesn't have to be. Everyone can have rights and respect each others rights without other's right being diminished in any way.


----------



## wondering

T McGibney said:


> _(shakes head in despair and logs off)_


I would estimate about 90% or more of landlords are fine.  There is always a % of any group that spoils things. Same applies to tenants. 

A landlord is in a position of considerable power, having keys to someone's home.  
It is just reality to recognise that power can be abused, and is by some - a small minority probably, but such people should not be allowed in the position, that's where I'm coming from.


----------



## Boyddbookman

There are many interesting posts on this thread. Admittedly, I was unable to fully follow some of the semantics or reasoning contained in a number of responses which I put down to limitations on this side of my keyboard.

My personal opinion is that a decision to purchase a property is always fiscally influenced, irrespective of the intention to use it as your PPR, a BTL or some form of pension vehicle. I expect that even the most ardent Bolshie leaning individual is desirous that their purchase, investment or otherwise, does not transpire to be a depreciating asset in the medium to long term.

The fiscal performance of any asset (including a BTL) is dependent on key performance factors including cost and availability of funds, availability of the asset, market risk and sentiment, inflation performance, regulation etc. Some of these factors are micro and within IRE.inc influence and control, while others are macro in nature and largely dependent on EU and global sentiment and performance (largely beyond our control).

Within Ireland, market sentiment for small landlords in the BTL arena has already been significantly eroded. One can argue the toss whether this is caused largely, or in part by over-regulation, the rate and nature of legislative change, taxation treatment, possible future political changes and so forth. In my personal view, the cause is largely irrelevant now, as significant, (and again in my personal opinion,) irreversible damage has already been done. It matters little whether he popped his clogs or kicked the bucket… he is gone. I am at a loss to see how majority landlord sentiment which is to pull their investment, can be arrested and reversed in the short to medium term. There already is an exodus of small landlord’ investment capital to other asset classes and jurisdictions. I believe the focus and energy of landlords (or property investors which is a more apt term) should instead be spent on how best to exit the Irish BTL market and instead identify alternate investment opportunities outside of the Irish BTL market rather than kicking a dead horse (apologies for overplay on the death metaphors, but you get my point).


----------



## Leo

wondering said:


> A landlord is in a position of considerable power, having keys to someone's home.


Sorry, but that's just nonsense. The balance of power is already very heavily weighted in the tenants favour. Any landlord thinking that having a set of keys gives them any power whatsoever is in for a rude awakening should they decide to use those keys. 

You seem to be confusing the private sector rental market with a social service. It should not be the responsibility of individuals to solve challenges of this nature. Continuing to heap more restrictions on private landlords due to the failure of the state to provide housing in sufficient numbers will only achieve the further reduction in properties available to rent.


----------



## KOW

wondering said:


> It is not just a commercial transation. There are people's lives involved.
> 
> It's not the same as work/employment either. If you leave a job, generally speaking you can get another job before long.
> 
> If you leave your apartment/flat, in this country at the moment, you're looking at homelessness in most cases.
> 
> As well as this, it's a very big step for most people to move (unless you live out of a suitcase).
> 
> Long-term tenants (i.e. non-short term) should not be forced to move unless there's an exceptional reason to do so.
> 
> The duration of a tenancy should be worked out prior to moving in. If someone signs up for say, 5 years, then that should be guaranteed (Obviously a change of law would be needed for this).
> 
> This idea that all tenants in Ireland should live in a permanent state of '_what if_' is not on!
> 
> 
> There are basic human rights involved. They are basic!
> 
> It is definitely not zero-sum or doesn't have to be. Everyone can have rights and respect each others rights without other's right being diminished in any way.


All any decent landlord requires is a tenant to sign a lease pay the rent and look after the property.
Landlords did not and will not sign up to solving the housing problem or acting as Social Welfare officers.
The Landlord bought the property with their hard earned cash and should be free to do what they want with their property once they adhere to a lease etc.
You cant go to Lidl and walk out the door with your weekly shop because you have no money. You can refuse to pay your rent for  years and squat in a property. Who pays the mortgage on the property when this happens. The Landlord.
Sorry renting out a property is a commercial decision. In my case after 40yrs working it is my pension my living.
I have always treated tenants well and kept my property well. But when a lease is up or when I decide to sell my property thats what I will do.
Tenants financial situation here in Ireland or any other country do not belong to the landlord.
I rented for years in both Ireland and North America. No landlord ever gave a monkeys about my financial situation nor did I expect them to.
I have 3yrs this November remaining on a lease with SDCC. After that I will sell. In fact every six months I contact the Council offering them the property to buy.
If you are thinking of buying a buy to let dont touch it.


----------



## wondering

@Leo, Feel free to respond in the thread of course, but I ask you not to quote me again out of context to go on some kind of rant. 

All points you touch on have been covered by others in the thread.


----------



## AlbacoreA

wondering said:


> I would estimate about 90% or more of landlords are fine.  There is always a % of any group that spoils things. Same applies to tenants.
> 
> A landlord is in a position of considerable power, having keys to someone's home.
> It is just reality to recognise that power can be abused, and is by some - a small minority probably, but such people should not be allowed in the position, that's where I'm coming from.



The problem is LL rights (power is a confusing term here) have been eroded to the point where you're expected to suck up the costs of a 2yr non paying tenant and whatever damage they cause could be 10s of thousands. It's only a small (relatively) number of cases but if happens to you it makes the whole exercise not worth it. Even if you don't lose financially the worry and stress of it, isn't worth it.


----------



## Lockup

wondering said:


> I would estimate about 90% or more of landlords are fine.  There is always a % of any group that spoils things. Same applies to tenants.
> 
> A landlord is in a position of considerable power, having keys to someone's home.
> It is just reality to recognise that power can be abused, and is by some - a small minority probably, but such people should not be allowed in the position, that's where I'm coming from.


