# tenant not paying rent wont  leave



## suzieb (15 Dec 2017)

I need some help please. Tenant hasnt paid rent in over three months. Took her to RTB and they ruled in my favour but im waiting for the determination order to be finalised before i can try and progress things. I emailed her after the appeal time was up of 10 days to say are you still in the property and the rent is due etc. All she said was please refer to the RTB. I rang them they said she hasnt filed an appeal. I dont know  what her intentions are. She is a nutcase problematic, from the beginning. She of course is a social welfare tenant. I rang them before and they said as she was claiming works were to be carried out by me that were not done that it was between me and her and they wouldnt freeze the rent. Of  course RTB found in my favour and against her BS.

My question is  Is there any point in me contacting the Social Welfare again to get them to freeze her rent supplement. Its paid directly to her! Yes stupid of me i know to allow that to happen. Never again. So if the rent is frozen is there any way of getting the Social to pay me instead of her. Eg if they see a copy of the order from the RTB? She will not sign a waiver over to me im sure as she is playing the system.

My concern is if i tell the Social Welfare and they freeze her rent she will be less likely to move if she doesnt have more money behind her and there is no point me getting them involved if nothing will be achieved by it ie i wont get the money.. Bottom  line  is i need her out. Yes it would gall me if she gets more money from them but i have to do whats best for me and get her out even if it means she seems to be getting away with it.. i just need her out.. No idea if she is going to leave and where she would go...   This is every landlords nightmare.Any advice really appreciated.


----------



## Setanta12 (15 Dec 2017)

I've rung the Soc.Wlf. before and they did switch and pay me directly.  I am unsure if they're meant to, but they did.  Have soft-copies of RTB notifications and be ready to email copies in.

You could also ring the tenant and suggest you will give her a good reference if she leaves. You're not going to get the arrears.  

Check if you can, all utilities are paid up to date.

Do you know any friendly Guards who might, obligingly, swing by - they can't do anything it should be stressed - but some people don't like the attention it brings.

Keep an eye out for any empty periods and secure possession when the house is empty.  You need more than the tenant popping out to the shops though .. .. ..


----------



## suzieb (15 Dec 2017)

thanks Setanta12.. How did the Social agree to pay you directly? was it a dublin social welfare? Can you tell me a bit more of the circumstances. Anything similar to mine?  I dont want to risk being fined up to 20k by acting illegally so securing possession and forcing her out isnt an option.


----------



## LS400 (15 Dec 2017)

Setanta12 said:


> Do you know any friendly Guards who might, obligingly, swing by - they can't do anything it should be stressed



It would be a foolish Guard to step outside of their parameters in this day and age.



Setanta12 said:


> You could also ring the tenant and suggest you will give her a good reference if she leaves.



I hope Im not presented with the glowing reference!!



suzieb said:


> Anything similar to mine? I dont want to risk being fined up to 20k by acting illegally so securing possession and forcing her out isnt an option.



A very wise thought.

These people know, that at some stage, some one will act hastily, and its big pay out day for them. You could be their lucky ticket. They have everything to gain and you have everything to loose.

Unfortunately its a slow process that costs you either way, pot luck, the joys of being a LL these days.


----------



## Palerider (15 Dec 2017)

Yet another horror story about DSP tenants, stick to the book, my heart goes out to you, a hard lesson indeed.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Dec 2017)

suzieb said:


> She is a nutcase problematic, from the beginning. She of course is a social welfare tenant.



You lost my sympathy there. What has her social welfare entitlements got to do with her alleged mental health condition?


----------



## landlord (15 Dec 2017)

I have many properties with the tenants on the social. They all started this year. All paid directly to me through the HAP housing assistance programme. I though that was the norm?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Dec 2017)

Let’s nip the “social welfare tenants argument” in the bud.

It is not fair to tar all social welfare tenants with the same brush.

However, there is obviously a higher probability of running into difficulty with a social welfare tenant; that’s just a fact of life.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Dec 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> It is not fair to tar all social welfare tenants with the same brush.



Agreed.


----------



## robert 200 (15 Dec 2017)

Close to 50,000 landlords have sold up in the last 3 years . They were being crucified with unfair taxes and tenants that have far too many rights. This situation can be reversed by bringing 
back 100% relief against mortgage interest and if a tenant fails to pay their rent for 2 months that they are evicted by the sheriff  within 7 days. Social welfare and HAP tenants would immediately be more welcome. God help the homeless - it will get much worse , I cannot wait to get out of this business.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Dec 2017)

Where have you got the figure for 50,000 landlords selling up in last 3 yrs? And so what if they did?


----------



## robert 200 (15 Dec 2017)

Have you no compassion for the tenants that were made homeless - SHAME ON YOU


----------



## Palerider (16 Dec 2017)

robert 200 said:


> Have you no compassion for the tenants that were made homeless - SHAME ON YOU



How bizarre is this comment, come on, it is a simple equation..

If tenants play by the rules = a happy landlord + a happy tenant.

Happy landlord + happy tenant = long tenancy.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Dec 2017)

robert 200 said:


> Have you no compassion for the tenants that were made homeless - SHAME ON YOU



I just figured, this comment was meant for me. 
The question im asking is, if 50,000 landlords sold up their properties in last 3 year, where did the properties go? To other landlords perhaps? Perhaps former tenants, now property owners? 
If 50,000 properties came onto the market last 3 years, wouldnt that have put a downward pressure on prices?


----------



## delfio (16 Dec 2017)

robert 200 said:


> Have you no compassion for the tenants that were made homeless - SHAME ON YOU



That's not nice, from his posts TheBigShort is very compassionate and often speaks up for the vulnerable in society.


----------



## Logo (16 Dec 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Where have you got the figure for 50,000 landlords selling up in last 3 yrs?


Hi *.* I can totally understand why landlords would exit the market in the current climate but can you provide a source for your figures?


----------



## robert 200 (17 Dec 2017)

Your equation should have read - Greedy banks = Stressed landlords = Homeless tenants


----------



## Bronte (18 Dec 2017)

landlord said:


> I have many properties with the tenants on the social. They all started this year. All paid directly to me through the HAP housing assistance programme. I though that was the norm?


It is for HAP but it was not for the previous rent allowance.


----------



## Bronte (18 Dec 2017)

robert 200 said:


> Have you no compassion for the tenants that were made homeless - SHAME ON YOU



Being a landlord is a business not a charity.  The fault of the homeless is the result of inaction by the government in not building housing stock, in not making it easier to build and by stupid taxation policies that discourage landlords from entering the business and in fact encourages us to leave it.


----------



## Bronte (18 Dec 2017)

The OP has the following options:

a) Pay her to leave.  Give her back her deposit to move on, she will likely need this.  But don't give it to her until she has moved all her stuff to the new place.  And give her a good reference too.  (I take no notice of references, in fact I don't think I ever got one !)

b) Evict her illegally.  How much will the RTB charge you for this.  Then do the maths.  (look up the recent cases to see how much, it was around 10K I think). 

c) Do nothing and you can be sure she'll stay there rent free for ages.  I'd no way allow her collect social welfare if you're not being paid.  So put a stop to that. 

You do realise that the RTB order you've got is worthless?


----------



## galway_blow_in (18 Dec 2017)

Bronte said:


> The OP has the following options:
> 
> a) Pay her to leave.  Give her back her deposit to move on, she will likely need this.  But don't give it to her until she has moved all her stuff to the new place.  And give her a good reference too.  (I take no notice of references, in fact I don't think I ever got one !)
> 
> ...



the RTB order is not useless , its a link in the chain which you need to move to the next stage of the process , granted the process is dysfunctional and designed to hamper the landlord all the way but its what the OP is forced to work with

the RTB are there to verify that you have adhered to the correct steps before you move on to the courts - authorities who have actual power

as for the option of paying the tenant to leave , better make sure she signs a paper saying she willingly vacated


----------



## Susie2017 (18 Dec 2017)

There is a programme on tv I watch regularly based in the UK. Called 'cant pay we will take it away' or something along those lines. Basically bailiffs come on foot of a court order and take possession of the property or valuable items if you have not paid rent or other bills. It occurs quite often, either you pay up or you get locked out permanently. Seems to work quite well and the bailiffs get their %. Seems like its probably a lucrative enough business for them. Is there nothing comparable here ? How do you ever get non payers out ?? Im sure lot of landlords would use their services willingly if they were available to hire. System here is an utter joke.


