# Thinking of selling a rental property?  You should probably get a move on...



## Sarenco

The Tanaiste confirmed today that the Government will not be opposing a Labour Bill that seeks to provide greater security of tenure for tenants. 

The Bill will remove the ground which allows a landlord to end a tenancy on the basis that they intend to sell the property within three months. 

The Bill also provides that a landlord can only evict for renovations where “no reasonable measures can be taken to maintain the dwelling fit for human habitation”. It also deals with landlords evicting renters to move in their own family member – it would restrict this to just spouses, civil partners or children. 









						Residential Tenancies (Tenants' Rights) Bill 2021
					





					www.oireachtas.ie


----------



## aristotle

Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean it will become legislation, it will be up to the Government to decide on the legislation?

If, as Govt has stated, that it is unconstitutional to have a rent freeze for 3 years then is it also unconstitutional to prevent someone selling a property they own?


----------



## Thirsty

I don't have a problem with improving tenure for tenants; though I draw the line at preventing the sale of your own property.

What I really take issue with is not being able to remove a non-paying tenant.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

There are other silly things like prohibiting landlords from banning pets.

Another one is giving tenants the right to opt for an unfurnished dwelling.

This will just accelerate landlords' rush for the door.

Politicians obviously want a perfect, but very small, rental sector in Ireland.


----------



## noproblem

The Labour Party and awkward tenants would need to be careful what they wish for. Dealing with a one house (so called) landlord and dealing with a conglomerate that owns hundreds of properties are 2 completely different entities. Lots of tenants will soon see themselves dealing only with the big boys, the Goverment will be left to house everyone else, because the small investor is going to be a thing of the past.


----------



## Sarenco

aristotle said:


> If, as Govt has stated, that it is unconstitutional to have a rent freeze for 3 years then is it also unconstitutional to prevent someone selling a property they own?


Well, the Bill (if enacted) would not actually prevent a landlord from selling a property - it would simply prevent a landlord from terminating a tenancy in anticipation of a sale.

In other words, the sale of the property would have to be "subject to tenancy".

In most cases, you would expect a residential property that is subject to a tenancy to sell at a discount to an identical property where vacant possession can be obtained.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sarenco said:


> In most cases, you would expect a residential property that is subject to a tenancy to sell at a discount to an identical property where vacant possession can be obtained.


With bells on.

Adverse selection will apply. Buyers will automatically assume that a sale with a tenant in place means a bad tenant.

You will only get cash buyers ready to take on problem tenants and a battle at the RTB. They will look for huge discounts to fair value.

Owner occupiers will stay well away. Would a bank even lend without vacant posession?


----------



## Sarenco

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Would a bank even lend without vacant posession?


Highly unlikely.

A specialist lender _might_ be willing to advance a BTL mortgage but banks definitely wouldn't advance a mortgage to an owner occupier without vacant possession.


----------



## OMG_OMG

Not long now until a landlord is just the caretaker and bill payer on their own property.
They will have no rights to do anything including selling it for fair market value. 
Basically the landlord will just be paying for the upkeep for whichever tenant "owns" the property.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

the amount of rental properties is going to go through the floor. They just want big institutional investors. They don't want small time landlords at all. Full stop.


----------



## odyssey06

noproblem said:


> The Labour Party and awkward tenants would need to be careful what they wish for. Dealing with a one house (so called) landlord and dealing with a conglomerate that owns hundreds of properties are 2 completely different entities. Lots of tenants will soon see themselves dealing only with the big boys, the Goverment will be left to house everyone else, because the small investor is going to be a thing of the past.


That's tomorrows problem and they never care about that. Anymore than they care about who is going to pick up the tab and housing costs for retired people who didn't buy their own home, because you should be renting like good Europeans and Irish people have an irrational attachment to property ownership.


----------



## Dermot

The proposed new legislation is designed at getting at the private Landlord.  Who is going to pick up the slack in smaller urban areas?.  
I cannot see the corporate big boys doing it.
The rental sector in this country must be the most regulated and complicated in Europe.  Every 4-6 months in recent years there are more changes added on.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

The tenant has to be placed above all else. The tenant is the victim. All additional rights and protections are for the tenant. Pay no rent and they are protected for upto 2 years on average staying in the property. The onus is on the landlord to do everything in their power to go through the processes and procedures to get them out. The landlord is the evil in the story. Punish, extra restrictions, requirements, all that. 86% of landlords own 1 or 2 properties. I would hazard a guess and say these are the landlords with below market rents and long term tenants in most cases. These are the people who are going to flee the market. It needs to be fair for both tenants and landlords. Yes you will have bag eggs in both groupings, but both need the other to survive. 

The corporate landlords are charging top rents. It would be interesting to see breakdowns of rent charged by individual investors and corporate landlords in similar areas for similar properties. Labour Party are jumping on the populist ideals of freeze this, more rights for tenants etc. Be careful what you wish for perhaps. In five years time, a lot of renters still won't be able to afford to buy houses and may find themselves in a situtation, wherre they cannot find a house they can afford to rent either. Where will the government put them then??


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

The latest "heads I win, tails you lose" policy under consideration:



> Rents will only be allowed to rise in line with inflation to a certain point before being capped under reforms being considered by the Department of Housing.
> 
> Reforms linking rent increases with the rate of inflation were introduced by the Government in July, but have been targeted as ineffective by the Opposition after inflation rose to 3 per cent in the latest figures, significantly in excess of recent averages.
> 
> The increase, were it to be sustained, could result in higher than anticipated rents.
> 
> Minister for Housing [broken link removed] O’Brien has now asked his officials to examine whether the inflation-linked rent increases could be capped once they hit a certain level.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

This will limit the supply of houses for owner occupiers I presume.

If a house is sold with a tenant in situ and the tenancy can't be terminated, then no owner occupier could buy it. 

Maybe a cash buyer could buy it and then give notice that they want it for themselves. But that could take years to get them out. 

I wonder will any TD or Senator have the courage to point out how ludicrous this proposal is? 

Brendan


----------



## Steven Barrett

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> There are other silly things like prohibiting landlords from banning pets.



I have seen a house absolutely wrecked because the tenants left their dogs in the house all day while they were in work. Dogs peeing on the floor, it going under the skirting boards, which between that and the chew marks meant they had to be replaced, along with all the scratch marks on doors and windows. The landlord of the property now won't rent the property for people with pets and actually had trouble renting it last time out as most people had a dog. 

If a landlord is prohibiting from banning pets, by that logic, they should be prohibited from banning people. In other words, they should have to rent to whoever comes up with the deposit first, no matter how undesirable they are. 


In the govts attempt to appease tenants, they are pushing out the small landlord and we will end up with just large corporate landlords. Tenants can say goodbye to landlords not increasing rent to keep good tenants. It will be an increase every year in line with limits in the area. Wait until compounding takes hold and the property becomes unaffordable after a few years. 

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## RetirementPlan

Steven Barrett said:


> In the govts attempt to appease tenants, they are pushing out the small landlord and we will end up with just large corporate landlords. Tenants can say goodbye to landlords not increasing rent to keep good tenants. It will be an increase every year in line with limits in the area. Wait until compounding takes hold and the property becomes unaffordable after a few years.
> 
> Steven


Do we need to wait at all for property to become unaffordable?


----------



## Mcivor

Populist policy is being driven by left wing intellectuals. Labour are running scared of other socialist parties incl SF, PBF, etc and looking to put their stamp on housing policy. Govt have little choice to go with this as otherwise are branded as pro landlord anti tenant.  Labour are now saying they don't want properties viewed as investment / income generating but as homes. 
They are looking to implement a '3 year rent' freeze which judging from previous temporary measures would likely be extended past 3 years so effectively indefinite, indefinite (up from current 6 year) Part 4 tenancies, landlords only able to end leases if property reqd for spouse, civil partner, or child, tenants allowed to have pets in houses / apartments!!, max of 1 mths rent as deposit, tenants entitled to request unfurnished properties - I assume after lease has been signed leaving LL with the expense of removing and storing furniture until needed again. 
Smaller LL's in Ireland are an endangered species and this bill will likely cause more to exit the market at first opportunity, and discourage others from entering it.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Small landlords are fleeing the market. House prices are booming and the rental market is becoming more dangerous, more complicated and there's a strong anti landlord vibe growing stronger. The government aren't quelling this as the anger should be directed at them and not the landlords.

The rental problems are going to get a hell of a lot worse before they get better.


----------



## ryaner

Steven Barrett said:


> Tenants can say goodbye to landlords not increasing rent to keep good tenants. It will be an increase every year in line with limits in the area.


Isn't this already the case since landlords can no longer reset the rent to market rates after the tenants leave?


----------



## Steven Barrett

ryaner said:


> Isn't this already the case since landlords can no longer reset the rent to market rates after the tenants leave?


I speak to a lot of landlords who keep rents below market rates or don't increase it just to keep a good tenant. If large companies become landlords, all renters will find automatic increases each year up to the limit. 

I think landlords can increase to market rates if they refurbish the property or do significant works on the property between lettings.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Steven Barrett said:


> I think landlords can increase to market rates if they refurbish the property or do significant works on the property between lettings.


the criteria to increase rent more than the old 4% method was crazy. You have to add living space by way of an extension, improve the BER rating by 7, so go from a C3 rating to an A2 rating, or else permantly alter the layout of the house. I think from recall you need to do two of the three.

I believe it's the same for the new inflation linked rental increase method.


----------



## Steven Barrett

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> the criteria to increase rent more than the old 4% method was crazy. You have to add living space by way of an extension, improve the BER rating by 7, so go from a C3 rating to an A2 rating, or else permantly alter the layout of the house. I think from recall you need to do two of the three.
> 
> I believe it's the same for the new inflation linked rental increase method.


the new inflation linked increases don't seem to have the same criteria, just every two years in line with inflation. 

The inability of this govt to solve the housing crises will be the nail in their coffin and will see SF coming into power. The thing is, I can't see them solving it quickly either. You can't just throw up houses. And with increased regulation and BER requirements, they won't be done cheaply. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## RetirementPlan

Steven Barrett said:


> I speak to a lot of landlords who keep rents below market rates or don't increase it just to keep a good tenant. If large companies become landlords, all renters will find automatic increases each year up to the limit.
> 
> I think landlords can increase to market rates if they refurbish the property or do significant works on the property between lettings.


Is there anything more than anecdote to support this idea that small-scale landlords are more tenant friendly than institutional landlords? In my renting days, I always found it easier to work with a proper letting agent than the actual landlord, in terms of service and rent levels. Those were the days before the institutional landlords, mind you.


----------



## muinteoir

RetirementPlan said:


> Is there anything more than anecdote to support this idea that small-scale landlords are more tenant friendly than institutional landlords? In my renting days, I always found it easier to work with a proper letting agent than the actual landlord, in terms of service and rent levels. Those were the days before the institutional landlords, mind you.


What makes you assume that the owner of the rental property was not a small-scale landlord? Just because you were dealing with a letting agent doesn't mean that the were not employed by a small-scale landlord to take care of their property.


----------



## RetirementPlan

muinteoir said:


> What makes you assume that the owner of the rental property was not a small-scale landlord? Just because you were dealing with a letting agent doesn't mean that the were not employed by a small-scale landlord to take care of their property.


I was making the point that, as a tenant, I had better experiences dealing with a professional agent than dealing direct with a landlord. I don't think we had too many institutional landlords in those days, so it's possibly difficult to compare.

I was really just asking if there is any research to support the position that tenants do better with small scale landlords than with institutions.


----------



## muinteoir

RetirementPlan said:


> I was making the point that, as a tenant, I had better experiences dealing with a professional agent than dealing direct with a landlord. I don't think we had too many institutional landlords in those days, so it's possibly difficult to compare.
> 
> I was really just asking if there is any research to support the position that tenants do better with small scale landlords than with institutions.


I see. I would imagine that it varies. Of all the landlords I had the only one who didn't do anything was the one with multiple properties but I suppose everyone's experience would be different.


----------



## kinnjohn

muinteoir said:


> I see. I would imagine that it varies. Of all the landlords I had the only one who didn't do anything was the one with multiple properties but I suppose everyone's experience would be different.


I am a landlord with 2 properties I manage them myself, I always try and avoid tenants who have been shortchanged by former landlords,
I hate to admit it getting a tenant to trust a landlord after been shortchanged is no easy task,


----------



## flyingfolly

I know it will get no sympathy, but this is the final nail in the coffin for trying to grow your wealth in Ireland.

Between deemed disposal for shares and now this law for rental properties, how exactly is anyone supposed to grow their wealth in Ireland?


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

flyingfolly said:


> I know it will get no sympathy, but this is the final nail in the coffin for trying to grow your wealth in Ireland.
> 
> Between deemed disposal for shares and now this law for rental properties, how exactly is anyone supposed to grow their wealth in Ireland?