As someone who was both a LL and tenant at the same time I can tell you that if 90% of small LLs are fine they would not be hitting the exit button like they have been.
Now for balance of power. When I was renting the LL gave me notice to sell. It was starting to get really difficult to find anywhere and when your circumstances are not secure its not a great feeling but this "home" idea is nonsense. I never thought of the rented property as my home.  I like many had rented my home out to tenants and moved. These were long term rentals also. These emotive matters are not simple.
Now when i needed to sell my rented house (previous home) the tenants (on 60% below market) overheld and stopped paying the rent. As a LL I can tell you "try it sometime". I didnt do that to my LL who didnt give me correct/any formal notice etc, but so what.... when I needed a few week a the end, he was sound about it. (again no need for rtb)
The rtb and the gov made things bad for me as a renter coz LL sold maybe on advice of colleagues and friends etc with things changing so fast and screwed me as LL so no one wins here. I would say that when this was happening I would feel from a vulnerability perspective there is not much in it between a LL and a tenant. If I had to push it it was worse as a LL. Things were so much better before the gov got involved. - and I was only a renter for most of that and main thing was trying to get the deposit back.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Boyddbookman said:


> There are many interesting posts on this thread. Admittedly, I was unable to fully follow some of the semantics or reasoning contained in a number of responses which I put down to limitations on this side of my keyboard.
> 
> My personal opinion is that a decision to purchase a property is always fiscally influenced, irrespective of the intention to use it as your PPR, a BTL or some form of pension vehicle. I expect that even the most ardent Bolshie leaning individual is desirous that their purchase, investment or otherwise, does not transpire to be a depreciating asset in the medium to long term.
> 
> The fiscal performance of any asset (including a BTL) is dependent on key performance factors including cost and availability of funds, availability of the asset, market risk and sentiment, inflation performance, regulation etc. Some of these factors are micro and within IRE.inc influence and control, while others are macro in nature and largely dependent on EU and global sentiment and performance (largely beyond our control).
> 
> Within Ireland, market sentiment for small landlords in the BTL arena has already been significantly eroded. One can argue the toss whether this is caused largely, or in part by over-regulation, the rate and nature of legislative change, taxation treatment, possible future political changes and so forth. In my personal view, the cause is largely irrelevant now, as significant, (and again in my personal opinion,) irreversible damage has already been done. It matters little whether he popped his clogs or kicked the bucket… he is gone. I am at a loss to see how majority landlord sentiment which is to pull their investment, can be arrested and reversed in the short to medium term. There already is an exodus of small landlord’ investment capital to other asset classes and jurisdictions. I believe the focus and energy of landlords (or property investors which is a more apt term) should instead be spent on how best to exit the Irish BTL market and instead identify alternate investment opportunities outside of the Irish BTL market rather than kicking a dead horse (apologies for overplay on the death metaphors, but you get my point).



No disagreeing with any of that. 

But the vast majority of small landlords are still those with one property, and even those with one or two is an even greater majority.  There something like 300k landlord and about 20k have left. There's quite a bit to go. Also new LLs are created. But it's something like for every one that is created, 3 leave. But also the one leaving might have one property. The one joining might have 10. 

Of course it's more nuanced that. The population is growing so LLs leaving has greater effect on supply than numbers suggest. Also I would say its most the cheaper properties that are leaving and the large investment LL's have mostly focused on the higher end of the market as its more profitable. So the shortage at the lower end is more acute.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Lockup said:


> As someone who was both a LL and tenant at the same time I can tell you that if 90% of small LLs are fine they would not be hitting the exit button like they have been.
> Now for balance of power. When I was renting the LL gave me notice to sell. It was starting to get really difficult to find anywhere and when your circumstances are not secure its not a great feeling but this "home" idea is nonsense. I never thought of the rented property as my home.  I like many had rented my home out to tenants and moved. These were long term rentals also. These emotive matters are not simple.
> Now when i needed to sell my rented house (previous home) the tenants (on 60% below market) overheld and stopped paying the rent. As a LL I can tell you "try it sometime". I didnt do that to my LL who didnt give me correct/any formal notice etc, but so what.... when I needed a few week a the end, he was sound about it. (again no need for rtb)
> The rtb and the gov made things bad for me as a renter coz LL sold maybe on advice of colleagues and friends etc with things changing so fast and screwed me as LL so no one wins here. I would say that when this was happening I would feel from a vulnerability perspective there is not much in it between a LL and a tenant. If I had to push it it was worse as a LL. Things were so much better before the gov got involved. - and I was only a renter for most of that and main thing was trying to get the deposit back.



I assume he means that "90%" most LLs are good landlords. Not that they are fine as in happy.


----------



## wondering

KOW said:


> Landlords did not and will not sign up to solving the housing problem or acting as Social Welfare officers.


I said no such thing.


----------



## Leo

wondering said:


> @Leo, Feel free to respond in the thread of course, but I ask you not to quote me again out of context to go on some kind of rant.
> 
> All points you touch on have been covered by others in the thread.


If you don't like being quoted, perhaps it would be best not post. 

If you want to elaborate on what power you think having a set of keys endows on a landlord, then please do share.


----------



## The Horseman

wondering said:


> It is not just a commercial transation. There are people's lives involved.
> 
> It's not the same as work/employment either. If you leave a job, generally speaking you can get another job before long.
> 
> If you leave your apartment/flat, in this country at the moment, you're looking at homelessness in most cases.
> 
> As well as this, it's a very big step for most people to move (unless you live out of a suitcase).
> 
> Long-term tenants (i.e. non-short term) should not be forced to move unless there's an exceptional reason to do so.
> 
> The duration of a tenancy should be worked out prior to moving in. If someone signs up for say, 5 years, then that should be guaranteed (Obviously a change of law would be needed for this).
> 
> This idea that all tenants in Ireland should live in a permanent state of '_what if_' is not on!
> 
> 
> There are basic human rights involved. They are basic!
> 
> It is definitely not zero-sum or doesn't have to be. Everyone can have rights and respect each others rights without other's right being diminished in any way.