----------



## galway_blow_in (18 Dec 2017)

Susie2017 said:


> There is a programme on tv I watch regularly based in the UK. Called 'cant pay we will take it away' or something along those lines. Basically bailiffs come on foot of a court order and take possession of the property or valuable items if you have not paid rent or other bills. It occurs quite often, either you pay up or you get locked out permanently. Seems to work quite well and the bailiffs get their %. Seems like its probably a lucrative enough business for them. Is there nothing comparable here ? How do you ever get non payers out ?? Im sure lot of landlords would use their services willingly if they were available to hire. System here is an utter joke.



tenant rights are much stronger in ireland than in the uk so i doubt it


----------



## Moon light (18 Dec 2017)

Hi Suzieb, my advise to you is just do everything by the book, keep calm and go through the correct process, call RTB and see if they can move any faster on this, and yes call S.W and see if they will transfer the rent over to you, no harm in asking,


----------



## Bronte (18 Dec 2017)

galway_blow_in said:


> the RTB order is not useless , its a link in the chain which you need to move to the next stage of the process , granted the process is dysfunctional and designed to hamper the landlord all the way but its what the OP is forced to work with
> 
> the RTB are there to verify that you have adhered to the correct steps before you move on to the courts - authorities who have actual power
> 
> as for the option of paying the tenant to leave , better make sure she signs a paper saying she willingly vacated



The RTB are only costing this landlord money by delaying her right to go to court.  The RTB was supposed to be to avoid the expense of going to court.  But their orders are legally worthless as you still have to go to the time and expense of court. 

The tenant is winning.  Paying zero rent.  Getting money from social welfare. And sitting pretty knowing full well the RTB is useless against her.


----------



## Bronte (18 Dec 2017)

Susie2017 said:


> There is a programme on tv I watch regularly based in the UK. Called 'cant pay we will take it away' or something along those lines. Basically bailiffs come on foot of a court order and take possession of the property or valuable items if you have not paid rent or other bills. It occurs quite often, either you pay up or you get locked out permanently. Seems to work quite well and the bailiffs get their %. Seems like its probably a lucrative enough business for them. Is there nothing comparable here ? How do you ever get non payers out ?? Im sure lot of landlords would use their services willingly if they were available to hire. System here is an utter joke.



You forgot one thing about that programme, most landlords don't get their back rent, they get damaged houses as well in many of the cases.


----------



## Sarenco (18 Dec 2017)

Galway's advice is spot on - securing an RTB determination order is the first and necessary step to securing possession of the property.

Any other approach is likely to prove expensive and/or ineffective.


----------



## cremeegg (18 Dec 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Galway's advice is spot on - securing an RTB determination order is the first and necessary step to securing possession of the property.
> 
> Any other approach is likely to prove expensive and/or ineffective.



Have you any basis for that comment or is it just your own predisposition.

How do you know that the bribery approach will be ineffective. From memory at least two posters, Bronte being one, have told us of the success of this approach for them.

I suspect that lots of landlords use the baseball approach, threatened or actual. They are unlikely to report it here.

At least those approaches offer a prospect of ending a landlords losses, the RTB approach assures the landlord that the losses will continue.


----------



## Sarenco (18 Dec 2017)

@Cremegg

I suggested that any other approach was _likely_ to prove expensive and/or ineffective.

Bribery _might _work.  Or it might be a complete waste of money.  I've personally come across cases where defaulting tenants agreed to move on for a few grand, only to subsequently change their mind having received the bribe.

Similarly, the "baseball approach" _might_ work.  Or it might not.  The RTB could subsequently direct that  the landord allow the tenant to re-enter the property and/or pay substantial damages to the tenant.

The RTB process may well be frustrating but it's still _likely_ to be the most effective way of securing possession of the property.


----------



## galway_blow_in (18 Dec 2017)

Bronte said:


> The RTB are only costing this landlord money by delaying her right to go to court.  The RTB was supposed to be to avoid the expense of going to court.  But their orders are legally worthless as you still have to go to the time and expense of court.
> 
> The tenant is winning.  Paying zero rent.  Getting money from social welfare. And sitting pretty knowing full well the RTB is useless against her.



if you go straight to court without first having notified the RTB of the situation and accordingly gotten approval for eviction from the RTB , the sitting judge in court will toss your case straight back at you and demand you go through the RTB

you have to correspond with the RTB all the way first !


----------



## galway_blow_in (18 Dec 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Galway's advice is spot on - securing an RTB determination order is the first and necessary step to securing possession of the property.
> 
> Any other approach is likely to prove expensive and/or ineffective.



its putting the cart before the horse

you must carefully choreograph things correctly in order to adhere to the conditions of the process , you need your ducks in a row , a brazen tenant knows the RTB are powerless to evict in real terms and so effectively you always need to get before a judge when dealing with a delinquent tenant but not before making your case to the ( useless ) RTB and haven gotten their stamp of approval

its a terrible system but sure what can you do ?


----------



## galway_blow_in (18 Dec 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Have you any basis for that comment or is it just your own predisposition.
> 
> How do you know that the bribery approach will be ineffective. From memory at least two posters, Bronte being one, have told us of the success of this approach for them.
> 
> ...



just to be clear i would try bribing the tenant if it would swiften eviction , i made the point about seeing things out with the RTB within the context of someone suggesting ( apologies if i took you up wrong ) the RTB could be bypassed and a hearing in front of the judge arranged , that cant happen or if it does the judge will want to know what way  the RTB ruled


----------



## suzieb (18 Dec 2017)

My main issue is should i notify the social welfare of the order and the fact she hasnt paid and is there a possibility the rent can be redirected to me without her permission if the RTB have given an order that she pay me rent. Any experience in this from anyone would be appreciated. thanks. If she will move quicker if the rent isnt stopped then id consider not notifying them if theres no way id get it.


----------



## cremeegg (18 Dec 2017)

suzieb said:


> My main issue is should i notify the social welfare of the order and the fact she hasnt paid and is there a possibility the rent can be redirected to me without her permission if the RTB have given an order that she pay me rent. Any experience in this from anyone would be appreciated. thanks. If she will move quicker if the rent isnt stopped then id consider not notifying them if theres no way id get it.



I think the first thing you should do is tell the tenant that you are considering contacting the social welfare about the unpaid rent.

If the tenant has their rent cut off they will not find it easy to get it re-instated. I had a similar situation some years ago. I contacted the Community Welfare Officer, who was concerned that money being authorised for rent was not being used for rent.

I got the impression that the CWO had considerable discretion over the payment of the rent supplement. The CWO has a responsibility to house people, they know that eventually you will get an eviction so they don't want that. The system has I think changed since then, although you mention "rent supplement" is this the actual scheme. I thought that had been phased out.

Its hard to advise as a tenant with no rent supplement will be more desperate, they have no chance of getting rehoused.

I think you should forget about the rent and focus on getting them out.


----------



## Purple (19 Dec 2017)

Since a landlord can get Welfare rent payments directly it should mean that SW tenants are actually a safer bet since if a private tenant doesn't pay up the landlord still have to go through the RTB fiasco but has no second string to their bow in the form of the CWO and Welfare.
I'm a private tenant and I don't think my landlord has any moral duty to me beyond abiding by the terms of the lease. It is a business arrangement, first and foremost. It so happens that we get on well and have a mutually beneficial relationship but that's secondary.

By the way, if the tenant is a bit of a nutcase then there's no problem saying it here. it's not as if their name is being given.


----------



## Bronte (19 Dec 2017)

galway_blow_in said:


> if you go straight to court without first having notified the RTB of the situation and accordingly gotten approval for eviction from the RTB , the sitting judge in court will toss your case straight back at you and demand you go through the RTB
> 
> you have to correspond with the RTB all the way first !



I wasn't suggesting that. I quite clearly know that you have to go down the RTB route first.  Which delays you and keeps the tenants sitting pretty for a very long time.


----------



## Bronte (19 Dec 2017)

cremeegg said:


> If the tenant has their rent cut off they will not find it easy to get it re-instated.
> 
> Its hard to advise as a tenant with no rent supplement will be more desperate, they have no chance of getting rehoused.



Absolutely right Cremeegg, OP will never get them out if they mess with their social welfare unless it's to get the rent to go directly to the OP.


----------



## Bronte (19 Dec 2017)

Sarenco said:


> @Cremegg
> 
> I suggested that any other approach was _likely_ to prove expensive and/or ineffective.
> 
> ...



*Want to put figures on it.*

Let's make rent 1K a month.  One year down is 12K.  Meanwhile you've to pay out a mortgage from your own pocket.  Let's say also 1K a month.  So now you're down the 12K and you've to pay another 12K.

You've stress for a year.  How much to go to court?  Say anything from 2K to 5K (anyone have any idea)

Or you illegally evict them.  In this case the OP has a useless RTB order, but that's to his benefit.  Let's say the RTB fines her 5K or 10K.  But you'll have your rent of 12K to pay that and you've got rid of your problem.

OP if you are reading this - bribary is the cheapest option, you give enough for the tenant to have a deposit on the new place and something 'sweet' to tempt her to move.


----------



## Sarenco (19 Dec 2017)

@Bronte

I believe I have already addressed those points in this post:-


Sarenco said:


> Bribery _might _work.  Or it might be a complete waste of money.  I've personally come across cases where defaulting tenants agreed to move on for a few grand, only to subsequently change their mind having received the bribe.
> 
> Similarly, the "baseball approach" _might_ work.  Or it might not.  The RTB could subsequently direct that  the landord allow the tenant to re-enter the property and/or pay substantial damages to the tenant.