Its v short sighted. There has to be a rent freeze I think. Even though that'll drive more out. 

All that's going to be left is corporate landlords. And they will max the rent all day long. They could sell properties with lower rents and buying newer properties. 

Long term the consequences of this in renters is going go be bad bad news.


----------



## kinnjohn

flyingfolly said:


> I know it will get no sympathy, but this is the final nail in the coffin for trying to grow your wealth in Ireland.
> 
> Between deemed disposal for shares and now this law for rental properties, how exactly is anyone supposed to grow their wealth in Ireland?


If you want to grow wealth In Ireland Work under the wings of one of the many lobby groups with an ear to influence Governments policies you will be fine,


----------



## Mocame

Dr Rory Hearne: It's simple - the Government favours landlords and investors over renters
					

The housing expert says the broken rental market in Ireland is down to years of failed political policy.




					www.thejournal.ie
				




This one of the factors  driving these policies. Blatantly political comments under the cover of a University affiliation. Apparently the only landlords leaving  the sector are accidential ones.

 He does make a fair point about the sale of the rise in rents though which has far outstripped wages.  That is the other factor driving political parties such as Labour to suggest things like rent freezes. Many renters just can't cope. The problem is the unintended consequences of the policies.


----------



## Shirazman

Mocame said:


> Dr Rory Hearne: It's simple - the Government favours landlords and investors over renters
> 
> 
> The housing expert says the broken rental market in Ireland is down to years of failed political policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thejournal.ie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one of the factors  driving these policies. Blatantly political comments under the cover of a University affiliation. Apparently the only landlords leaving  the sector are accidential ones.



His articles have also appeared recently in the Irish Examiner without any reference to his background as an unsuccessful PbP candidate in Dail and Seanad elections.


----------



## Baby boomer

Shirazman said:


> His articles have also appeared recently in the Irish Examiner without any reference to his background as an unsuccessful PbP candidate in Dail and Seanad elections.


He is also a regular on RTE without his hard-left political history ever being mentioned.


----------



## Dermot

I have completed my Notice of Termination (Landlord intends to sell the Dwelling).  I am now preparing to complete the Statutory Declaration for Landlord intending to sell the dwelling. 
I have arrived at the area of the form where my practicing solicitor has to sign that I made the declaration before him.  Can I delete all the other options?.  
What do I have to fill in in the space provided (person authorised by {insert authorising statutory provision }..........................................................
to take and receive statutory declarations } by.
That is what is written on the sample form provided by RTB.  I am just in fear that they will find some minor excuse to reject it.
I would appreciate any opinions or help


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Baby boomer said:


> He is also a regular on RTE without his hard-left political history ever being mentioned.



But surely that is less important than the fact that he is a "public intellectual". 






						Rory Hearne | Maynooth University
					

Lecturer in Social Policy in the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth. I teach courses at post-graduate and under-graduate level in housing, rights and inequality; civic engagement and civil society; the changing nature of the welfare state; and climate, social policy and inequality...




					www.maynoothuniversity.ie
				




_I am also a public intellectual and regularly contribute to discussion of contemporary social, economic and political issues on national media such as RTE's Late Debate, RTE Brainstorm, the Irish Times, Newstalk Radio and contribute to public events dealing with these issues._

When people ask me what I work at, I find it hard to explain. In future, I think I will just tell them that I am a _public intellectual. _


----------



## Sarenco

Dermot said:


> I would appreciate any opinions or help


I would just reproduce the template wording - the solicitor can strike out the wording that is not applicable.

Don’t forget to file a Notice of Termination Return Form with the RTB within one month of the termination of the tenancy.


----------



## kinnjohn

Shirazman said:


> His articles have also appeared recently in the Irish Examiner without any reference to his background as an unsuccessful PbP candidate in Dail and Seanad elections.


Don't worry about the people who never got elected at least we know where he stands when he went for election,

Begin to worry about the people who went for election and never declared their true left-wing leanings

 How else can you explain Ireland never having elected a Government of Parties of the left-wing Yet we have the highest debt per head in the EU this year, Our Debt per head is almost  E20000 over EU average,

As I said  present/future taxation Issues along with Government policies need to be considered very carefully before Becoming a landlord in Ireland,

 Never forget Tenants don't make laws Governments do, If the regulations between Landlord and Tenant favor the tenants there is a good chance you vote left-wing but don't realize it yet,


----------



## galway_blow_in

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> There are other silly things like prohibiting landlords from banning pets.
> 
> Another one is giving tenants the right to opt for an unfurnished dwelling.
> 
> This will just accelerate landlords' rush for the door.
> 
> Politicians obviously want a perfect, but very small, rental sector in Ireland.


Politicans just want media off their backs


----------



## losttheplot

Brendan Burgess said:


> When people ask me what I work at, I find it hard to explain. In future, I think I will just tell them that I am a _public intellectual. _


I think I'll say ' I'm a private intellectual'. So I'm really intelligent but only I know it, unless I tell you I'm very intelligent.


----------



## galway_blow_in

Mocame said:


> Dr Rory Hearne: It's simple - the Government favours landlords and investors over renters
> 
> 
> The housing expert says the broken rental market in Ireland is down to years of failed political policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thejournal.ie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one of the factors  driving these policies. Blatantly political comments under the cover of a University affiliation. Apparently the only landlords leaving  the sector are accidential ones.
> 
> He does make a fair point about the sale of the rise in rents though which has far outstripped wages.  That is the other factor driving political parties such as Labour to suggest things like rent freezes. Many renters just can't cope. The problem is the unintended consequences of the policies.


Hearne is a committed Marxist , a key policy writer for PBP , he even ran for the party in the 2007 election


----------



## galway_blow_in

Baby boomer said:


> He is also a regular on RTE without his hard-left political history ever being mentioned.


Which tells you all anyone needs to know about RTE


----------



## Shirazman

Brendan Burgess said:


> When people ask me what I work at, I find it hard to explain. In future, I think I will just tell them that I am a _public intellectual. _



Ahh - so that's why you had that interesting article published in today's Sunday Times, Brendan!


----------



## Shirazman

galway_blow_in said:


> Hearne is a committed Marxist , a key policy writer for PBP , he even ran for the party in the 2007 election



Interestingly, he ran in last year's Seanad election as an "Independent" - presumably so he wouldn't upset Ruth Coppinger who ran as the Solidarity/PBP candidate.


----------



## Capricorn 1

I'm  wondering how long this Bill will take to go through and how likely it is to succeed due to the fact that the Minister did not oppose it?  The element of the bill that I am most concerned about is not being able to sell my property with vacant possession.  I had intended to sell in the next two years. Perhaps I should send out the notice of termination now.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Capricorn 1 said:


> I'm  wondering how long this Bill will take to go through and how likely it is to succeed due to the fact that the Minister did not oppose it?  The element of the bill that I am most concerned about is not being able to sell my property with vacant possession.  I had intended to sell in the next two years. Perhaps I should send out the notice of termination now.


Thinking the same


----------



## Dermot

Do not spend too long thinking about it.  I do not see much appetite from the political classes to oppose it.  I fear that this country has gone too far to the left.  Just my opinion.


----------



## kinnjohn

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Another one is giving tenants the right to opt for an unfurnished dwelling.


_  in some cases The Taxpayer  will finish up footing the bill for furnishing, after a visit or two to the local TDs office,_


----------



## kinnjohn

I see the Bill Is


Sarenco said:


> The Tanaiste confirmed today that the Government will not be opposing a Labour Bill that seeks to provide greater security of tenure for tenants.
> 
> The Bill will remove the ground which allows a landlord to end a tenancy on the basis that they intend to sell the property within three months.
> 
> The Bill also provides that a landlord can only evict for renovations where “no reasonable measures can be taken to maintain the dwelling fit for human habitation”. It also deals with landlords evicting renters to move in their own family member – it would restrict this to just spouses, civil partners or children.
> 
> https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2021/112/[/URL


I see the Bill is sponsored by Ivana Bacik

Ivana Must have had a word with Leo in the Merrion Hotel,

(sarenco posted a link on the first post showing it was Ivana Sponsered Bill)  Leo confirmed that FF/FG/Greens plus the stack of Independents who support the Government  will not be opposing Ivanas Bill
We are now on post no 49, I don't think FF/FG/Greens/labor plus the stack of Independents are getting any blamed very strange, to say the least,

 To put it mildly, what are ye so upset about sure ye vote for them,


There is a very good chance the people on about Hearne would have voted for Ivana  a few months ago if they were in her constituency

Hearne is only having a bit of Malicious fun out of the unfortunates he knowes will never vote for him,

If he comes across this thread he will enjoy reading it,


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Shirazman said:


> Ahh - so that's why you had that interesting article published in today's Sunday Times, Brendan!


What article?


----------



## Shirazman

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> What article?



This one:   https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/ireland-needs-cheaper-homes-not-bigger-mortgages.224922/


----------



## OMG_OMG

We have been looking to move for the last couple of months.
Out of all the (maybe 25) houses we have looked at around 80% of them are ex-rentals.  I always ask the agent this just out of curiosity.

A couple of them had tenants still in them but under notice and we were assured that they would be out by the time the sale went through.  We dont believe this.  Tenants dont have to move out if they decide not to on the last day.  Too risky, so stayed away from those ones even though one of them would have been perfect..

I think though if I were on the fence about selling my rental property, I would be serving notice right now too.  These changes in legislation happen very quickly and you dont want to get stuck with a property you want to sell, but you are not allowed to sell it vacant.  

Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a property with tenants in it.  Unless maybe an investor might.  But where are you going to get an investor these days?  And what investor is going to buy a place with tenants who wont leave for their previous landlord.  Sure sign of trouble ahead.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

OMG_OMG said:


> Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a property with tenants in it.


I think that's a bit extreme. I bought a house with sitting tenants in it about a decade ago. They were gone by the time the sale closed.

Money talks and in the scheme of a house sale a few thousand euros to difficult tenants by the vendor will usually see them move on.

That said, if I was a landlord selling up I would make sure the tenants were out before viewings started.


----------



## kinnjohn

OMG_OMG said:


> We have been looking to move for the last couple of months.
> Out of all the (maybe 25) houses we have looked at around 80% of them are ex-rentals.  I always ask the agent this just out of curiosity.
> 
> A couple of them had tenants still in them but under notice and we were assured that they wo
> 
> Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a property with tenants in it.  Unless maybe an investor might.  But where are you going to get an investor these days?  And what investor is going to buy a place with tenants who wont leave for their previous landlord.  Sure sign of trouble ahead.


I am a landlord could you please refrain  from labeling tenants,
Most people nowadays were tenants before they become homeowners including myself many many years ago,


----------



## OMG_OMG

kinnjohn said:


> I am a landlord could you please refrain  from labeling tenants,
> Most people nowadays were tenants before they become homeowners including myself many many years ago,



I think you take offense to something where there is none meant.
Im not having a go a tenants at all.  Im talking about a risk of buying a house with tenants in it who will not be gone when you go to close the sale. I know someone it happened to.  The whole chain broke down and they had to start again, unless they wanted to camp in the back garden and wait for the tenants to decide to leave before they could move into their new house.  I dont believe the bank would have given them their mortgage anyway if they tried to close without vacant possession.


----------



## OMG_OMG

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I think that's a bit extreme. I bought a house with sitting tenants in it about a decade ago. They were gone by the time the sale closed.
> 
> Money talks and in the scheme of a house sale a few thousand euros to difficult tenants by the vendor will usually see them move on.
> 
> That said, if I was a landlord selling up I would make sure the tenants were out before viewings started.



Would you do it now though given the legislation since you last did it?


----------



## Shirazman

OMG_OMG said:


> Would you do it now though given the legislation since you last did it?



I suspect that the last sentence of his post answers that question!


----------



## OMG_OMG

Shirazman said:


> I suspect that the last sentence of his post answers that question!



Thats if he was a landlord selling.  We were talking about as a buyer would you risk that the tenants wouldnt move out now when overholding is rife, even encouraged by councils and charities.


----------



## kinnjohn

Shirazman said:


> I suspect that the last sentence of his post answers that question!


The shinners are doing a lot of damage since they got into government


----------



## kinnjohn

OMG_OMG said:


> Thats if he was a landlord selling.  We were talking about as a buyer would you risk that the tenants wouldnt move out now when overholding is rife, even encouraged by councils and charities.


you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Government policy,


----------



## OMG_OMG

kinnjohn said:


> you seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Government policy,



I really dont think you understand the issues here.
Its like you are talking about a completely different subject than the thread is about.
Have you read the thread?


----------



## kinnjohn

OMG_OMG said:


> I really dont think you understand the issues here.
> Its like you are talking about a completely different subject than the thread is about.
> Have you read the thread?