It is the States responsibility to support people not other private citizens.

Renting is a commercial trans. If people want stability either get a mortgage or get the State to house them.

A mortgage is living in as you reference living in a State of "what if" . It only stops being "what if" when the mortgage is paid. 

How exactly is it fair I as a private citizens rights are less than another's. Should the State be able to say to you that you have a spare room we are passing a law that you must rent it out?


----------



## wondering

Lockup said:


> Things were so much better before the gov got involved.


I agree in part. Regulation is necessary, but not the way they went about it.


----------



## AlbacoreA

There were too many problems with it to escape regulation. Unfortunately the regulation was all one sided.


----------



## KOW

wondering said:


> There should be training or verification to ensure a basic standard of professionalism in a landlord, regardless of whether they are a big or small landlord.
> 
> For a long time I was on the side of the smaller landlord. Now, it matters less, because the main thing I care about is professionalism (by which I mean just the basics of how to treat people, respecting boundaries, knowing the law, etc).


Training to be a landlord. Holy God. Have you lost the plot.


----------



## KOW

KOW said:


> Training to be a landlord. Holy God. Have you lost the plot.


Take last comment back. Maybe a joint course for tenants to ensure a basic standard of professionalism from a tenant regardless of who they are.


----------



## wondering

Leo, You should note that I've been quoted plenty of times in the thread, 8 pages long now and no issue.

If anyone wants clarification on the point that Leo finds difficult, feel free to ask.
(It's fairly self-evident though I think).


----------



## wondering

The Horseman said:


> It is the States responsibility to support people not other private citizens.


Ok, can't disagree with that. (Not sure why you're addressing it to me). 



> Renting is a commercial trans.


It is but there's more to it.



> If people want stability either get a mortgage or get the State to house them.


The choice to rent long-term is normal in Europe. It's not here. That should change, in my view. (Someone posted a link on this earlier)

Anything that's agreed to should be voluntary, whether from the tenant side, or landlord side.  In other words - there should be nothing compelling anyone to let long-term if it doesn't suit them / the business model.



> A mortgage is living in as you reference living in a State of "what if" . It only stops being "what if" when the mortgage is paid.


I was referring to the risk for a tenant, where a note could come through the door at any time saying we're selling etc.



> How exactly is it fair I as a private citizens rights are less than another's.


No idea what that's referring to.



> Should the State be able to say to you that you have a spare room we are passing a law that you must rent it out?


No, of course not.  
If they want something like that to happen, the only way is to incentivise it - i.e. opt-in if you want to.


----------



## wondering

KOW said:


> Maybe a joint course for tenants to ensure a basic standard of professionalism from a tenant regardless of who they are.


Both tenants and landlords, I'd be fine with that.

There are courses for hotel management, etc.  Why not for managing lettings.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Well this thread took a bizarre turn.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

I'm happy to stay in if they do something to reduce the risk of non-paying tenants.
Maybe you could get enrollment in an insurance scheme administered by the RTB, that pays out rent when tenants don't pay, if you commit to longer tenure leasing.
Tenants could register with the RTB and pay a fee to cover the insurance premiums if they want a longer lease.

Side steps the political issue of giving handouts or breaks to landlords although the usual political opportunists would make a big deal of tenants having to pay anything even if the premia were quite small.


----------



## KOW

Landlord since 2002. Remember in the early days bad tenant no rent etc. Threatened me when I confronted him about not paying rent. Id be shot etc. Made a few phone calls checked out as best as I could if this tenant was waffling or if his threats were something to worry about. Went in to property and removed him. Not something I wanted to do I had no choice. Property destroyed. Hugely stressful to say the least.
If I was to the same today it would cost me thousands.
Today the risks involved in renting out property are mental. Maybe an actuary could work out exactly what affect a tenant inflicts when they pay no rent for two years on the viability of a rental say over the previous ten years. Look at todays yield on rentals. Consider all the factors and stay away.
Landlords are not running for no reason.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

It's fairly ubiquitous in markets that if you tie your money or assets up for longer you get a higher yield, either the government or the tenants need to fund that one way or another as they are the beneficiaries. You can't interfere in the market and lock in landlords for longer but not increase yields. It's clear we have a need for short term rentals regardless of what percentage of the market those are. You have lots of people arriving in the country that need short term accom until a long term solution is found, students, people moving out from home for the first time etc. You don't want these people taking up long term lettings, its just obvious that we need short term landlords. Locking them up against their will will flush them from the market.


----------



## AlbacoreA

You can always break a lease/tenancy early through mutual agreement. I guess you could say thats primarily the tenant dictating that. But the problem has been with landlords terminating tenancies for fake reasons so often that is now a unsustainable for tenants.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

Just one more thought on this, the general movement seems to be toward the right to housing trumping property rights. If we are going down this route then I don't think it's fair to stop at buy to lets. Some of our politicians may have a few spare rooms/huge houses (looking at you Mary Lou). Spare rooms should be fair game too for housing refugees and the homeless, it's only right that our leaders lead by example.


----------



## The Horseman

wondering said:


> No idea what that's referring


It is my asset to do with what I want. Exactly the same way your car, house and your savings are yours to do what you want. 

Should people's savings be taken by the State and used to purchase property to house renters at rate the State deems fair?