Bribery may well be the cheapest option. 

Or it might be a complete waste of money.  I certainly wouldn't advise anybody to fork out significant amounts of money on a strategy that mightn't work.


----------



## Palerider (19 Dec 2017)

I accept that almost all users of AAM are above the idea of discommoding a tenant.
There is absolutely no way I would play by the rules as any tenant flouts them in such a manner, regardless I would get my property back, by lawful means, just in the grey areas, as I said discommode.


----------



## Vanessa (25 Dec 2017)

Bronte said:


> Being a landlord is a business not a charity.  The fault of the homeless is the result of inaction by the government in not building housing stock, in not making it easier to build and by stupid taxation policies that discourage landlords from entering the business and in fact encourages us to leave it.


You are right there. It is a business but the government treat landlords as unpaid tax collectors. People who rent think that landlords are not entitled to a profit


----------



## Vanessa (25 Dec 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I just figured, this comment was meant for me.
> The question im asking is, if 50,000 landlords sold up their properties in last 3 year, where did the properties go? To other landlords perhaps? Perhaps former tenants, now property owners?
> If 50,000 properties came onto the market last 3 years, wouldnt that have put a downward pressure on prices?


Not necessarily when there is a big increase in population in areas where properties are not in plentiful supply. Plenty houses in Leitrim but not much good if Microsoft etc locate in south Dublin


----------



## TheBigShort (27 Dec 2017)

Vanessa said:


> Not necessarily when there is a big increase in population in areas where properties are not in plentiful supply. Plenty houses in Leitrim but not much good if Microsoft etc locate in south Dublin



Very true. But regardless of '50,000' landlords leaving the market...the point is, the properties dont leave the market. 
It makes v little difference, except to have more properties available as social entities for shelter, security and families instead of being commodities for profit and private pension funds. 
The less landlords the better.


----------



## Vanessa (29 Dec 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Very true. But regardless of '50,000' landlords leaving the market...the point is, the properties dont leave the market.
> It makes v little difference, except to have more properties available as social entities for shelter, security and families instead of being commodities for profit and private pension funds.
> The less landlords the better.


Thats a stupid comment. There will always be a demand for accommodation by people such as those.starting work, students, people in between selling and buying.
Not everyone wants to be compulsorily housed in some East European style multi storey block.
I think we will manage ok without the socialist paradise


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Very true. But regardless of '50,000' landlords leaving the market...the point is, the properties dont leave the market.
> It makes v little difference, except to have more properties available as social entities for shelter, security and families instead of being commodities for profit and private pension funds.
> The less landlords the better.



Threshold and Daft would suggest they do. They can be taken off he market or switched to AirBnb as just two examples how. 



> The four other major cities - Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford - together need something similar in scale. As it stands, they are starved of rental supply. The graph accompanying this commentary shows the total number of rental homes listed across all four cities on the 1st of November every year since 2006. On that date this year, there were just 251 homes available to rent across all four cities - an almost 90% fall from the number available in 2009.





> Commenting, Threshold Western Regional Services Manager, Diarmaid O’Sullivan said: “The findings are a cause for concern as they indicate that there is an increase in the numbers of landlords leaving the rental market.  Given the shortage of rental properties in the city at the moment, this is a worrying development.



Why Threshold think this is a new trend when its been happening for many years, is baffling. I wonder how many Landlords left due to their interference.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

> The findings show that the other main reasons tenancies are terminated by landlords are that they require the property for their own or a family member’s use (16%), they intend to carry out substantial renovation on the property (8%), or the tenant is in rent arrears (22%).



So arrears is a cause in 22% and renovation is 8%. Which issue was all the talk about putting in even more rules, the renovation work.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

Vanessa said:


> Thats a stupid comment. There will always be a demand for accommodation by people such as those.starting work, students, people in between selling and buying.
> Not everyone wants to be compulsorily housed in some East European style multi storey block.
> I think we will manage ok without the socialist paradise



I dont have anything against landlords. My comment was in the context of treating housing like a commodity to buy and sell for profit. When money is cheap it induces lots of people to speculate and become 'landlords', inducing developers to build empty shells in leitrim while demand is in Dublin. 
Landlords can provide a vital service in the provision of housing. Property speculators, passing themselves off as landlords, are inadequate to do so. I suspect that if 50,000 'landlords' have left the market, that they were mostly speculators hoping to use the 2nd house as a pension fund and got caught out. It is these people I was referring to.
I accept how my previous could be misconstrued as anti- landlord, I hope this comment explains my view more clearly.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

There is a shortage of property, in Dublin at least. Landlords leaving the sector do not take their properties with them, the properties are sold to other buyers. Their is a shortage of housing for owner-occupiers too.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

There is a shortage because it's not economical to be a landlord, or to build new houses. Housing does leave the owner/renter market. Its been widely reported for years. 

Successive govt have done nothing to ease this, rather it could be argued they have over heated the market most likely deliberately. Perhaps to encourage foreign investment and bring money into the country. However They have done little to deal with the primary cause of lack of supply. 

You're basically pointing the finger at the symptoms as the cause of the issue while ignoring the actual core of the issues.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> Housing does leave the owner/renter market. Its been widely reported for years.



Where does it go? If im a landlord with one property and decide to exit the market where does my property go?



AlbacoreA said:


> Successive govt have done nothing to ease this, rather it could be argued they have over heated the market most likely deliberately. Perhaps to encourage foreign investment and bring money into the country. However They have done little to deal with the primary cause of lack of supply.



I agree, they are sold on the idea that housing is a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, rather than viewing it for its primary social function, shelter.



AlbacoreA said:


> You're basically pointing the finger at the symptoms as the cause of the issue while ignoring the actual core of the issues.



I dont think so. The core of the issue is that that government have left housing to the open market, to be bought and sold as commodities for profit. 
When times are good, with money in abundance, speculators will pass themselves off as 'landlords'. When times are tight, they bailout. 
Being a landlord, is a long-term role, the 50,000 landlords leaving the market are speculators. Good riddance.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

Its already explained where property goes when it leaves the rental market. You seem to referring to social housing being outsourced to the rental market. Home/Buyer market is always an open market. Unless you mean under a different form of govt.

None of the above is caused by Landlords or investors. Also none of it has got to do with the OP original problem of over-holding, or indeed how that has been such a major factor in reducing supply of rental property. 

Maybe you should start a new thread, where you can blame Landlords for a whole range of unrelated issues. Brexit, Global Warming etc.

Even if the Govt owned and managed directly all the social housing it itself would be a Landlord. The only way to have no Landlords is to have no rental market or social housing at all. So check you are not sawing off the branch you are standing on.


----------



## robert 200 (30 Dec 2017)

When a Pre 1963 property or any other property in multiple units is sold by a landlord who gets out of the business that property in most cases is sold to a buyer who converts it back to
a private home. There may have been 10 - 20 tenants in that property. Take a walk along the North Circular Road from Summerhill to the Phoenix Park and bring a calculator.
You will then understand that because of these properties been sold and the ban on bedsits why we have a homeless crisis.
Decent landlords provide a very necessary service , unfortunately our wonderful government does not agree


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> Its already explained where property goes when it leaves the rental market.



Yes, I have explained it. If im a landlord and I exit the market, I sell my property. Either to another landlord (neutral effect on amount of landlords) or I sell to owner/occupier. One less landlord, one less demand from owner/occupier.
The housing problem has nothing to do with shortage of landlords. It has to do with shortage of housing. A consequence of a housing policy left in the hands of propeorty speculators (giving good developers and good landlords a bad name) , resulting in empty houses in leitrim and a shortage in Dublin - all in the name of short-term profit.
Housing is a long-term development, renting out property should be viewed with this consideration. Instead we had 'landlords' who expect their tenants to foot the entire cost of the mortgage, the entire cost of wear and tear, the entire cost of improvements and still expect to realise 100% of the capital appreciation upon retirement. That is not sustainable and those type of 'landlords' are best kept away from property speculation in the first place.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

You're not getting it. Neither is threshold. Keep sawing at the branch.


----------



## robert 200 (30 Dec 2017)

Are you seriously suggesting that the exit of 50,000 landlords has had no impact on the housing crisis ? I think you have a "chipper on your shoulder" against landlords , you probably
didnt get your full deposit refunded to you 20 years ago and you are holding a silly grudge for years.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

robert 200 said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the exit of 50,000 landlords has had no impact on the housing crisis ? I think you have a "chipper on your shoulder" against landlords , you probably
> didnt get your full deposit refunded to you 20 years ago and you are holding a silly grudge for years.



Im asking a simple question. Perhaps you can have a go. 
If there are 10 houses in stock and one is owned by a landlord, and the landlord subsequently exits the market, how many houses are left in stock? What happens to the property owned by the landlord?