Have you
read sarenco first post again
then click on the link he/she supplied
the labor party Bill as proposed by Ivana Bacik is supported by FF?FG/Greens and the independents supporting the Government, the present Government support this bill,
Did you miss it,


----------



## OMG_OMG

Ok, you are obviously in some kind of mood here, so this will be my last response to you.  Please ignore my posts if you dont think they are relevant to the thread.  Anyone who thinks they are relevant can read them if they like.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

OMG_OMG said:


> Would you do it now though given the legislation since you last did it?


Fair question! We were FTBs and not in any rush out of our rented apartment so a delay or even sale falling through wouldn't have been the end of the world. The landlord and estate agent hadn't even managed to get the tenants out to the pub for an hour during the open viewing! They were sitting watching TV as people wandered around their bedrooms. I reckoned this put a lot of other viewers off in the end.

I think the change in the legislation makes it easier for the 5% of difficult tenants to be more difficult. But the vast majority of tenants will get on their way once sufficient notice is served and the landlord isn't otherwise being unreasonable.

As @Shirazman says, my attitude would be different as a seller and I would wait til tenants are gone to put it on the market. I've managed some estate sales for relatives since. My gut feeling is that very small things can put people off. Presentation makes a big difference even though logically it shouldn't, and you want to make the property you are selling look as inviting as possible.


----------



## Sarenco

Capricorn 1 said:


> I'm  wondering how long this Bill will take to go through and how likely it is to succeed due to the fact that the Minister did not oppose it?  The element of the bill that I am most concerned about is not being able to sell my property with vacant possession.  I had intended to sell in the next two years. Perhaps I should send out the notice of termination now.


Difficult to answer that one but in the Dail debate on the Bill, the Minister for State for Housing reiterated that the Government will not oppose this Bill and commits to examining the positive ideas contained therein in the context of progressing its own rental reforms later this year.








						Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 22 Sep 2021
					

Residential Tenancies (Tenants' Rights) Bill 2021: Second Stage [Private Members] Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 22 Sep 2021



					www.oireachtas.ie
				



Specifically on restricting the grounds for termination of tenancies, the Minister for Housing stated as follows:

_"There is the question of grounds of termination by a landlord in a Part 4 tenancy. Deputies know Part 4 rights were extended from four to six years in 2016, which was welcome. In Housing for All, the strategy I published as part of this Government's policy, security of tenure will be strengthened for tenants subject to legal advice. We must do this by legislating for tenancies of indefinite duration. There is a commitment in the programme for Government, and it is reiterated in Housing for All. An upcoming Government rental Bill - either the tenancy Bill I will deal with next or the one after that - will contain work that is ongoing in the space to look to address tenancies of indefinite duration."_

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that we will see "no fault" terminations further restricted by the end of this year/early next year.

I actually have some sympathy for what the Bill is trying to achieve in this regard.  However, if I was debating whether or not to stay in the residential rental business, I think this prospect would prompt me to exit the business sooner rather than later.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sarenco said:


> Deputies know Part 4 rights were extended from four to six years in 2016, which was welcome. In Housing for All, the strategy I published as part of this Government's policy, security of tenure will be strengthened for tenants subject to legal advice. We must do this by legislating for tenancies of indefinite duration.


It would be interesting to see statistics on this. How many landlords exercise their right to make a "no-reason-needed" termination of tenancy once the four- or six-year period is up?

I suspect it is extremely small.

I agree tenancies of indefinite duration are in principle a good thing. But the quid pro quo should be to give landlords the mechanism to (over time) set rents back to market levels. Fixing rents in real terms at July 2021 levels will be good for some individual tenants but bad for the market as landlords just sell up.


----------



## valery

A couple of months ago the Minister for Housing was announcing plans to incentivise recipients of the fair deal to rent their homes while in a nursing home.   We were told thousands of empty houses would be brought into the rental market.  Now the same minister is not going to oppose a bill that could land people with a sitting tenant in the family home when they go to sell it.  Well done Darragh O’Brien, great incentive!


----------



## odyssey06

valery said:


> A couple of months ago the Minister for Housing was announcing plans to incentivise recipients of the fair deal to rent their homes while in a nursing home.   We were told thousands of empty houses would be brought into the rental market.  Now the same minister is not going to oppose a bill that could land people with a sitting tenant in the family home when they go to sell it.  Well done Darragh O’Brien, great incentive!


That's a very important point. Any benefit to be gained for renting could be cancelled out by reduction in value of the property when selling without vacant possession.


----------



## AlbacoreA

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I think that's a bit extreme. I bought a house with sitting tenants in it about a decade ago. They were gone by the time the sale closed.
> 
> Money talks and in the scheme of a house sale a few thousand euros to difficult tenants by the vendor will usually see them move on.
> 
> That said, if I was a landlord selling up I would make sure the tenants were out before viewings started.



Things have changed a lot in a decade. I would be concerned what changes will happen next.


----------



## noproblem

valery said:


> A couple of months ago the Minister for Housing was announcing plans to incentivise recipients of the fair deal to rent their homes while in a nursing home.   We were told thousands of empty houses would be brought into the rental market.  Now the same minister is not going to oppose a bill that could land people with a sitting tenant in the family home when they go to sell it.  Well done Darragh O’Brien, great incentive!


No great lover of politicians, but are they to blame for a person who won't pay their share? Some people just refuse to pay anything if they get away with it, and we're finding plenty of others to support them along the way. This in turn leads to others doing the same,  the numbers rise and rise and everyone starts thinking this is the norm. We're going down a very dangerous road with our society and carefree attitude. God only knows what way things go after the next election, when a "promise everything party" get into power.


----------



## kinnjohn

noproblem said:


> No great lover of politicians, but are they to blame for a person who won't pay their share? Some people just refuse to pay anything if they get away with it, and we're finding plenty of others to support them along the way. This in turn leads to others doing the same,  the numbers rise and rise and everyone starts thinking this is the norm. We're going down a very dangerous road with our society and carefree attitude. God only knows what way things go after the next election, when a "promise everything party" get into power.


They are already in power and their culture is now the new norm, If they present lot get  thrown out at the next election it will be for wasting taxpayers money, you reap what you sow,


----------



## noproblem

kinnjohn said:


> They are already in power and their culture is now the new norm, If they present lot get  thrown out at the next election it will be for wasting taxpayers money, you reap what you sow,


Be careful what you wish for. If you think the present lot are bad, wait until you see what's coming. 
Then again, we all think we could do a better job, i've no idea how I could do it better, but I could tell them how to


----------



## Purple

OMG_OMG said:


> Not long now until a landlord is just the caretaker and bill payer on their own property.
> They will have no rights to do anything including selling it for fair market value.
> Basically the landlord will just be paying for the upkeep for whichever tenant "owns" the property.


Like a Council House.


----------



## kinnjohn

noproblem said:


> Be careful what you wish for. If you think the present lot are bad, wait until you see what's coming.
> Then again, we all think we could do a better job, i've no idea how I could do it better, but I could tell them how to


We seem to have crossed lines, I wish it not to happen, but the present lot found the Magic Money Tree and can't wait to spend all at once,
the problem with the present lot up to now is they used to leave the mess to the next lot to sort out, now it is looking like it will be SF turn to sort out there mess,


----------



## Shirazman

It's become very clear that the coalition governemnt is terrified of defending landlords' rights, irrespective of the fairness or otherwise of the proposed legislation.      Perhaps the Equality Authority should be directed to add "_*Being a Landlord*_" to its list of categories of groups who are frequently the subject of discrimination.

[_Discrimination is described in the Equality Act as the treatment of a person in a less favourable way than another person is._]


----------



## time to plan

Shirazman said:


> It's become very clear that the coalition governemnt is terrified of defending landlords' rights, irrespective of the fairness or otherwise of the proposed legislation.      Perhaps the Equality Authority should be directed to add "_*Being a Landlord*_" to its list of categories of groups who are frequently the subject of discrimination.
> 
> [_Discrimination is described in the Equality Act as the treatment of a person in a less favourable way than another person is._]


I'm surprised nobody has held a benefit concert for landlords.


----------



## RetirementPlan

time to plan said:


> I'm surprised nobody has held a benefit concert for landlords.


"Y'all pay my mortgage" AID, or something catchy like that maybe?


----------



## time to plan

RetirementPlan said:


> "Y'all pay my mortgage" AID, or something catchy like that maybe?


"I can't turf out a family for my third cousin."


----------



## RetirementPlan

time to plan said:


> "I can't turf out a family for my third cousin."


Sounds like a line from a Garth Brooks song that will be echoing around Croker for a couple of weeks next year


----------



## Sellingup

Does the new law mean that you can only sell a rented property with sitting tenants?


----------



## kinnjohn

RetirementPlan said:


> "Y'all pay my mortgage" AID, or something catchy like that maybe?


Or give me back the deposit you stole from me,


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> When people ask me what I work at, I find it hard to explain. In future, I think I will just tell them that I am a _public intellectual._


That's a great way of describing someone without resorting to the usual vulgar phrase which references bovine excretion.


----------



## OMG_OMG

Purple said:


> Like a Council House.



Exactly, except the owner will be the one paying for the upkeep, not the county council.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sellingup said:


> Does the new law mean that you can only sell a rented property with sitting tenants?


There is no law yet. It's a private member's bill that is being debated.

There is no government proposal, but it is likely to include elements of the private member's bill.

It would then need to be approved by the Oireachtas, signed by the president, and commenced by the minister.

I don't think anything will be in force until mid-2022 at the earliest.


----------



## wheeler dealer

I do not see what the big problem for a landlord is selling/buying  a house with a sitting tenant .It will be a problem for a person buying if they wish to live in it but I presume there will be allowances for this


----------



## Sarenco

wheeler dealer said:


> .It will be a problem for a person buying if they wish to live in it but I presume there will be allowances for this


No, there is no allowance in the proposed legislation for this scenario.


----------



## Leo

wheeler dealer said:


> I do not see what the big problem for a landlord is selling/buying  a house with a sitting tenant .It will be a problem for a person buying if they wish to live in it but I presume there will be allowances for this


That is precisely the problem, no owner occupier in their right mind would consider purchasing a property with a sitting tenant. Anyone purchasing a property with a sitting tenant will just inherit that tenancy and the restriction on terminating the tenancy for their own use would equally apply to them.


----------



## raven

Leo said:


> That is precisely the problem, no owner occupier in their right mind would consider purchasing a property with a sitting tenant. Anyone purchasing a property with a sitting tenant will just inherit that tenancy and the restriction on terminating the tenancy for their own use would equally apply to them.


My previous post on the subject was deleted due to my potty mouth,, but anyway...

Been looking into this a little further. In some other jurisdictions, the new owner if an occupier can have the tenant leave if moving in themselves. The onus is in the new owner though. Ie. The property is sold with the tenant in situ, but if the new owner wants to move in, the tenant needs to vacate.  I doubt our guys have made any provision for something like this, but maybe it will come. I can still see that the property would sell at a discount as the tenant can say they have nowhere else to go an stay put, and the new owner then has a major headache in hand. If you have 2 similar apartments and all things being equal except a tenant in situ, would would expect a reasonable discount on the one with the tenant.

I guess the landlord also has the option of sitting tight until the tenant moves on, though you would want to be in no rush to sell. Also, you could look at buying the tenant out, though theres no guarantees here either


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

raven said:


> The onus is in the new owner though. Ie. *The property is sold with the tenant in situ, but if the new owner wants to move in, the tenant needs to vacate.* I doubt our guys have made any provision for something like this, but maybe it will come.


That is what the Labour bill proposes.

Tenant may opt to stay in place during sale. Two options then:

1) New owner can continue to let it to existing tenant on same terms;
2) New owner can seek to move in themselves and may terminate the tenancy on those grounds.

Not many potential owner occupiers want the risk of clearing out an existing tenant who they have no relationship with. Its potentially time consuming and costly up front. Highly unlikely any bank will lend to an owner occupier without vacant possession too.

The only buyers of properties with sitting tenants will be cash-only landlords. They will need a big discount to market value as well.


----------



## Seagull

And then you get statements from politicians wondering why all the small scale landlords are bailing as fast as they can. I didn't think it was possible, but I think this proposal has to be even more stupid than those of Healy-Rae.


----------



## Leo

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Not many potential owner occupiers want the risk of clearing out an existing tenant who they have no relationship with. Its potentially time consuming and costly up front. Highly unlikely any bank will lend to an owner occupier without vacant possession too.


Even if a bank was willing to take on the risk, very few trading up could afford to take on the additional debt under LTI rules.


----------



## Sellingup

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> There is no law yet. It's a private member's bill that is being debated.
> 
> There is no government proposal, but it is likely to include elements of the private member's bill.
> 
> It would then need to be approved by the Oireachtas, signed by the president, and commenced by the minister.
> 
> I don't think anything will be in force until mid-2022 at the earliest.


Thank you


----------



## Capricorn 1

There is an article in today's Independent titled "Ministers face accusations that Budget helps landlords while renters are ignored".  It states:

"Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien acknowledged it was “tough” for renters and said that within the next two weeks, he would do more to put in a cap on rising rents.