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

AlbacoreA said:


> You can always break a lease/tenancy early through mutual agreement. I guess you could say thats primarily the tenant dictating that. But the problem has been with landlords terminating tenancies for fake reasons so often that is now a unsustainable for tenants.


By fake reasons I presume you mean ending a tenancy only to restart another one at a higher rent? That is now being regulated much more tightly by the RTB. 

Other than that landlords are free to sell, if a landlord wants to issue a vacation notice to sell for example, the current proposed moratorium would block them from doing that and selling (it is practically impossible to sell in this country with tenants in situe, even though SinnFein want to enforce this). Many landlords have only committed to providing short term supply, they haven't signed up for long term supply. If you interfere in the market to block them from issuing terminations to sell their place then the possibility of short term landlords ceases to exist. We need short term landlords to provide the supply for short term demand, otherwise people renting temporarily are going to be competing with people who need long term accom for the limited or shrinking long term supply and the crisis worsens.

You can say we need more long term supply but where does that come from, you either incentivise the short term supply to lock in somehow long term or create it separately (it's the governments job after all). You can't seize the assets of people who don't want to have their assets tied in long term and never signed up for that to provide long term supply .


----------



## AlbacoreA

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> By fake reasons I presume you mean ending a tenancy only to restart another one at a higher rent? That is now being regulated much more tightly by the RTB.
> 
> Other than that landlords are free to sell, if a landlord wants to issue a vacation notice to sell for example, the current proposed moratorium would block them from doing that and selling (it is practically impossible to sell in this country with tenants in situe, even though SinnFein want to enforce this). Many landlords have only committed to providing short term supply, they haven't signed up for long term supply. If you interfere in the market to block them from issuing terminations to sell their place then the possibility of short term landlords ceases to exist. We need short term landlords to provide the supply for short term demand, otherwise people renting temporarily are going to be competing with people who need long term accom for the limited or shrinking long term supply and the crisis worsens.
> 
> You can say we need more long term supply but where does that come from, you either incentivise the short term supply to lock in somehow long term or create it separately (it's the governments job after all). You can't seize the assets of people who don't want to have their assets tied in long term and never signed up for that to provide long term supply .



I get all that. But we didn't get here without people gaming the system. No smoke without fire etc. Even now we have frequent LLs on another forum giving out because they cant instantly evict someone from their house. As for the RTB the fine is often considered worth it by many. So its not a deterrent. 

I agree we need to incentivize long term rentals. But its often the lack of LL protections that causes them to seek constant short term rentals. It what pushed many to AirBnB. The Govt and the usually lobby groups seem to miss or deliberately ignore this. I would be interested in how long the average LL stays in the business. I would expect for the majority it not a short term business.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

AlbacoreA said:


> I get all that. But we didn't get here without people gaming the system. No smoke without fire etc. Even now we have frequent LLs on another forum giving out because they cant instantly evict someone from their house. As for the RTB the fine is often considered worth it by many. So its not a deterrent.
> 
> I agree we need to incentivize long term rentals. But its often the lack of LL protections that causes them to seek constant short term rentals. It what pushed many to AirBnB. The Govt and the usually lobby groups seem to miss or deliberately ignore this. I would be interested in how long the average LL stays in the business. I would expect for the majority it not a short term business.


If you think the housing crisis is due to private landlords gaming the system I'm sorry but you are just wrong.

There are two discussions you are mixing up, one is how to solve a housing crisis and landlords rushing to leave the market recently, the other is tenants rights and bad landlord behaviour.

They are separate issues because, regardless of the behaviour of bad landlords - if they evict tenants and get tenants in at a higher rent for example, there is still one rental unit available in the big housing crisis picture. The small private landlords are at the cheaper end of the scale to the massive REITs that leave a place empty for months rather than accepting a rent lower than the max they think they can get, that is probably a bigger issue in terms of vacant units to be honest, or the fact that people with long term tenants that leave are leaving their place empty for two years so they can raise the rent to market level under the rental caps as this is the only way to get a fair market rent.

The issue relevant to this topic is private landlords selling to get out of the market.

Where the topics overlap is that getting landlords to commit long term is a benefit to tenants.
But all the other stuff you are discussing, while important and a job for the RTB, is not relevant to this thread/topic and cetainly hasn't caused the housing crisis or landlords leaving the market en masse recently.


----------



## AlbacoreA

No where did I say or imply LLs gaming the system caused this crisis. That's a fantasy in your own head. As i's mixing up issues. 

People are complaining about the rules. All I'm saying is the rules came in due problems that were causing significant problems.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> If you think the housing crisis is due to private landlords gaming the system I'm sorry but you are just wrong.
> 
> There are two discussions you are mixing up, one is how to solve a housing crisis and landlords rushing to leave the market recently, the other is tenants rights and bad landlord behaviour.
> 
> They are separate issues because, regardless of the behaviour of bad landlords - if they evict tenants and get tenants in at a higher rent for example, there is still one rental unit available in the big housing crisis picture. The small private landlords are at the cheaper end of the scale to the massive REITs that leave a place empty for months rather than accepting a rent lower than the max they think they can get, that is probably a bigger issue in terms of vacant units to be honest, or the fact that people with long term tenants that leave are leaving their place empty for two years so they can raise the rent to market level under the rental caps as this is the only way to get a fair market rent.
> 
> The issue relevant to this topic is private landlords selling to get out of the market.
> 
> Where the topics overlap is that getting landlords to commit long term is a benefit to tenants.
> But all the other stuff you are discussing, while important and a job for the RTB, is not relevant to this thread/topic and cetainly hasn't caused the housing crisis or landlords leaving the market en masse recently.


When I say that the relevant issue is landlords leaving the market, that's the reason this moratorium is being proposed. It's pretty clear this is what is driving the proposal, see Leo Varadkars recent comments on this for example.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Landlords are always leaving and joining.