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

robert 200 said:


> When a Pre 1963 property or any other property in multiple units is sold by a landlord who gets out of the business that property in most cases is sold to a buyer who converts it back to
> a private home. There may have been 10 - 20 tenants in that property. Take a walk along the North Circular Road from Summerhill to the Phoenix Park and bring a calculator.
> You will then understand that because of these properties been sold and the ban on bedsits why we have a homeless crisis.
> Decent landlords provide a very necessary service , unfortunately our wonderful government does not agree



There's also a lot of vacant properties. I know a good few around me, and I know people who keep a house empty, using it rarely, or chasing unrealistic prices rather than renting it. Because they don't really want to sell, but renting its too much hassle. Some are just abandoned. The house I grew up in, on a main road, in a suburb has been boarded up for over a dhe Govtecade. A house opposite me has been empty for a year until it recently sold. I know someone else who looks after their elderly parents, hasn't lived in their one house fr 6 months or more. All of these people think its too risky to rent the property even though they could do with the the money, and the house be occupied for heat, and security. 

Over holding needs to be tackled. Instead its seems to be getting worse. Security of tenure is one thing and a goo thing, badly need. But its being abused.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

Vacancy rates in Dublin...
https://www.dublininquirer.com/2016/07/19/dublin-neighbourhoods-vacant-homes/


----------



## robert 200 (30 Dec 2017)

If that property is sold and has 10 rent allowance and HAP tenants they WILL NOT get alternative accommodation and they WILL be made homeless.


----------



## Sarenco (30 Dec 2017)

Lorcan Sirr (housing economist in DIT) has estimated that between 6,000 and 12,000 housing units are lost every year due to dereliction.

The last census actually showed a net reduction in rental units, which is extraordinary when you consider our population growth and the significant reduction in the proportion of owner occupiers.

There is no doubt in my mind that government policy (tax and regulatory) is the primary driver of this evolving crisis.  Facilitating significant over-holding is a material part of the problem.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

robert 200 said:


> If that property is sold and has 10 rent allowance and HAP tenants they WILL NOT get alternative accommodation and they WILL be made homeless.





Unless it was sold to a family of ten who were beforehand housed in emergency accommodation. 

Again, the question was about the housing stock - its clear that the landlord exiting the market does not affect the housing stock. 
But accepting your point about HAP tenants etc, then the solution is more housing held by non-property speculating landlords. An example might be that a buy-to-let mortgage is only attainable if the property is available to let for the full-term of the mortgage or even longer.


----------



## Sarenco (30 Dec 2017)

BS

Others have already explained how an inappropriate regulatory and tax regime can result in increased vacancy rates, which, in turn, may result in disrepair and dereliction of existing housing stock.

As a matter of curiosity, where will your benign "non-speculative" (does that mean not for profit?) landlords secure capital to purchase or develop rental properties?  Bear in mind that the State is severely constrained in terms of what it can borrow.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

There are large investors who are coming in and re-purposing large blocks of affordable rental stock into high end rental stock often for corporate use. Also the govt sold off a lot of its social housing for a variety of reasons not least to stabilise anti social activity. 

Lazy strawman arguments aside. A rant against Landlords is ironic in a thread about overholding.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Others have already explained how an inappropriate regulatory and tax regime can result in increased vacancy rates, which, in turn, may result in disrepair and dereliction of existing housing stock.



Yes I agree, but it goes nowhere to explain the apparent mass exodus of landlords in the past three years. 
A couple of points, 'vacancy rates' does not imply an exit from the market, merely a hoarding of property until the rental price demanded (to make it worthwhile ie for profit) is met. Prices demanded are not sustainable.
Secondly, it is this type of landlord, that should be pushed out of the sector. Buy to let property mortgages should only be allowable where the property is gauranteed to be let - a use it or lose it clause would be helpful, or a designation of the property as a permanent rental property (or say, 100yrs) would also help. 
This would root out the wanna-be landlords who speculated that their 2nd home would provide their pension. Instead the professional landlord, the one who is prepared for 'the hassle' and engaged fully in the provision of long-term leases at affordable rates can emerge.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

Vacancy rates are not about explaining why landlords leave. Its pointing out how property might not be available to anyone. The property leaves the market and is not repurposed as you insist it will be.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> .... . Instead the professional landlord, the one who is prepared for 'the hassle' and engaged fully in the provision of long-term leases at affordable rates can emerge.



This idea of the professional landlord being interested in affordable rates, is mostly a complete fiction. Rather the opposite is true, that only unprofessional Landlords will maintain lower rates. Professional Landlords, usual larger companies will drive rates up and maximise profits. 

In interviews foreign investment firms buying property seem baffled way some people think it works any other way.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> ... one who is prepared for 'the hassle' and engaged fully in the provision of long-term..



They seem to have no problems with mass evictions...that is certainly true...


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> Vacancy rates are not about explaining why landlords leave. Its pointing out how property might not be available to anyone. The property leaves the market and is not repurposed as you insist it will be.



Great, so we can agree that 50,000 landlords havent exited the market? Instead there is increased levels of property hoarding?



AlbacoreA said:


> There's also a lot of vacant properties. I know a good few around me, and I know people who keep a house empty, using it rarely, or chasing unrealistic prices rather than renting it. Because they don't really want to sell, but renting its too much hassle. Some are just abandoned.



Yes, property hoarding would appear to be an issue. Any suggestions for long-term solutions?


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

So you agree then that property has left the market.

If you want to discuss landlords not leaving the market then provide some links. Otherwise its just a rant...


----------



## Sarenco (30 Dec 2017)

BS

What we are patiently trying to explain to you is that many properties that would otherwise be available to let are deliberately being left vacant due to our inappropriate regulatory and tax regime.

The solution?  Change the regulatory and tax regime!

This thread is a good example of the difficulties that landlords face in dealing effectively with over holding tenants. There are many others on the inequitable and counterproductive nature of the RPZ regime, the voracious tax take on rental profits, etc.


----------



## galway_blow_in (30 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> This idea of the professional landlord being interested in affordable rates, is mostly a complete fiction. Rather the opposite is true, that only unprofessional Landlords will maintain lower rates. Professional Landlords, usual larger companies will drive rates up and maximise profits.
> 
> In interviews foreign investment firms buying property seem baffled way some people think it works any other way.



professional large landlords can afford to finance the eviction of a deadbeat tenant where as a small landlord struggles to pay his mortgage for two years while trying to evict

industrial scale landlords are negative for rent prices and tenants


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

Doesn't even have to be a troublesome client. They have the financial resources to take lots of properties off the market to "refurbish" them to re-sell them as suits themselves.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

This was the comment I responded to



robert 200 said:


> Close to 50,000 landlords have sold up in the last 3 years .



In my view, 'sold' means the transfer of the property from one individual, or entity, to another for an agreed price.



Sarenco said:


> What we are patiently trying to explain to you is that many properties that would otherwise be available to let are deliberately being left vacant due to our inappropriate regulatory and tax regime.



So they havent been sold then? As I implied three pages ago



TheBigShort said:


> Where have you got the figure for 50,000 landlords selling up in last 3 yrs?






AlbacoreA said:


> So you agree then that property has left the market.



If you define property hoarding as property having left the market then of course, yes. But I think you would agree that hoarding property is significantly different to selling property as was stated earlier.



Sarenco said:


> What we are patiently trying to explain to you is that many properties that would otherwise be available to let are deliberately being left vacant due to our inappropriate regulatory and tax regime.



I appreciate your patience sarenco but its important that you also pay attention to what is said before.



TheBigShort said:


> The housing problem has nothing to do with shortage of landlords. It has to do with shortage of housing.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

If you are expecting housing to simply  vanish you might be watching too much Harry Potter.

Any links to... Well anything...?


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> Any links to... Well anything...?



For what exactly? I requested a link to the claim that 50,000 landlords had sold up. Still waiting...apparenently the point was actually something completely different.


----------



## AlbacoreA (30 Dec 2017)

For anything you've said....


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> For anything you've said....




??? You want me to provide a link to a claim made by another poster, that I have asked to provide a source for????
That doesnt make sense.


----------



## Firefly (30 Dec 2017)

Hi OP. How about something radical like contacting the electricity provider and requesting that the bill be switched to your name. Then inform the tenant that the electricity and rent are to be paid together.  Failure to do so and you will cut off the power to the house


----------



## AlbacoreA (31 Dec 2017)

You can't do that 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e..._your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html#l71b51


----------



## AlbacoreA (31 Dec 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> ??? You want me to provide a link to a claim made by another poster, that I have asked to provide a source for????
> That doesnt make sense.



You've said lots of things like landlords leaving not having an effect on housing stock. Or that housing never gets removed from use as housing. We given you loads examples. You have given none.

Do you have links to add credence to any of your theories.

If you are interested in how many landlords leave the market you can find it online. It will also tell you more join all the time. But  more leave than enter at the moment. 