He also said that tenancies of indefinite duration were “a number of weeks away” and they would be a “very significant” change".


----------



## silverfox239

That would give great security and peace of mind to folks


----------



## DublinHead54

There are accidental landlords and small landlords, for which any limitations on selling properties could have a negative impact on their livelihood. Would a happy medium be that for these types of landlords the government become the purchasers?


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Dublinbay12 said:


> There are accidental landlords and small landlords, for which any limitations on selling properties could have a negative impact on their livelihood. Would a happy medium be that for these types of landlords the government become the purchasers?


This will all end really badly. Badly for tenants in particular. Landlords are going to sell up and take profits on higher priced houses, accidential landlords are going to sell up when they get vacant possession, and the rent increases are going to be the maximum permitted annually across the board. All that will be left will be corporate landlords, who charge the maximum market rent possible. If tenants believe in the long run that this will benefit them, it won't. The new renters in years to come will have a lot less properties avaialable and those that are available will be the most expensive. All fine for people in tenancies currently, moreso, if they are below market rent. But in the coming 3-5 years, things are going to come home to roost.


----------



## RetirementPlan

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> This will all end really badly. Badly for tenants in particular. Landlords are going to sell up and take profits on higher priced houses, accidential landlords are going to sell up when they get vacant possession, and the rent increases are going to be the maximum permitted annually across the board. All that will be left will be corporate landlords, who charge the maximum market rent possible. If tenants believe in the long run that this will benefit them, it won't. The new renters in years to come will have a lot less properties avaialable and those that are available will be the most expensive. All fine for people in tenancies currently, moreso, if they are below market rent. But in the coming 3-5 years, things are going to come home to roost.


Are we sure that tenants do better with individual landlords than corporate landlords? Is there anything to back this up?

Even if there is a big sell off, the properties in question won't disappear off the face of the earth. They still exist as housing stock, whether for rental or for purchase. There will still be people living in them one way or other.


----------



## Sarenco

Nationwide rent caps are on the way, the Taoiseach has told the Dáil.

Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien is committed to bringing in rent caps within weeks, the Taoiseach declared in the chamber.

Mr O’Brien will “in the next number of weeks, bring in a cap, below the level of inflation, to keep the pressure on rents downwards,” the Taoiseach said.









						Nationwide rent caps on the way, Taoiseach tells Dáil after accusation ‘the Government refused to show up for renters’
					

Nationwide rent caps are on the way, the Taoiseach has told the Dáil.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

RetirementPlan said:


> Are we sure that tenants do better with individual landlords than corporate landlords? Is there anything to back this up?



Show me an instititional landlord who is renting below market rent and I'll show you 3 landlords who are charging below market rent by at least 20%. In addition, I will show you examples of institutional investors leaving apartments in Dublin empty instead of reducing the rents to levels that people can and could afford.

Let you go first and I'll respond.



RetirementPlan said:


> Even if there is a big sell off, the properties in question won't disappear off the face of the earth. They still exist as housing stock, whether for rental or for purchase. There will still be people living in them one way or other.



Correct, but the people living in them wont be renters, they'll be home owners. And what happens tell me to people who can't afford to purchase, where do they go, or what happens to them when these houses move from the rental market to the private home market?

If the number of rental properties decreases and the demand for rental properties doesn't fall at an equal or faster rate, I believe basic economics tells us that prices will rise.


----------



## RetirementPlan

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Show me an instititional landlord who is renting below market rent and I'll show you 3 landlords who are charging below market rent by at lesat 20%. In addition, I will show you examples of institutional investors leaving apartment in Dublin empty instead of reducing the rents to levels that people can and could afford.
> 
> Let you go first and I'll respond.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but the people living in them wont be renters, they'll be home owners. And what happens tell me to people who can't afford to purchase, where do they go, or what happens to them when these houses move from the rental market to the private home market?
> 
> If the number of rental properties decreases and the demand for rental properties doesn't fall at an equal or faster rate, I believe Basic Economics tells us that prices will rise.


I was hoping for something a bit more reliable than anecdata, to be honest. The example of leaving properties empty is an interesting one, though possibly not unique to institutional landlords. I've seen individual landlords claim online that it's easier to leave a property empty than rent it out, though I've no idea if they actually carry through on this.

If the houses move from the rental market to the private home market, the occupants will be moving also, with a similar impact on the demand side as the supply side.


----------



## The Horseman

RetirementPlan said:


> If the houses move from the rental market to the private home market, the occupants will be moving also, with a similar impact on the demand side as the supply side.


 Not so. An example may help. A three bed semi currently rented to 4 adults for ease let's say two couples. One of the couples decides to buy the house and start a family.

You still have one property but only two bed spaces available. So from having four bed spaces available you now only have two as the couple who bought don't want to share. Where does the second couple live?

While the above is a simple example it can be extrapolated to the wider rental market if the State continues on with its anti landlord policies.


----------



## RetirementPlan

The Horseman said:


> [QUOTE="RetirementPlan, post: 1741534, member: 116621]"
> 
> If the houses move from the rental market to the private home market, the occupants will be moving also, with a similar impact on the demand side as the supply side.


Not so. An example may help. A three bed semi currently rented to 4 adults for ease let's say two couples. One of the couples decides to buy the house and start a family.

You still have one property but only two bed spaces available. So from having four bed spaces available you now only have two as the couple who bought don't want to share. Where does the second couple live?

While the above is a simple example it can be extrapolated to the wider rental market if the State continues on with its anti landlord policies.
[/QUOTE]
That can happen, for sure, but not many couples jump into having kids as soon as they've bought a house, so they might well choose to rent out a room or two to get them through those early lean years with lots of set-up costs. I'd guess that many of the rental properties in question, particularly for the 'accidental landlords' will be 1 or 2 bed apartments, so they probably won't have had four adults in them in the first place. You might have apartments on even houses that were being rented to older tenants with low occupancy levels that will switch to being occupied by a full family too. 
But they certainly won't disappear off the face of the earth.


----------



## The Horseman

RetirementPlan said:


> Not so. An example may help. A three bed semi currently rented to 4 adults for ease let's say two couples. One of the couples decides to buy the house and start a family.
> 
> You still have one property but only two bed spaces available. So from having four bed spaces available you now only have two as the couple who bought don't want to share. Where does the second couple live?
> 
> While the above is a simple example it can be extrapolated to the wider rental market if the State continues on with its anti landlord policies.


That can happen, for sure, but not many couples jump into having kids as soon as they've bought a house, so they might well choose to rent out a room or two to get them through those early lean years with lots of set-up costs. I'd guess that many of the rental properties in question, particularly for the 'accidental landlords' will be 1 or 2 bed apartments, so they probably won't have had four adults in them in the first place. You might have apartments on even houses that were being rented to older tenants with low occupancy levels that will switch to being occupied by a full family too. 
But they certainly won't disappear off the face of the earth.
[/QUOTE]
Most two bed properties had more than two adults unless they had children. Why would a couple rent a two bed if their is only the two of them. While not unheard of why waste rent on a spare bedroom. Surely that wasted rent would be better utilised towards a deposit to purchase a property.

It is unlikely that older tenants are renting privately and have under occupancy rates. Certainly in public housing this can and does happen.


----------



## raven

RetirementPlan said:


> I was hoping for something a bit more reliable than anecdata, to be honest. The example of leaving properties empty is an interesting one, though possibly not unique to institutional landlords. I've seen individual landlords claim online that it's easier to leave a property empty than rent it out, though I've no idea if they actually carry through on this.
> 
> If the houses move from the rental market to the private home market, the occupants will be moving also, with a similar impact on the demand side as the supply side.


That's flawed thinking. You are thinking in terms of supply and demand which just one dimension, and fluid. 
If you think in terms of rental stock, there were 2, now theres just 1 so rental stock is going down. Ie. Supply is going down and we know there is a constant surplus of demand in the medium term at the very least. Few if any are entering BTL as an investment (I was thinking to recently, but dropped the idea as youd want your head examined ) so rental stock is going down. Demand is going up if anything. People need the flexibility of a functioning rental market to move cities for jobs etc, and just because the commitment of buying does not suit everyone depending on what stage of their life they are at etc.

A functioning rental market is vital for the economy. I can tell you 100% that in the company I work for, quite a few jobs have gone to sites in other countries because accommodation was too difficult to get locally, and its going to get much worse


----------



## RetirementPlan

raven said:


> That's flawed thinking. You are thinking in terms of supply and demand which just one dimension, and fluid.
> If you think in terms of rental stock, there were 2, now theres just 1 so rental stock is going down. Ie. Supply is going down and we know there is a constant surplus of demand in the medium term at the very least. Few if any are entering BTL as an investment (I was thinking to recently, but dropped the idea as youd want your head examined ) so rental stock is going down. Demand is going up if anything. People need the flexibility of a functioning rental market to move cities for jobs etc, and just because the commitment of buying does not suit everyone depending on what stage of their life they are at etc.
> 
> A functioning rental market is vital for the economy. I can tell you 100% that in the company I work for, quite a few jobs have gone to sites in other countries because accommodation was too difficult to get locally, and its going to get much worse


There has been considerable activity in the new build rental-only market. We could have a long discussion about whether that is a good idea and whether that is enough, but much of the growth in housing stock in recent years has gone directly into rental stock. 
It may well be less attractive for individual investors, but there seems to be no shortage of institutional investors piling in. Again, we could have a long discussion about whether that is a good idea, but we're not exactly short of landlords.
If a landlord sells up and the property is bought by a first-time buyer, that is one less family looking to rent - reduction in demand.


----------



## Lockup

"If a landlord sells up and the property is bought by a first-time buyer, that is one less family looking to rent - reduction in demand."

Occupancy rates are higher when renting so there is always displacement


----------



## OMG_OMG

Capricorn 1 said:


> There is an article in today's Independent titled "Ministers face accusations that Budget helps landlords while renters are ignored".  It states:
> 
> "Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien acknowledged it was “tough” for renters and said that within the next two weeks, he would do more to put in a cap on rising rents.
> 
> He also said that tenancies of indefinite duration were “a number of weeks away” and they would be a “very significant” change".



If I were a landlord and thinking i might sell in the next few years, i would be jumping and giving the tenants notice right now after hearing the above.


----------



## RetirementPlan

Lockup said:


> "If a landlord sells up and the property is bought by a first-time buyer, that is one less family looking to rent - reduction in demand."
> 
> Occupancy rates are higher when renting so there is always displacement


'Always' is a little strong. The FTB may well rent out a room or two to get through those early lean years.


----------



## Mocame

Exodus of small investors shrinks rental stock by 22,000 in five years
					

Sherry FitzGerald says traditional buy-to-let investors exiting the market in droves




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## AlbacoreA

Its only going to accelerate if they bring in the changes they are muttering about.


----------



## OMG_OMG

RetirementPlan said:


> 'Always' is a little strong. The FTB may well rent out a room or two to get through those early lean years.



Very few in my experience.


----------



## Thirsty

OMG_OMG said:


> Very few in my experience.


In my day, it was considered pretty standard for most FTBs for a year or two.


----------



## misemoi

In my peer group most ftb were already coupled up, so preferred not to share & had two salaries when buying so didn't have the financial pressure. Even those that bought solo were at the end of their tether sharing and preferred to live alone.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Thirsty said:


> In my day, it was considered pretty standard for most FTBs for a year or two.


I had a colleague who about 2007 in his late 20s had a mortgage of 50% of net wages.

He made it work with two or three lodgers.

I don't think he would get the mortgage at all today with the LTI rules.


----------



## OMG_OMG

misemoi said:


> In my peer group most ftb were already coupled up, so preferred not to share & had two salaries when buying so didn't have the financial pressure. Even those that bought solo were at the end of their tether sharing and preferred to live alone.


In my day it was too.  Also considered standard to move into a house with no floors or furniture and sleep on a matress on the floor for a while til you saved enough to buy furniture.
Not anymore.


----------



## Lockup

RetirementPlan said:


> 'Always' is a little strong. The FTB may well rent out a room or two to get through those early lean years.


I did see some stats around it one time but it seems to me to be common sense. While individual cases may vary Rented properties house more ppl than owner occupied. And remember alot of owner occupiers are not FTB.


----------



## Sarenco

The Minister for Housing apparently intends to legislate for “tenancies of indefinite duration” by the end of this year.

It’s not clear to me whether he intends to restrict the grounds for terminating Part IV tenancies.









						Rent increases to be capped at 2% under new housing plan
					

Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien has consulted with the Attorney General to ensure plan can withstand any legal challenges




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## aristotle

Hi, is it clear that this "tenancies of indefinite" duration means you cannot evict if you want to sell?

That is unbelievable to me, and now I have to make a decision about my rented property. I assume\hope I can give notice before it is legislation and that it will be valid even though the termination of the tenancy would be say next May but the legislation would be live by them?