The issue is a chronic current lack of supply means any eviction often leaves tenants homeless.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

AlbacoreA said:


> Landlords are always leaving and joining.
> 
> The issue is a chronic current lack of supply means any eviction often leaves tenants homeless.


Leaving at much higher rates recently, and that worsens supply.
A moratorium will make this much worse because as soon as it's lifted the flood gates will really open, because there are a lot of people that will wonder what's next, this is FF/FG, what will SF do in a few years, lets get out while the window is open etc.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Leaving at much higher rates recently, and that worsens supply.
> A moratorium will make this much worse because as soon as it's lifted the flood gates will really open, because there are a lot of people that will wonder what's next, this is FF/FG, what will SF do in a few years, lets get out while the window is open etc.


Absolutely. As Charlie Haughey famously said, if you think I'm bad wait til you see what's coming next!

I think the government will last until spring 2025. Between now and then we will definitely go from 165,000 landlords to under 150,000 landlords. Possibly lower. That's possibly 30-40,000 plus people looking for new homes and they aren't there.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Absolutely. As Charlie Haughey famously said, if you think I'm bad wait til you see what's coming next!
> 
> I think the government will last until spring 2025. Between now and then we will definitely go from 165,000 landlords to under 150,000 landlords. Possibly lower. That's possibly 30-40,000 plus people looking for new homes and they aren't there.


Government has 6 billion in a rainy day fund they could use to buy those.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Where you getting 165k from? Or any of your figures


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> Government has 6 billion in a rainy day fund they could use to buy those.


With tenants in situe, problem solved without extraordinary measures to remove anyone's property rights.
Might have to cut back on any vote-buying budget giveaways in the run up to next election so it's unlikely we will get a step up to the plate solution like that.


----------



## KOW

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> With tenants in situe, problem solved without extraordinary measures to remove anyone's property rights.
> Might have to cut back on any vote-buying budget giveaways in the run up to next election so it's unlikely we will get a step up to the plate solution like that.


Have an apartment in Palmerstown Dublin 20. Had it with SDCC under RAS scheme now with the same CC under the long term rental scheme.
I get 1560 per month. The unit is worth around 280k. I have three years left on the lease. The same unit could not be built for 280k. Every six months I contact council and offer them the unit to purchase only to be told no funds available. By the time this last lease is up the CC have probably paid me more rent than the apartment would cost to buy. I have brought this to the attention of all the main parties shinners included only to get back standard waffle. That is its the county councils decision.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

KOW said:


> Have an apartment in Palmerstown Dublin 20. Had it with SDCC under RAS scheme now with the same CC under the long term rental scheme.
> I get 1560 per month. The unit is worth around 280k. I have three years left on the lease. The same unit could not be built for 280k. Every six months I contact council and offer them the unit to purchase only to be told no funds available. By the time this last lease is up the CC have probably paid me more rent than the apartment would cost to buy. I have brought this to the attention of all the main parties shinners included only to get back standard waffle. That is its the county councils decision.


That's politicians for you, none of them have job stability so we are doomed to short term decisions because of their job insecurity and the need for short term gains and results. They are literally all the same in that regard.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

It's nice to see we are patting ourselves on the back over our economic planning, while simultaneously proposing extraordinary measures to override property rights due to a failure of investment in housing. 

Around 7 minutes 50 is where the Minister for Finance refers to having the luxury of sticking 6 billion aside in a rainy day fund due to their brilliance in economic planning:









						Economic co-operation between EU, US 'at a new high'
					

Minster for Finance Paschal Donohoe has said economic co-operation between Ireland, the European Union and the United States is at a new high point.




					www.rte.ie
				




Bravo!


----------



## Mocame

The proposal that local authorities buy out landlords of HAP properties may make sense from the exchequer point of view but it doesn't make any sense from the LA's perspective.  They can't manage their own purpose built social housing stock which is generally in estates where are their dwellings are located adjacent to one another.  Their record of maintenance is really poor, in part because the average rent of €52 per week is just too low to pay for maintenance.  How the hell are their doing to maintain dispersed and maybe run down dwellings they by from private landlords who are desperate to exit the sector?


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

Mocame said:


> The proposal that local authorities buy out landlords of HAP properties may make sense from the exchequer point of view but it doesn't make any sense from the LA's perspective.  They can't manage their own purpose built social housing stock which is generally in estates where are their dwellings are located adjacent to one another.  Their record of maintenance is really poor, in part because the average rent of €52 per week is just too low to pay for maintenance.  How the hell are their doing to maintain dispersed and maybe run down dwellings they by from private landlords who are desperate to exit the sector?


A lot of these are private lettings and they are managed by property management companies for a percentage of the rent. I'm sure they will take on the LAs business with the tenants in situe, it's as good as a private landlords. I don't agree with government interference in the private rental market but if the government insists we need to consider all of the options.


----------



## Mocame

I mentioned in a previous post on this thread that a friend who let out her home temporary to move in with an ill relative has issued an eviction notice to the tenant of her former home.  Her solicitor has informed her that if the eviction ban is introduced she probably won't be able to proceed with the eviction and therefore will have no where to live herself.  She is a longstanding FG supporter and just can't believe she is being punished by the government for providing care for her elderly mother.  Or that is how she feels!

Her dreadful situation also got me thinking that no one in her situation will be able to consider renting out their home short term in future.  Ditto, people who go to work abroad or go travelling won't be able to rent out their homes temporarily.  What per centage of the rental market do these types of landlords make up?