So you could choose to provide some links and reports rather than arguing against strawman that you invent.


----------



## AlbacoreA (31 Dec 2017)

suzieb said:


> I need some help please. Tenant hasnt paid rent in over three months. Took her to RTB and they ruled in my favour but im waiting for the determination order...



There was other information online about people going to the court themselves and not waiting for the PRTB. I can't remember the details of how they could skip the PRTB but there was some legal process. Sorry but I'm not near a computer to search where I saw it. It may have been on boards.


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> You've said lots of things like landlords leaving not having an effect on housing stock



Not quite. What I said was;



TheBigShort said:


> if 50,000 landlords sold up their properties in last 3 year, where did the properties go? To other landlords perhaps? Perhaps former tenants, now property owners?
> If 50,000 properties came onto the market last 3 years, wouldnt that have put a downward pressure on prices?



I would ask that you emphasis on distinguishing between the different meaning of the words 'sold' and 'leaving', especially in consideration of the other pivotal words 'housing' and 'landlords'. 




AlbacoreA said:


> Or that housing never gets removed from use as housing



I never said that, link please.



AlbacoreA said:


> We given you loads examples.



Who is 'we'? Is there more than one of you?





AlbacoreA said:


> Do you have links to add credence to any of your theories.



What 'theories' are you talking about? I merely pointed out that if 50,000 landlords have SOLD their properties in the last 3 years then that would provide a _downward _pressure on house prices. Dont you agree?


----------



## AlbacoreA (31 Dec 2017)

Yeah...



TheBigShort said:


> ...its clear that the landlord exiting the market does not affect the housing stock...





TheBigShort said:


> ..regardless of '50,000' landlords leaving the market...the point is, the properties dont leave the market....





TheBigShort said:


> ...Landlords leaving the sector do not take their properties with them, the properties are sold to other buyers....



Landlords can leave the sector and retain the property and not use them for housing. They can leave them empty for example (again). Or switch to AirBnB, or make it an office. 



TheBigShort said:


> ...What 'theories' are you talking about?..



theories - a supposition - a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis. Those above above and this one below...



TheBigShort said:


> ...I merely pointed out that if 50,000 landlords have SOLD their properties in the last 3 years then that would provide a _downward _pressure on house prices. Dont you agree?



No. That the housing prices have not fallen, could be mean that 50,000 isn't enough to have an effect. Or that they weren't released back to the market. 



> ...The country needs close to 50,000 homes a year to cater to underlying housing demand - both market and social. More than 15,000 rental homes are needed each year. As I wrote recently in a report for Activate Capital, a state-backed residential finance provider, Dublin alone needs an apartment block of about 200 units to open every week from now until the 2080s


 - Irish Rental Price Report Q3 2017 | Daft.ie



> 40,000 (RTB Figures) landlords have left the sector since 2012 and more intend to leave.  For every two rental properties sold only one is coming back into the sector.


 - The Journal 2016. 



> Nearly half of tenancy terminations in Galway city due to landlord selling the property – Threshold
> 
> ...40% (78 cases) concerned the sale of the property by the landlord...
> ...require the property for their own or a family member’s use (16%),
> ...


 - Threshold 2017.


----------



## AlbacoreA (31 Dec 2017)

Once again its not Landlords that are causing this shortage, and its nothing to do with the OP question. But you keep bringing it back to the Landlords....

Why not start a new thread. Maybe the mods/Brendan can split this one.


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> Landlords can leave the sector and retain the property and not use them for housing.



Thats very true, except such a landlord wouldnt be one of the 50,000 who sold their properties, would they?
You need to pay attention.



AlbacoreA said:


> They can leave them empty for example (again). Or switch to AirBnB, or make it an office.



 So you are talking about landlords not in the group of 50,000?



AlbacoreA said:


> That the housing prices have not fallen, could be mean that 50,000 isn't enough to have an effect.



Thats a possibilty for sure. I would doubt it, in a market the size of Ireland, but I accept its a possibilty.





AlbacoreA said:


> Irish Rental Price Report Q3 2017 | Daft.ie



Ive already stated that there is a housing shortage.



AlbacoreA said:


> The Journal 2016.



And this my point. If one out of two sales of landlord property is returning to the sector, which sector do you think is being referred to here? The rental sector perhaps?
If so, according to your article its only 20,000 properties lost to the rental market, not 50,000 as was suggested earlier. An exaggeration of 150%.
I hope im not asked to do the math here?



AlbacoreA said:


> Threshold 2017.



And aside from the 8% undergoing property rennovation (temporarily off market) all the properties are being used, or available for residential purposes. 
Meaning zero, to little effect on the housing stock, as was my point. 



AlbacoreA said:


> Once again its not Landlords that are causing this shortage



I never said it was, please dont tell that all this was your perception of something I said, but didnt say.


----------



## AlbacoreA (31 Dec 2017)

You seem very confused about the terms in use and you use them interchangeably incorrectly. I've given you sources so you can do your own research. What I quoted is unambiguous and is you are confused by it, perhaps you should research into it. 

A thread about over holding isn't the correct place to have rant about landlords need to vanish without explaining in any rational way how this works work.


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> have rant about landlords need to vanish



The only landlords that need to vanish are the ones not capable of executing the role. At this point I would include the OP, best that property is sold to someone capable of dealing with the "hassle".


----------



## AlbacoreA (31 Dec 2017)

So now you reckon the tenant over holding and the landlord following the legal not fit for purpose PRTB process is the landlords fault.

The only conclusion to that is you think the LL should not follow the legal process. Which is probably against the forums rules.


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Dec 2017)

The landlord should follow the legal process and get on with it instead of whining about the situation on AAM. The landlord should definitely avoid the illegal options offered. 
If you want to get involved in letting property my advice is do your homework and prepare for the eventuality of non-payment of rent,
instead of wondering what to do after the event. Its bad planning, and smacks of an individual out of their depth to begin with.


----------



## AlbacoreA (31 Dec 2017)

There is no homework you can do to prevent this.. ItThere are no laws to protect you, So it becomes an simple financial viability calculation... that is  one of the main reasons landlords are leaving....

The problem with no landlords is there then  is no where to rent... a symbiotic relationship which seems to surprise threshold and similar  .... 

Of course another solution is for those that say landlords are doing it wrong is to do it themselves...but then they themselves become landlords...and they can't make that work.


----------



## Firefly (31 Dec 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> You can't do that
> 
> http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e..._your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html#l71b51



Hi,

what about if it's written into the contract and highlighted and signed by both the tenant and landlord?


----------



## Bronte (1 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> There was other information online about people going to the court themselves and not waiting for the PRTB. I can't remember the details of how they could skip the PRTB but there was some legal process. Sorry but I'm not near a computer to search where I saw it. It may have been on boards.



My understanding of the law is you must go the PRTB route first.


----------



## Bronte (1 Jan 2018)

Firefly said:


> Hi,
> 
> what about if it's written into the contract and highlighted and signed by both the tenant and landlord?



You can write whatever you like in a contract, but I'm certain that is not enforceable. You can't cut off water and electricity. Not even if it's in your name and the tenant isn't paying. So never ever out utilities in your own name unless there is a valid reason for doing so.

Also as far as this long term landlord is concerned, written contracts are a waste of time.


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Jan 2018)

Is this of any help?

https://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/terminating-a-tenancy-for-rent-arrears


----------



## Gordon Gekko (1 Jan 2018)

It’s amazing how any vitriol tends to be directed at the landlord.

The reality is that a tenant who does not pay his/her rent is a thief and a parasite. 

The law should be brutal with these people, but sadly it is not and the landlord gets the raw deal.


----------



## Dan Murray (1 Jan 2018)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The reality is that a tenant who does not pay his/her rent is a thief and a parasite.



Ah, Gordon - I think you've gone way too far here.

Disclosure: I am a landlord and have had tenants who did not pay their rent.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (1 Jan 2018)

Dan Murray said:


> Ah, Gordon - I think you've gone way too far here.
> 
> Disclosure: I am a landlord and have had tenants who did not pay their rent.



I strongly disagree; in most other walks of life, a person who takes a good or service and does not pay for it is pilloried. However, perhaps as a legacy of British rule and our various historic issue with landowners, Irish landlords are viewed as the real bogeymen.


----------



## galway_blow_in (1 Jan 2018)

there is a very relaxed attitude to the idea of not paying your bills in this country


----------



## galway_blow_in (1 Jan 2018)

Gordon Gekko said:


> It’s amazing how any vitriol tends to be directed at the landlord.
> 
> The reality is that a tenant who does not pay his/her rent is a thief and a parasite.
> 
> The law should be brutal with these people, but sadly it is not and the landlord gets the raw deal.



the likes of germany is often held up as the model for tenants rights yet you dont get a free pass if you stop paying rent for two years and trash the place in the process

nowhere do deadbeat tenants have it better than in ireland , they more or less have immunity from the law


----------



## TheBigShort (1 Jan 2018)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The reality is that a tenant who does not pay his/her rent is a thief and a parasite.