I just can't take the risk that if my tenant never wants to leave for the next 30 years that I cannot terminate the tenancy and sell when I need to (at full market rate to owner occupier).

Also, are they removing ability to terminate if I want the property for my children in the future?


----------



## Sarenco

aristotle said:


> is it clear that this "tenancies of indefinite" duration means you cannot evict if you want to sell?


No, it's not clear yet.


----------



## Thirsty

I plan to give six months notice now.

I have no problem with security of tenure;  but potentially being forced to continue to be a landlord against my wishes & not being able to sell my property in the future should I wish to do so is more than I'm prepared to risk.


----------



## flyingfolly

Surely there would be ways around this though right? Decide to move in with the tenants, tell them to move out as you're doing up the property, offer them one month free if they move out etc.? Doesn't seem to be the end of the word?


----------



## Rasputin

Thirsty said:


> I plan to give six months notice now.
> 
> I have no problem with security of tenure;  but potentially being forced to continue to be a landlord against my wishes & not being able to sell my property in the future should I wish to do so is more than I'm prepared to risk.


I'm doing likewise, can't afford to have a property that I can't sell if I ever need to - the extra step of the declaration having to be witnessed/signed by commissioner is a pain. I also understand that if the tenant finds somewhere at any point in the notice period, they have no notice requirement. Although if they leave before the notice period is out, it would be a major positive as you could start the sale process much earlier.


----------



## Thirsty

> Decide to move in with the tenants


This is illegal.



> , tell them to move out as you're doing up the property,


Notice periods still apply and it's not clear if this will remain in the upcoming legislation.



> offer them one month free if they move out etc.?


I think you might be missing the point



> Doesn't seem to be the end of the wor[l]d?


Indeed, it is however (sadly) the end of my tenants tenure; and I suspect that will be a major blow to them.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Its crazy what they are proposing. There should be some lead time on this and say we are bringing this in on 1st January 2023 or 2024. This would give landlords who want out of the market time to do so and also give the existing tenants time to find alternative accommodation (difficult I know as it is to do so).

Doing it in a rushed mention like FF are doing and without complete information available to stakeholders, leads to panic, confusion and chaos. 

I actually cannot believe that someones property cannot be sold without vacant possession. Banks do not lead mortgages to people without vacant possession. So the market for a rented property now is going to be people who want to become landlords and enter the buy-to-let marketplace (which is a tiny cohort growing smaller by the week!). So selling your property, you are excluding 95% of the possible purchasers. Can you imagine what that will do to your selling price of your property?! How on earth is this legal? I'm really struggling to understand this.


----------



## aristotle

Thirsty said:


> I plan to give six months notice now.
> 
> I have no problem with security of tenure;  but potentially being forced to continue to be a landlord against my wishes & not being able to sell my property in the future should I wish to do so is more than I'm prepared to risk.


Suppose I can give the notice and withdraw it if I wanted to, but there is a risk the tenant will find another place.

As long as I have time to give notice before the legislation I will wait and see what exactly in the leglisation.


----------



## Thirsty

aristotle said:


> but there is a risk the tenant will find another place


Indeed; though the risk of your property being empty for any length of time is slim.



aristotle said:


> As long as I have time to give notice before the legislation I will wait and see what exactly in the leglisation.


I suspect you won't.


----------



## OMG_OMG

aristotle said:


> Suppose I can give the notice and withdraw it if I wanted to, but there is a risk the tenant will find another place.
> 
> As long as I have time to give notice before the legislation I will wait and see what exactly in the leglisation.



They have done this before with surprise legislation at Christmas when it is too late for a person to react to it.
I wouldnt count on having the time to serve your notice if you wait.


----------



## Sarenco

The problem is we don't know what the Minister means by a "tenancy of indefinite duration".

Is he simply proposing to drop the six-year term of a Part IV tenancy (which, frankly, would be fairly meaningless) or is he planning to remove or restrict the no fault grounds for terminating a Part IV tenancy (as per Labour's private members Bill)?

I guess we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sarenco said:


> Is he simply proposing to drop the six-year term of a Part IV tenancy (which, frankly, would be fairly meaningless)


This clause is not well known but it has been kept in throughout all of the changes (four I think) to the Residential Tenancies Act since 2016.

My guess is that there is legal advice to say that you have to allow for a no-grounds termination _at some point_ during the tenancy by a landlord. There were two Supreme Court decisions in 1981 and 1982 which struck down attempts to regulate rents and the Attorney General will be mindful of having to work within these parameters. The Supreme Court found that tenancies of indefinite duration _and _rent controls were unconstitutional, with the implication that one or other was okay.


----------



## Rasputin

In any event, I assume if notice of termination is issued say next week, then nothing should be able to prevent that in say 3-5 months time, and it would only apply to tenancies not under a notice at that point ?


----------



## aristotle

Rasputin said:


> In any event, I assume if notice of termination is issued say next week, then nothing should be able to prevent that in say 3-5 months time, and it would only apply to tenancies not under a notice at that point ?



I had the same question and it seems we just dont know yet as it depends what is in the final legislation.

Sounds like if you want to do it then serve the termination but there is a risk it will not be valid if the legislation wont allow it retrospectively or if the termination date occurs after the legislation is in-acted. A total mess.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

i would be of the opinon that if you serve a notice of termination now, effective lets say 1st February 2022 and the legislation is brought in in December 2021 changing the rules, then it doesn't apply to you as you have already served notice. It applies to any notice of terminations from that date (December 2021) onwards once legislation is passed.

Its like it eating apples wasn't illegal on November 1st and I ate an apple on November 1st, then I couldn't be penalised or prosecuted if eating apples was made illegal on November 2nd.


----------



## bipped

DO'Bien said back in July that he wanted to close off the 'loophole' on terminating a lease at the end of a part 4 tenancy. Not sure if it was DOB or the Irish Examiner reporter who said 'evicting' which raises everyone's hackles.  I always thought that eviction was a step much further along in the process and ordered by the courts.

Will that be the only change for 'indefinite tenancies' or does it include selling a rental property with sitting tenants?

Just read the bill proposed by ivana Bacik. Will those changes be passed as well?

Info available here: 
data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2021/112/eng/initiated/b11221d.pdf


----------



## OMG_OMG

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This clause is not well known but it has been kept in throughout all of the changes (four I think) to the Residential Tenancies Act since 2016.
> 
> My guess is that there is legal advice to say that you have to allow for a no-grounds termination _at some point_ during the tenancy by a landlord. There were two Supreme Court decisions in 1981 and 1982 which struck down attempts to regulate rents and the Attorney General will be mindful of having to work within these parameters. The Supreme Court found that tenancies of indefinite duration _and _rent controls were unconstitutional, with the implication that one or other was okay.



They just make it temporary, like RPZs, and USC, which bypasses anything that gets in the way of it.  It can remain temporary indefinitely then.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

OMG_OMG said:


> and USC


It was never meant to be temporary. And it is just a tax that applies to all relevant income like any other tax.



OMG_OMG said:


> They just make it temporary, like RPZs,


RPZs were specifically introduced as a temporary measure and have been extended several times. If it RPZs become indefinite _de facto _then it they may well be deemed unconstitutional.


----------



## OMG_OMG

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It was never meant to be temporary. And it is just a tax that applies to all relevant income like any other tax.
> 
> 
> RPZs were specifically introduced as a temporary measure and have been extended several times. If it RPZs become indefinite _de facto _then it they may well be deemed unconstitutional.



Health Levies, insurance levies.  Both supposed to be temporary too.
At what point do RPZs get deemed unconstitutional though.  10 years, 20 years.  5 years and counting anyway.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

until someone or some body of people come together and challenge the state on it.


----------



## Dermot

Surely one effect of these changes that are very likely to take effect such as the 2% max increase per year on rent and obscene rule of  "tenancies of indefinite duration" is that properties may have to be revalued for LPT purposes by Landlords.


----------



## Sarenco

Dermot said:


> Surely one effect of these changes that are very likely to take effect such as the 2% max increase per year on rent and obscene rule of  "tenancies of indefinite duration" is that properties may have to be revalued for LPT purposes by Landlords.


Well, the LPT valuation date for the next four years has already passed.


----------



## Baby boomer

OMG_OMG said:


> They just make it temporary, like RPZs, and USC, which bypasses anything that gets in the way of it.  It can remain temporary indefinitely then.


Wasn't Income Tax a "temporary" measure introduced to fund the Napoleonic Wars?   I believe these have now ended, so I must be due a rebate!


----------



## Sarenco

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This clause is not well known but it has been kept in throughout all of the changes (four I think) to the Residential Tenancies Act since 2016.


The RTB actually publishes data on the notices for termination that they have received.

From Q2 2019 - Q2 2021 only 3%(!) of notices of termination were to avoid a Part IV/further Part IV tenancy arising.




__





						Notices of Termination received by RTB  | Residential Tenancies Board
					

RTB operates Ireland's National Tenancy Register and resolving disputes between Landlords, tenants and third parties. Governed by residential Tenancies Act 2004. View more information on landlords and tenancies.




					www.rtb.ie
				




If the Minister wants to meaningful improve the security of tenure of tenants, he would have to further restrict the grounds for no fault terminations.  Simply extending the term of Part IV tenancies won't have any meaningful impact.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sarenco said:


> Simply extending the term of Part IV tenancies won't have any meaningful impact.


I tend to agree.

My guess is that it is there for constitutional reasons even if it's not much used. So landlords have the option to end the tenancy on no-grounds reasons at some point.

Let's see if it survives the next proposed amendments to the RTA.


----------



## Cortino

So say the landlord wants to sell the house, he gives proper notice to the tenant but when the notice period is up and the tenant has been unable to find alternative accommodation...what does the landlord do? Say , "it's  not my problem, out you go", or agree to let them remain until such time as they have somewhere else to go? So no contract in place etc.
What about asking an estate agent to help to find a place for the tenant, on the basis that the same estate agent will then be given the the go-ahead to sell the house once the tenant has left?


----------



## OMG_OMG

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> until someone or some body of people come together and challenge the state on it.



I believe some landlord group tried to challneg it and were smacked down because they are not allowed to challenge it ads a group.  Nor is it allowed that one person challenges it but is funded by a group.  So that was a no go.
And why would REITs challenge it with their cosy tax deal.
Its a total con.


----------



## Thirsty

Cortino said:


> So say the landlord wants to sell the house, he gives proper notice to the tenant but when the notice period is up and the tenant has been unable to find alternative accommodation...what does the landlord do?


The property owner then has to apply to RTB, then from there to court to have the eviction order enforced and then have the tenants forcibly evicted if they are still overholding.  This can easily take up to two years.  In the meantime tenants most likely are not paying rent and in similar cases, extensive damage has been caused to the property.


Cortino said:


> Say , "it's not my problem, out you go",


See note above - if notice has been given, there are grounds for doing so.


Cortino said:


> or agree to let them remain until such time as they have somewhere else to go? So no contract in place etc.


See note above, it doesn't work that way.


----------



## Rasputin

Be interesting to see Q3 and Q4 notice of terminations from the RTB, particularly Q4


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

House prices keep roaring ahead. Up 12.4% year on year in September, and 1.6% month-on-month. Houses outside Dublin are showing huge increases, in all cases in double digits.

National house prices have now doubled since their 2012 trough, and are only 8% off their 2006 peak

Not every landlord selling today up will make a capital gain, but most will, and almost anyone who has kept up capital and interest payments should be able to get out clear.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

When is the tenancies of indefinite duration going to be announced,? As in the details of what's involved in it all?


----------



## AlbacoreA

Already done...



> The new legislation also proposes to provide enhanced tenancy protection by making a ‘Part 4’ tenancy one of unlimited duration after a tenant has been in place for six months and not subject to expiry at the end of a six-year term.
> 
> It is intended that this would apply to new tenancies commencing six months or more after enactment of this Bill. In addition, where any existing tenancy is renewed after this time, it will become a tenancy of unlimited duration.











						New bill will cap rent increases at 2% in Rent Pressure Zones and bring in unlimited-term tenancies
					

The new legislation also proposes to provide enhanced tenancy protection by making a ‘Part 4’ tenancy one of unlimited duration.




					www.thejournal.ie
				




If anyone hasn't got out who wanted to (many don't) the clock is now ticking as your tenancies rollover and renew.


----------



## aristotle

I can't figure out if the new bill removes the right of the landlord to terminate a tenancy if the intention is to sell.

Amendments - https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2021/145/eng/initiated/b14521s.pdf

I think it is Section 34 paragraph A that allow that https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html and the amendments only say deletion of paragraph B.

Anyone any wiser?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

I looked at the proposed amendment to Part 4. New tenancies will be of "unlimited duration", but this won't come into effect for six months after the commencement of the act (commencement is only is done by the minister _after _Oireachtas passage and signature by the President). 