----------



## KOW

Mocame said:


> The proposal that local authorities buy out landlords of HAP properties may make sense from the exchequer point of view but it doesn't make any sense from the LA's perspective.  They can't manage their own purpose built social housing stock which is generally in estates where are their dwellings are located adjacent to one another.  Their record of maintenance is really poor, in part because the average rent of €52 per week is just too low to pay for maintenance.  How the hell are their doing to maintain dispersed and maybe run down dwellings they by from private landlords who are desperate to exit the sector?


Under the long term rental scheme the council maintain the property anyway  not the landlord. I threw the council the keys 5yrs ago. Under the lease scheme I have the property returned to me in three  years time in the same inspected  condition I originally supplied to them. Bar normal wear and tear.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

Mocame said:


> I mentioned in a previous post on this thread that a friend who let out her home temporary to move in with an ill relative has issued an eviction notice to the tenant of her former home.  Her solicitor has informed her that if the eviction ban is introduced she probably won't be able to proceed with the eviction and therefore will have no where to live herself.  She is a longstanding FG supporter and just can't believe she is being punished by the government for providing care for her elderly mother.  Or that is how she feels!
> 
> Her dreadful situation also got me thinking that no one in her situation will be able to consider renting out their home short term in future.  Ditto, people who go to work abroad or go travelling won't be able to rent out their homes temporarily.  What per centage of the rental market do these types of landlords make up?


Your friend's situation sounds awful and must be a terrible worry. When we get to the stage where people are asking about statistics and percentages to try to defend their property rights, it's a sad indictment of where we are.  They need to step up and invest instead of passing on the responsibility and scape goating soft targets.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

They are looking at a 3 month ban which is going to have no real positive effect on anything, will delay eviction notices already served a maximum of 3 months presumably. 
They are getting massive coverage from 'acting in tenants interests' while doing nothing material to help at all, in fact they are worsening the situation by killing off short term rentals for the foreseeable future and making up a lot of minds of anyone on the fence to get out of the rental market. You have to wonder whether their strategy is to deliberately sabotage the market or if it is just incompetence.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

AlbacoreA said:


> Where you getting 165k from? Or any of your figures


CSO figures. In fact there are 156,555 landlords as of June 2021. There was 3000 notice to quit tenancies in the first six months of the year. So over the next two years, 12,000 tenancies ending would seem on the low side to me. 

The 12,000 tenancies are likely to have a minimum of two people in each, likely more infact. So that's 24000 people who were renting. 

I think we will get upto 4000 tenancies ending in second half of 2022 and continue increasing in 2023 and 2024.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Perhaps pedantic but that figure isn't all landlords. 



> ...All analysis up until and including Figure 3.11 here focuses on individual landlords, where the registered landlord has self-reported as an individual rather than a company or other enterprise. Additional analysis here from Figure 3.12 details ownership of residential property by non-household enterprises using data from the LPT....


----------



## Greenbook

Also, the eviction numbers don't tell the full story. Many landlords sell when the tenant leaves of their own accord because they bought, are moving home etc. This doesn't show up in the official eviction numbers at all so the number of landlords leaving is far higher


----------



## AlbacoreA

It would show up in the end of tenancy for the rtb. Then unregistering the property. But that would require all these various bodies to align their data. Instead we are left to join the dots.


----------



## Leo

wondering said:


> Leo, You should note that I've been quoted plenty of times in the thread, 8 pages long now and no issue.
> 
> If anyone wants clarification on the point that Leo finds difficult, feel free to ask.
> (It's fairly self-evident though I think).


If you could just clarify what power you think a landlord derives from having a set of keys to a rented property.....


----------



## Leo

wondering said:


> There are courses for hotel management, etc. Why not for managing lettings.


Are there courses for hotel guests?

Courses in hotel management are not mandatory for hotel owners, management or staff.


----------



## KOW

Leo said:


> Are there courses for hotel guests?
> 
> Courses in hotel management are not mandatory for hotel owners, management or staff.


Maybe a course for all tenants on how to stay rent free for two years after getting legal notice to vacate


----------



## Greenbook

AlbacoreA said:


> It would show up in the end of tenancy for the rtb. Then unregistering the property. But that would require all these various bodies to align their data. Instead we are left to join the dots.


I think this is why annual registration was brought in. The RTB numbers aren't accurate at all. Landlords sell up but don't tell the RTB so the registration stays there or a property is let to a new tenant and the old registration is not cancelled. RTB information is now out of date (only up to 2020). I suspect that annual registration is revealing that the landlord and tenancy numbers are way down but we are not being told. As you say, we're left to try to join the dots outselves!


----------



## Purple

I'm in favour of landlords being able to evict tenants for non payment of rent. That means the Gardai dragging them out the door if necessary. I think 3 months arrears should be enough to allow this to happen. 
Here's the contentious but though; I think the same should apply to people who don't pay their mortgage. 

Morally and ethically I don't see any difference between the two.


----------



## DannyBoyD

Purple said:


> ..........I think 3 months arrears should be enough to allow this to happen.
> ....Here's the contentious but though; I think the same should apply to people who don't pay their mortgage.


From a mortgage point of view, there's a better chance that a home owner will pick themselves up and get their payments back on track.  Banks can afford to take a longer term approach.

For rental, I agree, should be able to handle non-payment much faster; it would make sense to have the process the same as for a shortfall in payments as for a missed payment.  

Perhaps something like the penalty points for your driving licence; once you reach a certain figure you lose it.
e.g 5 points for a late payment, 10 points for a missed payment; warning notice at (say) 30 points, eviction at (say) 50 points.


----------



## The Horseman

DannyBoyD said:


> From a mortgage point of view, there's a better chance that a home owner will pick themselves up and get their payments back on track.  Banks can afford to take a longer term approach.
> 
> For rental, I agree, should be able to handle non-payment much faster; it would make sense to have the process the same as for a shortfall in payments as for a missed payment.
> 
> Perhaps something like the penalty points for your driving licence; once you reach a certain figure you lose it.
> e.g 5 points for a late payment, 10 points for a missed payment; warning notice at (say) 30 points, eviction at (say) 50 points.