I would agree that where a tenant has the means to pay, and doesnt pay, it is theft.



Gordon Gekko said:


> It’s amazing how any vitkriol tends to be directed at the landlord.



In fairness, this site is broadly sympathetic to the plight of the landlord. I would also sympathise with any landlord who is in the position of rent theft.

I would have less sympathy for anyone who enters the rental sector with the short-sighted view that a tenant may not have difficulty in paying the rent from time to time, or with the expectation that the value of the rent will cover the cost of the mortgage for the whole period of the mortgage.
It is my view that upon discovering the realities of the rental sector that so many supposed 'landlords' are bailing out.
In the long-run, this will be beneficial to the rental sector. As bad as it is to have 'deadbeat' tenants, deadbeat landlords can clear off too.


----------



## Bronte (1 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Is this of any help?
> 
> https://www.rtb.ie/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution/terminating-a-tenancy-for-rent-arrears


Is this to me? So you’ve to do a minimum of two written notices, one for 14 days, next one for 28 days, and yippee non paying tenant leaves.
Lol. Two years later...


----------



## Bronte (1 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I would agree that where a tenant has the means to pay, and doesnt pay, it is theft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Bronte said:


> Is this to me? So you’ve to do a minimum of two written notices, one for 14 days, next one for 28 days, and yippee non paying tenant leaves.
> Lol. Two years later...



How do you feel about tenants who spend the rent money they get from the government on groceries instead of paying the landlord?


----------



## AlbacoreA (1 Jan 2018)

Bronte said:


> My understanding of the law is you must go the PRTB route first.



Mine too. I'd love to find the discussion I read where some said you could go a different  route legally. But I can't. It was something about going to court but I can't remember anything about it. Sorry.


----------



## AlbacoreA (1 Jan 2018)

Lot of accidental landlords waiting to sell out as soon as they can.


----------



## galway_blow_in (1 Jan 2018)

im seriously considering getting in again , i made a nice profit ( had no capital gains tax bill due to a loss on a budapest property from 2005 - 2009 ) on a BTL from late 2015 to early 2017 , paid off a loan on a commercial property and invested the proceeds in equities 

im drawn to a house in a " disadvantaged area " in limerick city  , my reckoning is that at the end of the day housing demand will be strong in all major urban areas and the key challenge is the risk of deadbeat tenants , yes taxes are high but taxes are high full stop when it comes to putting money to work  , the house im thinking of buying  itself is very nicely refurbished  and costs less than 75 k before duties and legal fees ,  my hope would be to enter into a long term lease with the local authority under a ten year plus lease arrangement , i would view this as almost being like a commercial lease  , ive been looking into this for a while now and came across a thread on another site which claimed that while the councils promise to guarantee your rent under a long term lease scheme  , in reality if the councils tenant decides to withhold rent , the council in turn suspend payments to the property owner , surely this cant be true ?

personally i would view the 80% of market rent as a relatively small penalty if the headache of dealing with deadbeat tenants is removed , surely the council could not hope to attract any property owners if the promise of guaranteed rent was not worth the paper it was written on ?


----------



## AlbacoreA (1 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> ... personally i would view the 80% of market rent as a relatively small penalty if the headache of dealing with deadbeat tenants is removed ,...



The lack speed of dealing with over holding tenants is a deal breaker financially. If you can reduce it to a small loss then you can move past it quickly.


----------



## Firefly (2 Jan 2018)

Bronte said:


> Also as far as this long term landlord is concerned, written contracts are a waste of time.



Is it any wonder so many landlords are leaving the market? And not only that, I have yet to speak to anyone (my friends and family included) who has bought an investment property in the last 5 years. It's just not worth the hassle. 

As long as landlords are seen as the bad guy we are going to see less & less accommodation for the rental market with any existing landlords either leaving homes empty or going to airbnb. Add the bedsit fiasco to this and is it any wonder we have so many homeless people?


----------



## Bronte (3 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> im seriously considering getting in again , i made a nice profit ( had no capital gains tax bill due to a loss on a budapest property from 2005 - 2009 ) on a BTL from late 2015 to early 2017 , paid off a loan on a commercial property and invested the proceeds in equities



I'm thinking of selling one property.  The property price rises are looking very attractive right now.  My rent is low as I've a family in there and I didn't increase the rent until last year.  But now I cannot increase at all.  Even though I'm still way below market rent.  I could buy then something run down and do it up and make more of a return.  Or do nothing at all.  But I wouldn't go near equities as I haven't a clue.


----------



## Sarenco (12 Jan 2018)

Over-holding cases on the rise -
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0112/932719-tenants-overholding/


----------



## delfio (12 Jan 2018)

Sarenco said:


> Over-holding cases on the rise -
> https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0112/932719-tenants-overholding/



Just listening to that, so shocked to hear some  TD's encouraging tennants to stay on as long as they can.


----------



## galway_blow_in (12 Jan 2018)

delfio said:


> Just listening to that, so shocked to hear some  TD's encouraging tennants to stay on as long as they can.



if a TD from FF or FG brought this to national attention from the POV of the landlord , RTE would roast him , not a word will be said about boyd barretts comments


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> if a TD from FF or FG brought this to national attention from the POV of the landlord , RTE would roast him , not a word will be said about boyd barretts comments


The TDs from FF and FG are in power from the foundation of the Irish state so the laws we have or lack of rest with them,When the next election comes round I will be voting for FF or FG unless another party comes along ,If there was a vote in the morning I would go with FG they are more open to change than FF at present,

That said we need to be telling FF/FG they have failed us and the only reason we are still voting for them is we have no where else to go except Independents at present,


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

delfio said:


> Just listening to that, so shocked to hear some  TD's encouraging tennants to stay on as long as they can.



They are outsourcing the homeless crisis...


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> They are outsourcing the homeless crisis...


Who is outsourcing the homeless crisis ,


----------



## galway_blow_in (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> They are outsourcing the homeless crisis...



boyd barrett is idealogically opposed to the very idea of private property , there is nothing remotely surprising about what he said , he has of course a right to say it and for RTE to air his views but im saying that if a centrist or centre right TD made a point about overholding and how much distress it causes landlords , the media would be all over him


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> boyd barrett is idealogically opposed to the very idea of private property , there is nothing remotely surprising about what he said , he has of course a right to say it and for RTE to air his views but im saying that if a centrist or centre right TD made a point about overholding and how much distress it causes landlords , the media would be all over him


The so called center right party that is in power are suppose to be running the country  not the media right?


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

This is sawing the branch you are standing on. Anyone who suggest over-holding, is encouraging LL's to leave the market. Threshold have been doing this for as long as I remember.  Then they are surprised that LL's leaving the market is making the problem worse. Duh....



> Commenting, Threshold Western Regional Services Manager, Diarmaid O’Sullivan said: “The findings are a cause for concern as they indicate that there is an increase in the numbers of landlords leaving the rental market.  Given the shortage of rental properties in the city at the moment, this is a worrying development. The figures also underline the insecurity faced by many tenants in the private rented sector.”




The only reason private Landlords are involved is because Govt housing policy to outsource social housing to the private market. if they discourage the private market then you are causing the crisis especially for social housing. 

If you are a TD doing the same thing, I don't see you aren't having the same effect.


----------



## TheBigShort (12 Jan 2018)

delfio said:


> Just listening to that, so shocked to hear some  TD's encouraging tennants to stay on as long as they can.



I heard that piece on the radio this morning. I think it is important to distinguish between tenants who pay their rent, but whose tenancy has expired (or are told to vacate) and those who don’t pay.

The Tyrrelstown episode last year is a case in point. Tenants who were paying their rents but out-of-the-blue told they had to vacate. In the absence of suitably available accommodation nearby I think tenants in such circumstances are right to stay put for as long as they can. The house owner may have their name on a piece of paper, but it is the tenant who is working and earning and bringing the money to the table.


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

You mean, security of tenancy. 

The flip side of that private rental market is a business. Should a private business be forced to run at a loss to provide housing.


----------



## Delboy (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The Tyrrelstown episode last year is a case in point. Tenants who were paying their rents but out-of-the-blue told they had to vacate. In the absence of suitably available accommodation nearby *I think tenants in such circumstances are right to stay put for as long as they can. The house owner may have their name on a piece of paper, but it is the tenant who is working and earning and bringing the money to the table*.


Very dangerous route to be advocating. Bordering on communism.

And given the scope/reach of our welfare system, I'd question how many of the tenants in stories such as this are actually working and if the rent is indeed being paid, it's in large part coming from DCC or other such Local Authorities.


----------



## galway_blow_in (12 Jan 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> The so called center right party that is in power are suppose to be running the country ,



whats your point ?


----------



## TheBigShort (12 Jan 2018)

And the flip side of that, is that while the private rental market is a business, it should not be compared to all other private markets.