This would basically remove the option a landlord has under existing legislation to make a no-grounds termination after six years.

Unless I am reading it wrong, subsection 3 means that landlords of _existing _tenancies will have to _consent _to tenancies of unlimited duration. I am not sure that any of them would do this voluntarily and it is a big protection for existing landlords.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

aristotle said:


> Anyone any wiser?


Indeed, I can't see any proposed amendment to the "Table" that follows Section 34 of the existing RTA which states that one ground for termination is the desire to sell on the open market. See below:


> 3. The landlord intends, within F88 [ 9 months ] after the termination of the tenancy under this section, to enter into an enforceable agreement for the transfer to another, for full consideration, of the whole of his or her interest in the dwelling or the property containing the dwelling F86 [ and the notice of termination is accompanied by a statutory declaration referred to in _section 35 ] _.



I struggle a lot with the cross-referencing though.


----------



## AlbacoreA

If a LL has tenants 5.5yrs into a tenancy, 6 months is short enough considering the length of notice they have to give.

I assume there are no tenants left on 4yr tenancies now.


----------



## aristotle

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Unless I am reading it wrong, subsection 3 means that landlords of _existing _tenancies will have to _consent _to tenancies of unlimited duration. I am not sure that any of them would do this voluntarily and it is a big protection for existing landlords.



hmm, that would be fair, at least new landlords can go into a new tenancy knowing the law, as opposed to existing landlords having the rules of the game changed drastically.

Hopefully this is the case.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Nothing to stop them changing it again though.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

If an tenancy already exists, the article says that "where any existing tenancy is renewed after this time, it will become a tenancy of unlimited duration."

I don't understand what it means by an existing tenancy being renewed? Is this at the end of the current 6 year term where you need to re-register with RTB or if your last agreement was say for 3 year lease (contract not worth the paper it's written on - I know!!!!) do you have until this 3 years is up, before you are liable to a tenancy of indefinite duration. I'd appreciate peoples clarification and opinions on this, as I find it very confusing. Thanks!


----------



## Thirsty

I'm finding it difficult to read as well; does the 'unlimited tenancy' mean 

A. You cannot sell the property with vacant possession

And / or

B. You cannot regain the property for your own use?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

The press release is also not very clear:



> The legislation proposes to provide enhanced tenancy protection by making a ‘Part 4’ tenancy one of unlimited duration after a tenant has been in place for six months and not subject to expiry at the end of a six-year term* (at the discretion of the landlord).*



But what landlord will voluntarily give up the right to a no-grounds termination after six years?



> It is intended that this would apply to new tenancies commencing six months or more after enactment of this Bill. In addition, *where any existing tenancy is renewed after this time*, it will become a tenancy of unlimited duration.



What is the "renewal" here? I guess it means that at the end of six years a new tenancy starts and it's of unlimited duration.

So a tenancy that began in for example 2018 can be terminated by the landlord on a no-grounds basis in 2024 but no later. And by 2028 all tenancies will be of unlimited duration.


----------



## aristotle

Irish Times has a good explanation. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...ted-tenancies-under-new-legislation-1.4730702

Looks like landlords can still terminate a tenancy if intention is to sell


----------



## Sarenco

aristotle said:


> Looks like landlords can still terminate a tenancy if intention is to sell


Yes, that’s my reading of the Bill as initiated.

It will be interesting to see if the Government accept any amendments during the course of the legislative process.


----------



## OMG_OMG

aristotle said:


> Irish Times has a good explanation. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...ted-tenancies-under-new-legislation-1.4730702
> 
> Looks like landlords can still terminate a tenancy if intention is to sell



For now.  Just wait for the next legislation change.
I imagine the plan is to get as many landlords as possible into an indefinite tenancy and then flick the switch and take out the termination to sell.
Probably first to come out before that though is the termination for a relative to move in.
But sure you just never know what legislation is next.  Seems to be drastic changes bi-annually at this point.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

OMG_OMG said:


> I imagine the plan is


There is no "plan" The minister as recently as July pushed through legislation to limit rent increases to inflation, now he's proposing inflation or 2%, whichever is higher. It is just pure political panic.

Anyway I don't think that this is a huge big deal for a committed landlord with a rent close to or at market rates. You can still terminate the tenancy if you need the house yourself or if you plan to sell. Sure, the option for a no-grounds termination after six years will disappear, but not many landlords used this anyway. Rent increases are limited to 2% but if you are close to market rates this isn't a huge deal and might be in line with what you would do for a good tenant. Rents are objectively high right now and it's hard to see them getting much further away than the overall price level in the economy.

*The big fear for landlords was the mooted prohibition on ending a tenancy to sell the property. The government (possibly for constitutional reasons) has stepped back from this. *

IANAL but I think there are still big constitutional question marks over this, particularly as the rent cap of 2% is indiscriminate and is not related to either the needs of the tenant nor the means of the landlord. The Supreme Court judgements from 40 years ago made clear that rent control measures should be temporary and should not be indiscriminate. For example you could have a rich tenant on a rent of 60% of market rates with a hard-up landlord who would need decades to get the rent back to market level. This is arbitrary and unfair. For a legal challenge would need a landlord with deep pockets to take on the RTB in the High Court and ultimately Supreme Court but I think it is something that we're likely to see in the next number of years.


----------



## Mocame

I agree there is no plan - policy changes are purely reactive, driven by Sinn Féin's rise in the polls.  I also can't understand why there hasn't been a court challenge to the legislation.  As far as I can see any challenge would have a very good chance of success.


----------



## OMG_OMG

Mocame said:


> I agree there is no plan - policy changes are purely reactive, driven by Sinn Féin's rise in the polls.  I also can't understand why there hasn't been a court challenge to the legislation.  As far as I can see any challenge would have a very good chance of success.



If you lost though you would be ruined.  Not to mention the media with your picture up every day portraying you as satan.
They prevented a group of landlords challenging it some years ago.  Something about not being allowed to take a case as a group and also having to fund it as an individual without financial help from anyone else.  How very convenient.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Not a great article.  They focus on tax too much as usual. Too little on LL protections and risk. But at least they mention it...at the bottom. 



> The extent of the housing crisis was laid bare once again on Wednesday after it was revealed there are 64,000 fewer homes to rent today than five years ago.
> 
> The number of rentals has fallen from almost 341,000 in 2017 to under 277,000 now, a drop of nearly 20%
> 
> 
> Homelessness campaigner Mike Allen, of housing charity Focus, dubbed the decline ‘the Flight of the Landlords’.











						64,000 fewer homes to rent as owners sell up in droves - Extra.ie
					

The extent of the housing crisis was laid bare once again on Wednesday after it was revealed there are 64,000 fewer homes to rent today than five years ago.



					extra.ie


----------



## AlbacoreA

No mention of LLs here...









						Report finds 79% drop in number of affordable rental properties available in just three months
					

The Simon Communities of Ireland is warning that the lack of availability will cause homeless rates to increase.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## DaRoons

“You can still terminate the tenancy if you need the house yourself or if you plan to sell.”

Yes, that’s what they are saying for now.
But given the rate they’ve been changing legislation over the last few years, are small LL’s supposed to believe them?
What’s to stop them just waiting until small LL’s are locked in to indefinite tenancies and then flicking the switch ( as OMG said) and systematically removing each of the grounds under which a LL can get their property back?
I won’t be trusting them anyway.
I’ll be either be renting to tenants I feel are the least likely to want “indefinite tenancies” or just not renting out my property at all.
I only signed up to be a landlord until my kids are of age to move into the house.
There’s no way I’ll jeopardise that from happening.
Would rather leave the house stand idle or take it back to use myself for weekends than to get locked into an indefinite tenancy.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

DaRoons said:


> “You can still terminate the tenancy if you need the house yourself or if you plan to sell.”



No you can't if it's has become a tenancy if indefinite duration. If you entered a new lease in June 2021, then if the tenants stay, then it won't become a lease of indefinite duration until six years have elapsed (i.e. June 2027). Upto that point you can take property back to use it for yourself or a children. 

If you go past June 2027 with these tenants it if they move out and new tenants move in,they it becomes a tenancy of indefinite duration after six months.


----------



## Sarenco

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> No you can't if it's has become a tenancy if indefinite duration.


You can indeed.  

Under the Bill as initiated there have been no changes to the grounds for terminating a Part IV tenancy.


----------



## DaRoons

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> No you can't if it's has become a tenancy if indefinite duration. If you entered a new lease in June 2021, then if the tenants stay, then it won't become a lease of indefinite duration until six years have elapsed (i.e. June 2027). Upto that point you can take property back to use it for yourself or a children.
> 
> If you go past June 2027 with these tenants it if they move out and new tenants move in,they it becomes a tenancy of indefinite duration after six months.


Whoa, hang on a minute, that quote was by another person commenting .
I copied and pasted it on to my response to them.
For some reason the quote didn’t come through as an attachment.
I was “answering” that particular point they made.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

DaRoons said:


> Yes, that’s what they are saying for now.
> But given the rate they’ve been changing legislation over the last few years, are small LL’s supposed to believe them?


I am quite sure the Minister wanted to prohibit part 4 extensions for existing tenancies and to remove the right to terminate a tenancy in order to sell the house. Neither of these are in the proposed amendments.

I am guessing that the Attorney General is at the limits of what he regards as constitutional here. This is the fifth amendment to the RTA in five years.

There hasn't been a committee hearing, Dáil or Seanad debate yet but I expect these issues to be teased out when they are.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

I'm very confused, as are a number of other people I would imagine. Can I ask people to clarify so what happens in each of the following situations or scenarios?

A) Tenants moved into the property in Janaury 2021 and signed a 12 month lease. They are now in a Part IV tenancy and entitled to stay in the property upto six years (January 2027), at which point, the landlord can terminate the tenancy. The landlord is permitted to annual increase the rent by the lower of the inflation rate or 2%. Also, the landlord is permitted to terminate the tenancy at any point (having given the requirement notice period to the tenants) if he/she intends to sell the property, or use it him/herself or a family member needs to use it. Is all that correct? My understanding was that this was correct.


B) Tenants moved into the property in Janaury 2017 and signed a 12 month lease. They are now in a Part IV tenancy and entitled to stay in the property upto six years (January 2023), at which point, the landlord can terminate the tenancy. The landlord is permitted to annual increase the rent by the lower of the inflation rate or 2%. Also, the landlord is permitted to terminate the tenancy at any point (having given the requirement notice period to the tenants) if he/she intends to sell the property, or use it him/herself or a family member needs to use it.

However, say the landlord doesn't give notice to the tenants, the tenants don't voluntarily leave the property etc and at the end of the 6 years, a new tenancy is enacted, this would happen in January 2023. As this would be a new tenancy, after 6 months of this new tenancy (July 2023) the tenancy becomes one of indefinite duration. In terms of the landlord from that point onwards getting vacant possession of the property back, is that still possible? I know laws can be changed again etc, but at this moment in time, in this scenario, can the landlord give notice to the tenants in say 2028 that he/she intends selling the property and wants the tenants to move out?

I think this scenario isn't allowed, otherwise, what's the change in the situation to before this new proposed legislation??? Thanks in advance.


----------



## aristotle

Based on the proposed amendments the landlord still retains the right to terminate the tenancy if the intention is to sell. This applies to any of the scenarios you outlined.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Is the any date for when all this legislation will be passed and the tenancies of indefinite duration will kick in?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Is the any date for when all this legislation will be passed and the tenancies of indefinite duration will kick in?


You can follow progress of the Bill here. It has had a Committee and a Seanad reading with amendments.

Cross-referencing the changes  across the existing legislation, the bill as initiated, and the bill as amended would take several hours that I don' t have.

I still don't see any amendment that would prohibit a landlord seeking vacant possession for a sale.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> You can follow progress of the Bill here. It has had a Committee and a Seanad reading with amendments.
> 
> Cross-referencing the changes  across the existing legislation, the bill as initiated, and the bill as amended would take several hours that I don' t have.
> 
> I still don't see any amendment that would prohibit a landlord seeking vacant possession for a sale.


thanks. I think i will email the ministers office and ask what are implications and if I'm permitted to do so. I'll also email the RTB.

There is a lack of clarify and "grey area" here and open to different people's different interpretations.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> thanks. I think i will email the ministers office and ask what are implications



There is no point for now. They will just say the legislation is going through the Oireachtas.


PebbleBeach2020 said:


> and if I'm permitted to do so. I'll also email the RTB.


Ditto. They will issue advice when the legislation is finalised.

You will almost certainly have time to make decisions once the legislation is passed.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

if commencing a new tenancy in January 2022, what would be the implications for tenancies of indefinite duration is my question or worry?!


----------



## RetirementPlan

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> thanks. I think i will email the ministers office and ask what are implications and if I'm permitted to do so. I'll also email the RTB.
> 
> There is a lack of clarify and "grey area" here and open to different people's different interpretations.