Agreed mortgage holders have "skin in the game"  tenants don't.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> Agreed mortgage holders have "skin in the game"  tenants don't.


The Tenant has their home in the game. It's not their house but it is their home.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> The Tenant has their home in the game. It's not their house but it is their home.


The tenants don't normally have assets to pay the outstanding arrears the mortgage holder does. The bank can recoup its debt. The landlord rarely can.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> The tenants don't normally have assets to pay the outstanding arrears the mortgage holder does.


Sure, but if the tenant can be thrown out for not paying their rent then the home owner should be thrown out for not paying their mortgage. It's the same thing; someone is paying money to use an asset their don't own. In the case of the tenant it's a house, in the case of the homeowner it's a mortgage secured against their house. It matters not a bit that the bank can afford to carry the delinquent homeowner more than the average landlord can afford to carry the delinquent tenant. If the tenant should be kicked out then so should the mortgagee. 


The Horseman said:


> The bank can recoup its debt. The landlord rarely can.


Even if that's true, so what?


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> Sure, but if the tenant can be thrown out for not paying their rent then the home owner should be thrown out for not paying their mortgage. It's the same thing; someone is paying money to use an asset their don't own. In the case of the tenant it's a house, in the case of the homeowner it's a mortgage secured against their house. It matters not a bit that the bank can afford to carry the delinquent homeowner more than the average landlord can afford to carry the delinquent tenant. If the tenant should be kicked out then so should the mortgagee.
> 
> Even if that's true, so what?


Yes both should be evicted for non payment. Unfortunately we don't do either. My father was brought up in social housing in the 1940's and paying rent was always the priority. Neighbours who missed payments were evicted, they made sure when they paid the arrears they never went into arrears again.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

This looks like it might be a pause in issuing notices, so people would need to issue immediately before this gets through the Oireachtas etc. if they want to sell any time in the next 12 months.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> This looks like it might be a pause in issuing notices, so people would need to issue immediately before this gets through the Oireachtas etc. if they want to sell any time in the next 12 months.



Bear in mind the need to make a statutory declaration in most cases. It's not as straightforward as writing a letter.



> *Statutory Declaration *​In some instances, a landlord is required to submit a Statutory Declaration with the Notice of Termination.
> 
> Where a landlord intends to sell the property within 9 months of terminating the tenancy, a Statutory Declaration must accompany the Notice of Termination confirming this intention.
> 
> Where a landlord requires the property for their own use or for use by a family member, a Statutory Declaration must accompany the Notice of Termination confirming the intended occupant's identity and (if not the landlord) their relationship to the landlord and the expected duration of the occupation. The Statutory Declaration must also confirm that the landlord is required to offer a tenancy to the tenant if the dwelling is vacated within a period of 12 months from the termination date.
> 
> Sample Statutory Declarations accompany the Notices of Termination. *A Statutory Declaration must take a specific format and must be signed in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths, Practising Solicitor, Notary Public, or Peace Commissioner.* Please note that the Declarant must sign the Statutory Declaration themselves, it cannot be signed on their behalf by an authorised agent.


----------



## Sarenco

Just heard the Minister on the radio.

If I understood him correctly, there will be no moratorium on issuing termination notices and notice periods can continue to run during the moratorium period.

However, "no fault" termination notices cannot take effect during the moratorium period to 31 March and will only take effect after the moratorium period ends on a sliding scale depending on the length of the tenancy.  

I would be hopping mad if I issued a valid termination notice months ago and I now have to wait a further 6 months to get vacant possession of my property.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

Sarenco said:


> Just heard the Minister on the radio.
> 
> If I understood him correctly, there will be no moratorium on issuing termination notices and notice periods can continue to run during the moratorium period.
> 
> However, "no fault" termination notices cannot take effect during the moratorium period to 31 March and will only take effect after the moratorium period ends on a sliding scale depending on the length of the tenancy.
> 
> I would be hopping mad if I issued a valid termination notice months ago and I now have to wait a further 6 months to get vacant possession of my property.


Absolutely. Government should offer to buy the place with tenants in situe if they want to interfere in a private market.


----------



## Chipmunk

Have they said yet if the landlord has already served notice, or serves notice between now and 1st November is the termination will continue as normal ?


----------



## Mocame

When it ends Sinn Féin will be in government and will bring a permanent ban on 'no fault' evictions.  The constitutional referendum on housing is designed to facilitate this.  I have made this point before on this forum and some posters suggested that the referendum would only place an obligation on the state to house people, but any legal judgements against the state only confer an obligation to deal with the individual litigant's circumstances.  The most significant impact will be on the private sector.


----------



## Greenbook

Sarenco said:


> Thinking about this a bit more, this legislation is going to result in a glut of termination notices all taking effect next Spring - even with the phasing proposed by the Minister.
> 
> You have all the deferred terminations from this Winter, plus all the terminations that would take effect in Spring in the ordinary course.
> 
> That is going to put even further pressure on the rental market over a condensed time period.
> 
> Every government intervention in the rental market is just adding to the dysfunction.


I suspect it may have to be extended due to this. Like RPZs they were only supposed to be in place for three years and are here forever now. Alternatively, it'll be an annual event. No evictions for 6 months of the year.


----------



## Greenbook

Mocame said:


> When it ends Sinn Féin will be in government and will bring a permanent ban on 'no fault' evictions.  The constitutional referendum on housing is designed to facilitate this.  I have made this point before on this forum and some posters suggested that the referendum would only place an obligation on the state to house people, but any legal judgements against the state only confer an obligation to deal with the individual litigant's circumstances.  The most significant impact will be on the private sector.