It is a market that deals with people’s basic security – shelter, this is essential to the functioning of a civilised modern society . The private rental market cannot be compared to other markets like iphones, or cars, or tickets to a rock concert. It should be subject to a different set of rules.


Another point is, why is it automatically assumed that this private business is being forced to run at a loss? Is not possible that the landlord seeking to evict is already profiting but simply trying to maximise profits?


Final point, the concept that I can become a landlord by virtue of a mortgage application is wholly inadequate. Tomorrow if I want, the bank will lend me €250,000 to buy a house and become a landlord. No business plan involved, no questions over contingency plans for non-payment of rent. If I asked for a €250,000 loan to finance a new business, the money would be a lot harder got.

The unsustainable nature of our private rental sector is exposed by virtue that it is overly dependent on landlords who took a mortgage with the intention that it will paid off in 25 – 30yrs, by the very people who the banks determine cannot afford a mortgage in the first place.

Landlords should expect, or at least be very prepared to expect, that over the course of mortgage term, non-payment of rent, or rent disputes, or tenant disputes, etc are part and parcel of the sector. Anyone who is not prepared should stay out of the rental market.


----------



## TheBigShort (12 Jan 2018)

Delboy said:


> And given the scope/reach of our welfare system, I'd question how many of the tenants in stories such as this are actually working and if the rent is indeed being paid, it's in large part coming from DCC or other such Local Authorities.



Even if that were the case, the rent is being paid.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> whats your point ?


If is a problem in Ireland and they don't have the same problem in other countries in is down to the parties who have being in power since its foundation all center right?

The media will be all over them if they speak out pointing out they did nothing they were asleep at the wheel and still are,


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> And the flip side of that, is that while the private rental market is a business, it should not be compared to all other private markets........
> 
> Landlords should expect, or at least be very prepared to expect, that over the course of mortgage term, non-payment of rent, or rent disputes, or tenant disputes, etc are part and parcel of the sector. Anyone who is not prepared should stay out of the rental market.



The private rental is a business. If you want to make it something else then its not private or a business. 
How do do ensure a Owner can sustain repeated loss'es. if there is no profit then no one is interested. 
So usually the suggestion is remove small LL and replace with big LL. 
But in fact its small LL most likely to want take the smallest profit. Big companies the fast buck, big profits. 

You have you wish, small LL, leaving big business entering. Rental Caps. You also have more homelessness, prices rising and less rental properties, and still no real action from the govt to provide housing. 

Still sawing the branch you are on. The solution is protect tenancy, put also give LL protection. At the moment LL has no protection. 
In fact we've moved to a higher branch, have more people standing on it and made the problem much worse.


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> It is a problem in Ireland and they don't have the same problem in other countries in is down to the parties who have being in power since its foundation all center right?



There are similar and dis similar problems for similar and dis-similar reasons.


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Even if that were the case, the rent is being paid.



Only part of it is being paid.

So the Govt has outsourced the work, then is only paying 3/4 of the bill. The company is taking the hit on the 1/4


----------



## Delboy (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Even if that were the case, the rent is being paid.


Yes, but not all being paid by the Tenant as you had portrayed it.


----------



## Delboy (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Landlords should expect, or at least be very prepared to expect, that over the course of mortgage term, non-payment of rent, or rent disputes, or tenant disputes, etc are part and parcel of the sector. Anyone who is not prepared should stay out of the rental market.


I think most landlords are prepared for that, they'd be very naive otherwise.
But where they follow the law/rules and are still left out of pocket for months on end because of a system that is totally against them, where even the politicians advocate the breaking of the law....well that's a whole different ball game.


----------



## galway_blow_in (12 Jan 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> If is a problem in Ireland and they don't have the same problem in other countries in is down to the parties who have being in power since its foundation all center right?
> 
> The media will be all over them if they speak out pointing out they did nothing they were asleep at the wheel and still are,



what has that got to do with what boyd barrett said ?

whataboutery !


----------



## galway_blow_in (12 Jan 2018)

Delboy said:


> I think most landlords are prepared for that, they'd be very naive otherwise.
> But where they follow the law/rules and are still left out of pocket for months on end because of a system that is totally against them, where even the politicians advocate the breaking of the law....well that's a whole different ball game.



indeed , even you had the cash to buy without a mortgage , what good would it be if a tenant could decide simply not to pay , your capital is tied up and even you sell , you take a hit due to a tenant who has gone rogue


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> There are similar and dis similar problems for similar and dis-similar reasons.


Now you sound like a centre right  Irish politician speaking on RTE who wants to get paid and avoid doing there job ,The people who can and do not pay there rent love that kind of guy he is the reason why,


----------



## TheBigShort (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> The private rental is a business. If you want to make it something else then its not private or a business.
> How do do ensure a Owner can sustain repeated loss'es. if there is no profit then no one is interested.
> So usually the suggestion is remove small LL and replace with big LL.
> But in fact its small LL most likely to want take the smallest profit. Big companies the fast buck, big profits.
> ...



I'm not exactly sure what your gripe is here. If the tenant is paying the rent, then why would the small LL be complaining about OH?


----------



## The Horseman (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> And the flip side of that, is that while the private rental market is a business, it should not be compared to all other private markets.
> 
> It is a market that deals with people’s basic security – shelter, this is essential to the functioning of a civilised modern society . The private rental market cannot be compared to other markets like iphones, or cars, or tickets to a rock concert. It should be subject to a different set of rules.
> 
> ...




The private sector rental market is a business and should be treated as one. You make the point that a basic security is Shelter, to extend upon that rationale then another basic requirement is food, should supermarkets etc be told sorry you can't trade as a business in the commercial world unless The Govt can interfere.

If you want to help both sides of this situation (landlords and tenants) build more social houses and make people actually pay their rent. One of the reasons The Govt introduced HAP was to shift the responsibility for housing onto the private sector while at the same time leaving the landlords out to dry with a rogue tenant. Private landlords are paying 54% of income back to the tax man but yet that never seems to considered when this topic is raised.

Any person who engages in business does so to make a profit, any person looking for a mortgage from a bank for a buy to let needs a 30% deposit up front. The contingency plan for non payment of the mortgage is repossession although we as a society point blank refuse to engage in repossessions when they should happen because of our dysfunctional notion that everybody is entitled to a property where they want and the hell with who has to pay for it.  

I agree that landlords should expect some non payment of rent at some point but to allow non payment of rent and then for it to take up to a year to evict a tenant is ridiculous. In the UK a tenant can be evicted within three months. If we could adopt a similar model to the UK regarding evictions then the number of small landlords leaving the market would reduce rather than be increasing.


----------



## cremeegg (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> And the flip side of that, is that while the private rental market is a business, it should not be compared to all other private markets.
> 
> It is a market that deals with people’s basic security – shelter, this is essential to the functioning of a civilised modern society . The private rental market cannot be compared to other markets like iphones, or cars, or tickets to a rock concert. It should be subject to a different set of rules.



Just because the rental market provides a basic need does not mean it should be treated differently. After all the grocery business supplies an even more basic need, no one is suggesting that Dunnes Stores should be compelled to give away loaves of bread. If a person took one without paying they would face the criminal law.




TheBigShort said:


> Another point is, why is it automatically assumed that this private business is being forced to run at a loss? Is not possible that the landlord seeking to evict is already profiting but simply trying to maximise profits?



I agree with you here, very few landlords can be operating at a loss at present. But why on earth should they not seek to maximise profits. Thats the way capitalism is supposed to work. You might prefer a different system, I might agree with you, but until you develop a better system, it is unreasonable to criticise  the landlord for operating the present capitalist system. 



TheBigShort said:


> Final point, the concept that I can become a landlord by virtue of a mortgage application is wholly inadequate. Tomorrow if I want, the bank will lend me €250,000 to buy a house and become a landlord. No business plan involved, no questions over contingency plans for non-payment of rent. If I asked for a €250,000 loan to finance a new business, the money would be a lot harder got.



As far as bank funding non property related business, I agree completely. I once went to a bank with a loan application, to expand an existing business. I had significant experience in the sector, a track record of sales and profits and a very detailed business plan. The bank manager looked at the cover and said, "but where is your security?".



TheBigShort said:


> The unsustainable nature of our private rental sector is exposed by virtue that it is overly dependent on landlords who took a* mortgage with the intention that it will paid off in 25 – 30yrs, by the very people who the banks determine cannot afford a mortgage in the first place*.



An excellent point, a landlord has to be smarted or harder working than a bank to make a profit. That is not hard. While obviously many landlords did fail over recent years I do not agree that the sector is unsustainable. Many tenants and prospective tenants are unable or unwilling to save a deposit, and commit to a 25 year mortgage. By putting up this capital and taking on this commitment the landlord is bringing real value to the table.



TheBigShort said:


> Landlords should expect, or at least be very prepared to expect, that over the course of mortgage term, non-payment of rent, or rent disputes, or tenant disputes, etc are part and parcel of the sector. Anyone who is not prepared should stay out of the rental market.