It's not up to Ministers or the RTB to give legal advice. Whatever legislation is passed will stand. If you need advice on interpreting it, you'll need to engage legal advice. There is the possibility that the RTB might issue guidance at some stage, but they're not going to be able to give definitive legal advice on every individual scenario.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

RetirementPlan said:


> It's not up to Ministers or the RTB to give legal advice. Whatever legislation is passed will stand. If you need advice on interpreting it, you'll need to engage legal advice. There is the possibility that the RTB might issue guidance at some stage, but they're not going to be able to give definitive legal advice on every individual scenario.


I'm just asking can a landlord still obtain vacant possession even if a tenancy of indefinite duration has been established due to the property being put up for sale? I don't require a full legal explanation of the Bill.


----------



## Sarenco

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I'm just asking can a landlord still obtain vacant possession even if a tenancy of indefinite duration has been established due to the property being put up for sale? I don't require a full legal explanation of the Bill.


Yes.  As things stand, a tenancy of indefinite duration (once introduced) can be terminated on those grounds.

Will that change in the future?  We don’t know.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I'm just asking can a landlord still obtain vacant possession even if a tenancy of indefinite duration has been established due to the property being put up for sale?


There is no proposal or amendment to stop landlords being able to do this.


----------



## RetirementPlan

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I'm just asking can a landlord still obtain vacant possession even if a tenancy of indefinite duration has been established due to the property being put up for sale? I don't require a full legal explanation of the Bill.


I'm not disputing your point. I'm just clarifying that it's not down to the Minister's office to make an interpretation. If the issue isn't clear from the Act when it gets passed, you'll need to look elsewhere for whatever advice you need. It may well be constructive to point out any ambiguity in the Bill to the Minister and indeed to the relevant opposition people at this stage. They might be able to get things clarified as the Bill progresses.


----------



## Sarenco

The exodus of landlords seems to be picking up pace...








						Rental market Ireland: Forty-six landlords a week left market in the autumn
					

The number of landlords cashing in on their properties and leaving the market has risen yet again, according to the latest figures.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

I am not sure that the recent changes in tenant protections would make a huge difference to a committed landlord. If your rent is around market rent and you want to stay in the business not much has changed in practice. For more marginal landlords they are off-putting.

Threshold may have a point when they say:



> “The lack of rental properties – and therefore lack of options for tenants – is further compounded by the exodus of landlords. *The Government needs to consider how best to utilise the tax system* in order to retain smaller landlords in the sector, given that they make up the majority of tenancies, especially among the private renters that Threshold assist.”



The tax system and cost of mortgage finance mean that the net return for a new landlord is microscopic given the risk involved.

OTOH you had a lot of landlords from the boom 2003-2008, many of whom were accidental. They've paid down capital and house prices have risen a bit. So most of them can walk away with no negative equity and no CGT bill.

The point is that the tax system and lenders' own risk aversion mean that there is just no return for new small-time landlords, and the existing ones are leaving. 

This exodus of landlords wouldn't be a problem if new ones were joining. But that's just not happening.


----------



## Sarenco

There are a few small things that the Government could do on the tax side:

1.  LPT should be an allowable deduction for income tax purposes;
2.  PRSI should not be levied on unearned income (including rental profits); and
3.  Allow wear and tear over, say, 4 years.

Would that be enough to stem the exodus?  I doubt it.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

@Sarenco 

It would help a little but wouldn't hold back the tide.

I would just have a 20%-30% flat tax on all rental income (small time or institutional). No allowable expenses, no CGT. Almost like a sales tax.

Very simple to calculate and enforce. No differential treatment of small, medium, and big landlords either.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @Sarenco
> 
> I would just have a 20%-30% flat tax on all rental income (small time or institutional). No allowable expenses, no CGT. Almost like a sales tax.


Wouldnt that lead to a race to the bottom in terms of the quality of houses/apartments for rent. Why would a landlord bother maintaining (painting, renovating etc) properties when it eats into their profit. If someone doesn't want the property, then show it to the next prospective tenant and see if they take it. I don't think your suggestion makes any sense. To retain small landlords, I think the tax rate and the ability to act faster on tenants not paying and/or troublesome tenants are the two key issues.


----------



## OMG_OMG

I hear O'Broin moaning that whats done is not enough and that landlords selling up should not be allowed to end the tenancy before selling.
Imagine what that will do to the sale price of your property.
Any small time landlords who are left would want to be gone before SF get into power.  









						Rental market Ireland: Forty-six landlords a week left market in the autumn
					

The number of landlords cashing in on their properties and leaving the market has risen yet again, according to the latest figures.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Thirsty

> ability to act faster on tenants not paying and/or troublesome tenants are the two key issues.



This is the no.1 issue in my book.  

I can gripe about the tax rate, and the LPT not being deductible; but neither would wipe me out of business the way a non-rent paying, overholding tenant could.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

OMG_OMG said:


> I hear O'Broin moaning that whats done is not enough and that landlords selling up should not be allowed to end the tenancy before selling.
> Imagine what that will do to the sale price of your property.
> Any small time landlords who are left would want to be gone before SF get into power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rental market Ireland: Forty-six landlords a week left market in the autumn
> 
> 
> The number of landlords cashing in on their properties and leaving the market has risen yet again, according to the latest figures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.ie



Absolutely, the end game is now. Sinn Fein can have that policy, because all the small time landlords will be gone by the time 2025 comes aroud and they get into power.


----------



## Firefly

OMG_OMG said:


> Any small time landlords who are left would want to be gone before SF get into power.


Maybe that's why their getting out....


----------



## Just Maybe

Bad enough that I am stuck 30%  under the market rent, but if this happens this is really going to push out the small time Landlord.  Who on earth would purchase your house with tenants in it, I don't understand the logic behind this, If an owner occupier purchases your house to live in himself, how does he then evict the current tenants ? 
The house will only appeal to a potential investors and even then with the current rent 30% below the mkt rent, the sale price is impacted, 
I am starting to think the long and short of all of this is just sell up now, before this actually becomes legislation, and hope an owner occupier wants to puchase instead of a potential investor. 
How is this allowed to even be in scope ???


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Just Maybe said:


> Who on earth would purchase your house with tenants in it, I don't understand the logic behind this, If an owner occupier purchases your house to live in himself, how does he then evict the current tenants ?


The legislation proposed by the government and undergoing Oireachtas scrutiny does *not* remove the right to terminate a tenancy to sell a property.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The legislation proposed by the government and undergoing Oireachtas scrutiny does *not* remove the right to terminate a tenancy to sell a property.


When Sinn Fein get into power it will become law. They are say as much everytime they are on air.


----------



## Baby boomer

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> When Sinn Fein get into power it will become law. They are say as much everytime they are on air.


It'll be challenged in the courts.  Not a venue noted for sympathy for the Shinner project.


----------



## Sconeandjam

Looked at the new legislation yesterday and it is frightening. 
Legislation on 2% rental increase was passed there a few days ago but when you actually read in the legislation it is bringing in indefinite tenancies and removing the section for landlord giving notice to use the property for family member or to sell With vacant possession. Your property will be worth alot less than what you want to sell it for.


----------



## Thirsty

Sconeandjam said:


> removing the section for landlord giving notice to use the property for family member or to sell With vacant possession


Can you point to this exact clause? Every other poster has said this is not the case.


----------



## Roro999

Wondering how this legislation would impact student rentals.
Students being transient and normally only renting a house for the academic year Sep to May.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Roro999 said:


> Wondering how this legislation would impact student rentals.
> Students being transient and normally only renting a house for the academic year Sep to May.



It's a bit like holiday rentals if someone is in there longer than 6 months they could prove tricky to move on. They say it's rare though.


----------



## odyssey06

AlbacoreA said:


> It's a bit like holiday rentals if someone is in there longer than 6 months they could prove tricky to move on. They say it's rare though.


It occurs to me someone in final year might try to segue straight into it being their workplace accomodation...


----------



## Roro999

odyssey06 said:


> It occurs to me someone in final year might try to segue straight into it being their workplace accomodation...


Avoid renting to final years is the answer I guess to that.


----------



## AlbacoreA

People often hold apartments though the summer anyway as it's so hard to get them just for the academic year.


----------



## Roro999

AlbacoreA said:


> People often hold apartments though the summer anyway as it's so hard to get them just for the academic year.


All I know is that in Limerick 9 months academic year accommodation is quite freely available near UL.  Problem is not enough available.


----------



## Leo

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> When Sinn Fein get into power it will become law. They are say as much everytime they are on air.


Difficult to know for sure, they say they will do lots of thing here that seem to be at odds with decisions they are making where in power in the North.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

The legislation passed both houses of the Oireachtas last week.





__





						Legislation capping rent increases at 2% passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas
					

Housing Minister Darragh O'Brien caps rent increases at 2% p.a. in Rent Pressure Zones (RPZ),  far lower rent increases for tenants, RTB, Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), RPZ, rent freeze,  Housing For All,




					www.gov.ie
				





I saw on social media that it comes into effect today.


----------



## OMG_OMG

Just Maybe said:


> Bad enough that I am stuck 30%  under the market rent, but if this happens this is really going to push out the small time Landlord.  Who on earth would purchase your house with tenants in it, I don't understand the logic behind this, If an owner occupier purchases your house to live in himself, how does he then evict the current tenants ?
> The house will only appeal to a potential investors and even then with the current rent 30% below the mkt rent, the sale price is impacted,
> I am starting to think the long and short of all of this is just sell up now, before this actually becomes legislation, and hope an owner occupier wants to puchase instead of a potential investor.
> How is this allowed to even be in scope ???



If I were in your situation I would be looking at it like this.

1 - Property is renting at 30% below market rate and you cant get to market rate now because you are locked to inflation ore lower.  You'll never get it higher than it is now due to inflation.  In fact with inflation at 5% and you locked to 2% its getting worse for you every year.

2 - Your market is probably already limited to owner occupiers because of the rent.

3 - There is a supply shortage at the moment so owner occupiers are quite plentiful which may not be the case in a couple of years.

4 - You just never know what new legislation is around the corner to make things worse for you than it already is.  Lets face it, not one bit of legislation has made things better.

On balance, if I were in your position I would be handing out notice and putting it the market right now.
Im pretty sure lots of landlords are in that situation too.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

OMG_OMG said:


> 2 - Your market is probably already limited to owner occupiers because of the rent.



ATM there is very strong demand from owner-occupiers and weak to non-existent demand from potential landlords. This means that, lucky for you, being stuck 30% below market rate shouldn't impact your sales price at all.

This situation is unlikely to last forever!


----------



## elcato

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> ATM there is very strong demand from owner-occupiers and weak to non-existent demand from potential landlords. This means that, lucky for you, being stuck 30% below market rate shouldn't impact your sales price at all.


Owner occupiers will still be wary of buying with a tenent still in situ while viewing even if notice is given.


----------



## OMG_OMG

elcato said:


> Owner occupiers will still be wary of buying with a tenent still in situ while viewing even if notice is given.



Even if they are not wary of it, there is still a very high chance of the sale not going through if there is a tenant still in it when you are looking.

We were looking at a house a last year.  The agent said nothing about it being rented, but when we viewed i got the rental vibe off it.  So I asked the agent was it rented and she said it was.  I then had to ask was there still a tenancy because she didnt volunteer the info.
She said yes there were 3 sharing and had got their notice, 2 had left and one was still there but she was leaving in a couple of months.
We werent interested then.
Ive kept an eye on that house since as its close to where we live anyway and we were still kinda interested.  Its been sale agreed and back on the market since, wait for it, 4 times.
A couple of months I called the agent and asked what is going on with that house as we were still interested.  I had to ask her directly about the tenant and She came clean then and said the tenant would not move out and still hasnt moved out and thats why the sale is dragging on.
I then asked her when is the tenant leaving and she said a couple of months again.
Lesson is not to ever go sale agreed on a former rental property unless the house is vacant .  And directly ask the agent, because they wont volunteer the info.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

OMG_OMG said:


> Lesson is not to ever go sale agreed on a former rental property unless the house is vacant .


I think that's a bit extreme.

I went sale agreed on a house with tenants present (they were even sitting there watching TV during the viewings!).

It depends on your own risk tolerance and circumstances. We weren't in a chain and if it had fallen through it wouldn't have been the end of the world.


----------



## OMG_OMG

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I think that's a bit extreme.
> 
> I went sale agreed on a house with tenants present (they were even sitting there watching TV during the viewings!).
> 
> It depends on your own risk tolerance and circumstances. We weren't in a chain and if it had fallen through it wouldn't have been the end of the world.



Yes it can work out fine.  But i would rather not deal with the not insignificant chance of it not working out myself.  I think a lot more people would prefer to be concentrating on other properties without a tenant in the mix, than those who would be happy to proceed with where tenant hasnt moved out yet though.  And that is not good for a seller.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

@OMG_OMG 

I think vendors can miss the big picture with tenants who won't move out in the context of a house sale. 