I think that you are absolutely right there, that is exactly what it will achieve and that is its purpose. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.


----------



## wondering

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> I'm happy to stay in if they do something to reduce the risk of non-paying tenants.
> Maybe you could get enrollment in an insurance scheme administered by the RTB, that pays out rent when tenants don't pay, if you commit to longer tenure leasing.
> Tenants could register with the RTB and pay a fee to cover the insurance premiums if they want a longer lease.
> 
> Side steps the political issue of giving handouts or breaks to landlords although the usual political opportunists would make a big deal of tenants having to pay anything even if the premia were quite small.


This sounds interesting and worth someone exploring. 

The idea I had was if you break a long-term contract early, you pay a penalty, say 6 month's rent or balance of remainder of contract.  Similar to how energy companies charge a fee if you leave early. 


RonnieShinbal88 said:


> the general movement seems to be toward the right to housing trumping property rights.


I tend to agree with this but don't think they care about housing rights!

A tactic used by totalitarian regimes is to pretend to care about people to achieve their ends.  So in this instance, they pretend they care about housing refugees etc, of whom there's a never-ending influx.

The real agenda may well be to just stop people from owning property altogether.


RonnieShinbal88 said:


> You can say we need more long term supply but where does that come from, you either incentivise the short term supply to lock in somehow long term or create it separately (it's the governments job after all). You can't seize the assets of people who don't want to have their assets tied in long term and never signed up for that to provide long term supply .


Agree with the above.
The problem is all tenancies being treated the same. 
Under current legislation, a tenancy becomes long-term effectively after 6 months, which is madness. 
It's not truly long-term either. True long-term would mean guaranteed fix term lease (no selling, no relative moves in, etc)


----------



## wondering

RonnieShinbal88 said:


> That's politicians for you, none of them have job stability so we are doomed to short term decisions because of their job insecurity and the need for short term gains and results. They are literally all the same in that regard.


Lack of integrity is the issue I think. It's the only issue.


Purple said:


> I'm in favour of landlords being able to evict tenants for non payment of rent. That means the Gardai dragging them out the door if necessary. I think 3 months arrears should be enough to allow this to happen.
> Here's the contentious but though; I think the same should apply to people who don't pay their mortgage.
> 
> Morally and ethically I don't see any difference between the two.


Very much agree.


DannyBoyD said:


> Perhaps something like the penalty points for your driving licence; once you reach a certain figure you lose it.
> e.g 5 points for a late payment, 10 points for a missed payment; warning notice at (say) 30 points, eviction at (say) 50 points.


A good idea. 


The Horseman said:


> The tenants don't normally have assets to pay the outstanding arrears the mortgage holder does. The bank can recoup its debt. The landlord rarely can.


I remember the situation c2010. People were staying and wouldn't sell because negative equity. So that was their reason or excuse.  

If a tenant is non-paying or partial paying or whatever the case may be, the reason today would be there's no where to move to.  I would say you'd count on one hand the number of such people who'd stay in place if they had an option to move.  That's the fault of the government.  

I see on another thread you said you're leaving, so maybe that's the right decision because the supply thing will take years more, if it's ever resolved. I don't think they want it resolved really (or someone's making money out of it _not_ being resolved).


----------



## MrViking

Mocame said:


> When it ends Sinn Féin will be in government and will bring a permanent ban on 'no fault' evictions.  The constitutional referendum on housing is designed to facilitate this.  I have made this point before on this forum and some posters suggested that the referendum would only place an obligation on the state to house people, but any legal judgements against the state only confer an obligation to deal with the individual litigant's circumstances.  The most significant impact will be on the private sector.


I completely agree - this is the BIG risk I have feared for some time. It will be politically impossible not to extend the “moratorium” in April (nothing will have changed) and at that stage the government will roll the dice on a constitutional challenge. By the time that makes it way through the system, we’ll have the shinners running a referendum on the constitution re right to housing…..aka permanent tenancy. Time to dial down the responsiveness to dealing with issues in property….


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Landlords have been left high and dry. There will be more selling up in springtime. And the landlords association are taking a constitutional challenge to the eviction ban too.


----------



## Sarenco

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> And the landlords association are taking a constitutional challenge to the eviction ban too.


I’ll believe that when I see it.

Who is going to pay the lawyers?


----------



## blanketyblank

'A right to housing' seems crazy to me,   I,couldn't ever see it ever being voted in!   Do other countries have that right???


----------



## T McGibney

Sarenco said:


> I’ll believe that when I see it.
> 
> Who is going to pay the lawyers?


Small beer to the bigger corporate landlords. And most likely the State will pick up the tab once it's not a demonstrably frivolous case.


----------



## Greenbook

If you were between tenants at the moment - your tenant had left and you were repainting etc. with a view to a new tenancy, what would you do now? Would you re-let, sell, wait until the ban to see if the ban ends?


----------



## Sarenco

T McGibney said:


> Small beer to the bigger corporate landlords.


I would be very surprised in the bigger corporate landlords were members of the IPOA.


----------



## T McGibney

Sarenco said:


> I would be very surprised in the bigger corporate landlords were members of the IPOA.


So would I. The IPOA is merely a small club of like-minded people. When the constitutionality of laws impacting on property owners was successfully challenged in the 1970s it wasn't the likes of the IPOA who took the case.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

As the proposals were announced yesterday, that is the best place to continue the discussion.






						Government approves legislation to provide for temporary stay on tenancy terminations
					

Well, the press release states that -   "The legislation will also cover licences/tenancies in student specific accommodation and student tenancies in the general rental market."  I don't think that's meant to include digs or rent-a-room scenarios but we will have to wait for the legislation to...



					www.askaboutmoney.com
				




Brendan


----------