Fair point. But the law should support the landlord to the extent of allowing him to evict a tenant who is not paying rent, in a reasonably efficient manner.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> what has that got to do with what boyd barrett said ?
> 
> whataboutery !


When you see the tax landlords have to pay and how the cannot off set any of it like there tenant can ,The real boyd barrett  in centre right clothing you are not watching ,There are non so blind as those who will not see,

There is a good chance the tenant not paying there rent is waiting for one of they centre right parties to get them a house using the tax taken off landlords ,


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I'm not exactly sure what your gripe is here. If the tenant is paying the rent, then why would the small LL be complaining about OH?



The thread is about not paying rent. You want to derail it about something else. Maximising profit and ending tenancies for other reasons is frequent trait of big business. Which your proposing as solution. 

Good luck with that...


----------



## TheBigShort (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> The thread is about not paying rent. You want to derail it about something else.



I was responding to _delfio's _previous comment which referenced TD's advising to stay in the property for as long as possible. I think the assumption was made that these were non-paying tenants, whereas, the report I heard this morning implied rent paying tenants whose tenancy agreements had expired.
If you have issue with the topic being 'derailed', respond accordingly to _delfio_ please.


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> Now you sound like a centre right  Irish politician speaking on RTE who wants to get paid and avoid doing there job ,The people who can and do not pay there rent love that kind of guy he is the reason why,



All I meant was  the housing and rental markets are different the world over. Ask a vague questions get a vague answer. 

I have no idea what your comment is about.


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I was responding to _delfio's _previous comment which referenced TD's advising to stay in the property for as long as possible. I think the assumption was made that these were non-paying tenants, whereas, the report I heard this morning implied rent paying tenants whose tenancy agreements had expired.
> If you have issue with the topic being 'derailed', respond accordingly to _delfio_ please.



Why quote me then?

Even if you are paying rent why should you have an indefinite contract or lease?

If I want a fixed rate mortgage, I usually have to pay extra for it. Why should I not get a long term lease if I want to rent somewhere long term?

I feel for the tenants. But I think the Govt lack of action and lack of fair rules and regulation is to blame here.


----------



## delfio (12 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I was responding to _delfio's _previous comment which referenced TD's advising to stay in the property for as long as possible. I think the assumption was made that these were non-paying tenants, whereas, the report I heard this morning implied rent paying tenants whose tenancy agreements had expired.
> If you have issue with the topic being 'derailed', respond accordingly to _delfio_ please.



I would not be in favour of tennant's overstaying at the expense of the landlord particularly accidental landlords  who may be struggling with mortgages etc.  The lady on the news this morning in fairness has continued to  pay her rent and referred to the property as 'her home'.  TD's should not be advocating for tennants to deliberately overstay as landlord then loses control of his property. The TD's concerned should be doing the job they supposed to be doing, advocating for more social housing etc and not be putting it on the shoulders of private landlords.  I have a home currently for sale, until it is sold, it's Airbnb all the way I just couldn't cope with the stress of been a small time landlord.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> All I meant was  the housing and rental markets are different the world over. Ask a vague questions get a vague answer.
> 
> I have no idea what your comment is about.


 The problem Landlords are having with over holding in Ireland are the same problem they had 25 year ago ,


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

25 yrs ago you could do things like change locks, or cut off services, which are now defined as illegal evictions. There are now massive fines for illegal evictions and cutting off services. 

That tenants rights have increased is right and needed. 

But the LL has effectively lost any financially viable means of dealing with over holding. There isn't enough profit it in the business to absorb the potential losses. Its too much of a risk.


----------



## Firefly (12 Jan 2018)

A lease is a contract where an agreed payment is agreed for a period of time. Failure to pay the rent should result in the forfeiture of the property immediately by the tenant. It's not the business nor the responsibility of the landlord to consider the circumstances of the tenant any more than it is the business nor the responsibility of the tenant to consider the circumstances of the landlord. 

All this entitlement rubbish is exactly why landlords are getting out of the market, refusing HAP, going to AirBnB. And don't start me on the likes of Rich Boy Barrett and his failed, communist ideas!


----------



## Firefly (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> The thread is about not paying rent. You want to derail it about something else. Maximising profit and ending tenancies for other reasons is frequent trait of big business. Which your proposing as solution.
> 
> Good luck with that...



And here comes big business.....

https://www.independent.ie/life/hom...cas-apartment-coming-to-ireland-36482290.html

Think they'll accept HAP?


----------



## galway_blow_in (12 Jan 2018)

delfio said:


> I would not be in favour of tennant's overstaying at the expense of the landlord particularly accidental landlords  who may be struggling with mortgages etc.  The lady on the news this morning in fairness has continued to  pay her rent and referred to the property as 'her home'.  TD's should not be advocating for tennants to deliberately overstay as landlord then loses control of his property. The TD's concerned should be doing the job they supposed to be doing, advocating for more social housing etc and not be putting it on the shoulders of private landlords.  I have a home currently for sale, until it is sold, it's Airbnb all the way I just couldn't cope with the stress of been a small time landlord.



we done air b n b last summer , loved the whole experience of meeting new people ( for short stays ) , we fed them at no extra cost


----------



## galway_blow_in (12 Jan 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> The problem Landlords are having with over holding in Ireland are the same problem they had 25 year ago ,



completely inaccurate statement !


----------



## cremeegg (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> 25 yrs ago you could do things like change locks, or cut off services, which are now defined as illegal evictions. There are now massive fines for illegal evictions and cutting off services.
> .



While there are fines for illegal eviction, I am not aware that there are fines for cutting off services.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

AlbacoreA said:


> 25 yrs ago you could do things like change locks, or cut off services, which are now defined as illegal evictions. There are now massive fines for illegal evictions and cutting off services.
> 
> That tenants rights have increased is right and needed.
> 
> But the LL has effectively lost any financially viable means of dealing with over holding. There isn't enough profit it in the business to absorb the potential losses. Its too much of a risk.



You mean there is not enough profit after tax ,The point I was making is that Tenants rights have increased and as you say correctly so

it is quite possible when the RTB was set up it looked at models in other Country before it was set up as you said there are now massive fines for illegal evictions and cutting off services by landlords,

It should also be illegal to cut off payment to landlords without first going through the RTB first and there should also be massive fines if they can show no good reason and have to meet all cost out of there actions,

Seeing there is so much taken in tax the RTB should have a fund to pay landlords until problem is resolved ,


----------



## delfio (12 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> we done air b n b last summer , loved the whole experience of meeting new people ( for short stays ) , we fed them at no extra cost



Yes, it's brilliant.


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

cremeegg said:


> While there are fines for illegal eviction, I am not aware that there are fines for cutting off services.





> Illegal eviction
> If your landlord locks you out or physically evicts you, you may be able to apply for an injunction to force them to let you back into the property or you may apply to the RTB to do so on your behalf. Similarly if your landlord cuts off water, gas or electricity, you may be able to take legal action to restore the supply. In either case, you should get legal advice and assistance before you proceed. Your landlord cannot remove your possessions from your home while your tenancy is still in existence (though after a tenancy has ended, a landlord is under no legal obligation to store or maintain belongings).


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

I have no idea what RTB would do in that situation, or how fines are calculated.


----------



## AlbacoreA (12 Jan 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> You mean there is not enough profit after tax ,The point I was making is that Tenants rights have increased and as you say correctly so
> 
> it is quite possible when the RTB was set up it looked at models in other Country before it was set up as you said there are now massive fines for illegal evictions and cutting off services by landlords,
> 
> It should also be illegal to cut off payment to landlords without first going through the RTB first and there should also be massive fines if they can show no good reason and have to meet all cost out of there actions,



I dunno other countries have deposit protection systems (for both LL and Tenant), larger deposits say 3 months,   legal expenses insurance, faster evictions, rent has to paid within specific time frame say first 3 days of the month, you have to paint the property before returning it. Things like that. The irish system?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (12 Jan 2018)

galway_blow_in said:


> completely inaccurate statement !


There were lots of people who could have rented out vacant property who decided not in case of over holding problem 25 years ago no government ever adressed this issue,
,


AlbacoreA said:


> I dunno other countries have deposit protection systems (for both LL and Tenant), larger deposits say 3 months,   legal expenses insurance, faster evictions, rent has to paid within specific time frame say first 3 days of the month, you have to paint the property before returning it. Things like that. The irish system?[/QUOT
> 
> That is  the point i am making ,What Richard Boyd Barrett said is wrong, But the problem that started this post was not addressed by FF?FG/PD/Labour ,


----------



## Sarenco (12 Jan 2018)

cremeegg said:


> While there are fines for illegal eviction, I am not aware that there are fines for cutting off services.


Cutting off services to a property may be treated as an unlawful termination (aka illegal eviction) by the RTB and damages may be awarded accordingly.


----------