€5k in cash would shift most people and it's cheaper than having your house hanging on the market for months on end.


----------



## Luternau

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @OMG_OMG
> 
> I think vendors can miss the big picture with tenants who won't move out in the context of a house sale.
> 
> €5k in cash would shift most people and it's cheaper than having your house hanging on the market for months on end.


You woukd not want a €5k payment to become standard 'goodbye money' plus  return of deposit or a few months arrears. 

Legislation needs to be moved to address over staying. It can't be just left to the owner/vendor to throw money at the problem. 

In progressing the need for a stable rental market, introducing a 3 month deposit would perhaps offer more security to owners and make it less attractive for tenants to refuse to move out for a sale. If they had more money on the table/at risk hey may be quicker to cooperate. 

I plan to sell my rentals in 2022. For some, I have to give the max notice so it may be 2023 when I have concluded all. The return is good but the uncertainty on legislation makes it less attractive or with considerable risk of future downside.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

How many rentals are you selling?


----------



## OMG_OMG

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @OMG_OMG
> 
> I think vendors can miss the big picture with tenants who won't move out in the context of a house sale.
> 
> €5k in cash would shift most people and it's cheaper than having your house hanging on the market for months on end.



The big picture though is that €5k would be a bargain to get rid of an overholding tenant.  And they know its worth  a lot more than that to them to overhold.  So lets imagine the price now is €5k, next year it will be €10k and so on.  Slippery slope, and so sad that you have to pay people to gice you back your property.  Its like buying your lunch back off the bully in school, with the teacher looking on and not doing anything about it.


----------



## Sarenco

Luternau said:


> In progressing the need for a stable rental market, introducing a 3 month deposit would perhaps offer more security to owners and make it less attractive for tenants to refuse to move out for a sale.


Under legislation introduced earlier this year, I’m afraid a landlord cannot ask for a security deposit in excess of one month’s rent.

The fact that it can take over 2 years to legally evict an overholding tenant means that residential letting is a very high risk business in Ireland.


----------



## Just Maybe

Thanks for your advice above, I am so confused reading legislation, I never know if I am reading the latest information, I just read the following info on Citizens Information - 

The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2021 is bringing in tenancies of unlimited duration. This means when you have rented somewhere for 6 months, you then have the right to stay in that accommodation indefinitely (no end date), unless the landlord wants to terminate your tenancy for one of the allowed reasons. Tenancies of unlimited duration will apply to all new tenancies created from 11 June 2022. The legislation also outlines transitional measures for how existing tenancies will move to being tenancies of unlimited duration.

Does this mean that even though a tenancy commenced before the 11th of June 22, the tenancy will be transitioned over to become an Indefinite Tenancy so at the end of 6 yrs I cannot terminate the tenancy, Is that right? 

Also I see that you will be allowed to terminate on allowed reasons, I really don't want to sell if I can avoid it.
My son will be going to college in 2025, but what if he doesn't get a college place in that city and as a result then I can no longer terminate the tenancy (because it looks like it will be immediate family members only).

Is my only other option either sell with the tenants in situ at this point, if so then yes I am probably best of doing it now. This is all quite confusing and nothing seems to be concrete at the moment.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

If your tenants are in before June 11th 2022 then you can still end the tenancy whenever. Say the tenancy started on June 10th 2022. Then until 9th June 2028 the current rules still apply. That's if the same tenants remain in the house. If a tenancy starts on or after June 11th 2022 then after six months it becomes a tenancy if indefinite duration. 

In which case, you can only end a tenancy if u want to sell the property or for personal use etc. That's the rules currently. If Sinn Fein had their way they want or at least they say the government should be saying after six months, the landlord cannot evict a tenant for any reasonable n whatsoever. In which case, if you did want to sell your house, you could only sell it to another investor who wants a buy to let. So limiting your potential market like that would have a detrimental effect on the price of the property.

And there's a mystery as to why rents are rocketing and landlords are running the hell out if the marketplace as quickly as possible.


----------



## charliehorse

Hi Folks
I have been watching this thread for a while.
I have an apartment in a SSAP. It is in a nice quiet, well run complex with a mix of rented and owner occupied properties.
Rent is set around 12% below current rents there and is around 5% nett return on the value of the property.
It is vacant at the moment and in very good condition and fully equiped ready for letting or sale.
It would be desirable to owner occupiers were it is situated and with the level at which the complex is run.
I am 65 very soon. 
The plan for it was to retire at 66 and take the 4% pension from the rent and keep the property.
My total SSAP fund would be around €500k including the property value.
With the new legislation as outlined by PB202 above, if you were in my shoes, what would you do?


----------



## aristotle

If it were me I would keep it for a while more, perhaps 12 to 18 months as I think the market will stay strong...

Then I would sell and retire without any hassles of being a lordlord.
Legislation is not going to change for at least a while so you will have time to sell before hand.


----------



## ClubMan

aristotle said:


> I think the market will stay strong...


----------



## Firefly

Around 20,000 landlords have left the rental market since 2016 link


----------



## Silvius

I gave long-term tenants notice and the response was "we'll go if we can find somewhere else, but it's impossible to find anything now". I didn't really want to give them notice but after weighing up the risk of not being able to get them out if legislation changes I bit the bullet. Seems I may be a bit late! I've heard of a few other landlords who also want to sell up and the tenants just say they have nowhere to go and can't leave. They have a point of course, it is extremely difficult to find anything: right now there are 10 properties to let in my county and they all look awful and are very expensive. Still, it's very alarming if it's now becoming acceptable for the tenants to just refuse to leave based on the lack of suitable housing stock.


----------



## Delboy

Might be reason to stay yet








						Politically sensitive landlord tax break not ruled out
					

Two weeks ago, late in the evening during Dáil questions on housing, a potentially consequential moment edged its way to the surface.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## Dermot

Sorry to sound so negative but I would not trust any of the Politicians on this subject. There are too many negatives to put right and they will not do anything to bring some form of balance to the situation.  At best they will throw out some "spratt" to catch people and then nail them to the cross in a few years time.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Silvius said:


> I gave long-term tenants notice and the response was "we'll go if we can find somewhere else, but it's impossible to find anything now". I didn't really want to give them notice but after weighing up the risk of not being able to get them out if legislation changes I bit the bullet. Seems I may be a bit late! I've heard of a few other landlords who also want to sell up and the tenants just say they have nowhere to go and can't leave. They have a point of course, it is extremely difficult to find anything: right now there are 10 properties to let in my county and they all look awful and are very expensive. Still, it's very alarming if it's now becoming acceptable for the tenants to just refuse to leave based on the lack of suitable housing stock.


What are you going to do do you think? How much notice are you required to give? Six months?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Delboy said:


> Might be reason to stay yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politically sensitive landlord tax break not ruled out
> 
> 
> Two weeks ago, late in the evening during Dáil questions on housing, a potentially consequential moment edged its way to the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rte.ie


I've said this before, but the RTB regime is not the major issue for a serious landlord. Tax is.

Gross yields are high in Ireland, but paying tax at 52% on profits is not good if you have other income. CGT is also starting to become material for a lot of landlords. For more landlords there is less and less mortgage interest to offset against tax too.


----------



## Silvius

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> What are you going to do do you think? How much notice are you required to give? Six months?


Yes, six months. I'll give official notice to sell and hope they find a place. What else can I do? I was happy enough to hold off on selling for another year or so but got increasingly worried about whether it will be possible to evict tenants in order to sell in a few years time. Now it's clear that the dwindling rental supply and increasingly entrenched attitudes of some tenants are more reasons to get a move on if you're thinking of selling.


----------



## DK123

Silvius said:


> Yes, six months. I'll give official notice to sell and hope they find a place. What else can I do? I was happy enough to hold off on selling for another year or so but got increasingly worried about whether it will be possible to evict tenants in order to sell in a few years time. Now it's clear that the dwindling rental supply and increasingly entrenched attitudes of some tenants are more reasons to get a move on if you're thinking of selling.


Hi. I was just wondering if you have sold yet now that 11th June 2022 has passed.I am in the same position and quite confused.I had no intention of selling until i read about the new rule on unlimited duration.This sounds scary for landlords and tempting for tenents to refuse to leave.What are your thoughts now.Thanks,


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

The tenancies of indefinite duration can still be ended is the landlord needs to sell or needs the house for their personal or family use. The danger is if sinn Fein come in and change that rule. And say you cannot end a tenancy of indefinite duration for these same reasons that are valid now.


----------



## DK123

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> The tenancies of indefinite duration can still be ended is the landlord needs to sell or needs the house for their personal or family use. The danger is if sinn Fein come in and change that rule. And say you cannot end a tenancy of indefinite duration for these same reasons that are valid now.


Thanks for clarification Pebble Beach 202.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> The danger is if sinn Fein come in and change that rule. And say you cannot end a tenancy of indefinite duration for these same reasons that are valid now.


I think this is low risk as it would almost certainly be unconstitutional.

The RTA has been amended four times since 2016 and my guess is it would have been done by now if the AG had allowed it.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I think this is low risk as it would almost certainly be unconstitutional.
> 
> The RTA has been amended four times since 2016 and my guess is it would have been done by now if the AG had allowed it.


I believe a rent freeze is unconstitutional also, but the Shinners are always demanding it. They will introduce it when in government and then force an individual to take a case against the state (which would be costly and very difficult by all accounts).

The Shinners will have no option but to act when they get into power. The problem is, they are scare mongering current investors and landlords with their threats of what they will do and vilifying landlords causing them to leave the sector now and make the bad situation even worse. By time the Shinners get into government in Summer 2025 at the earliest, another 20,000 landlords will have left the sector at least and all that will be left will be institutional landlords who charge the top prices for rentals. It's lose-lose for current tenants and worse still for future tenants. And all the time the Shinners get more popular because of their irresponsible and counter-productive rhetoric


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> They will introduce it when in government and then force an individual to take a case against the state (which would be costly and very difficult by all accounts).


This is not likely. SF will be in a coalition. The incumbent AG will advise against it. The President has the power to refer a potentially unconstitutional bill to the Supreme Court.

My own view is that tenants' rights are pretty much at the boundary of what they will ever be. Landlords' rights could get worse (more tax) but they could also get better (less tax). You can make plans on that basis.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This is not likely. SF will be in a coalition.


Have you seen the polls for the last six months. Shinners have over a third of the popular vote, good chance they could get 55-60 seats in election. That means they could potential go in with like minded lefties and do whatever they want.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The President has the power to refer a potentially unconstitutional bill to the Supreme Court.


The President didn't use this supposed power when the last rent freeze was brought in, even though it wasn't constitutional.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> My own view is that tenants' rights are pretty much at the boundary of what they will ever be.


I would be interested in what's bringing you to that conclusion. I think there's plenty of scope for tenants rights to be extended.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Landlords' rights could get worse (more tax) but they could also get better (less tax). You can make plans on that basis.


Again, there's loads of issues outside of tax that will affect landlords rights, such as indefinite duration tenancies, advertising restrictions, treatment of non-payment of rent, administration burden etc.


----------



## DK123

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This is not likely. SF will be in a coalition. The incumbent AG will advise against it. The President has the power to refer a potentially unconstitutional bill to the Supreme Court.
> 
> My own view is that tenants' rights are pretty much at the boundary of what they will ever be. Landlords' rights could get worse (more tax) but they could also get better (less tax). You can make plans on that basis.


Makes a lot of sense and is very reassuring for the ordinary landlord with one house let out.Thanks.


----------



## aristotle

"The President didn't use this supposed power when the last rent freeze was brought in, even though it wasn't constitutional."

There wasn't an actual rent freeze, but there was a restriction on the max % increases allowed. Small point but an important one.


----------



## Silvius

DK123 said:


> Hi. I was just wondering if you have sold yet now that 11th June 2022 has passed.I am in the same position and quite confused.I had no intention of selling until i read about the new rule on unlimited duration.This sounds scary for landlords and tempting for tenents to refuse to leave.What are your thoughts now.Thanks,


Still stuck, my tenants say they have nowhere to go. I've given them all the help I can, advised them to apply to estate agents directly as many properties are not advertised now and gave them a good reference. I checked with the estate agents I recommended and my tenants never even applied. They know they have a sweet deal where they are and have no interest in moving. I'm now trying to find a place for them to rent, actually spent this morning on it! It's a real headache which I don't need as dealing with health problems myself and really just want to get the place sold. Should have got out sooner!


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

“I think also we’re conscious that a lot of smaller landlords are exiting the market. We’ve got to address that,” said the Taoiseach.

Article on the Journal about the upcoming budget. There's going to be something for small landlords, but what is the question.


----------



## Sconeandjam

Silvius said:


> Still stuck, my tenants say they have nowhere to go. I've given them all the help I can, advised them to apply to estate agents directly as many properties are not advertised now and gave them a good reference. I checked with the estate agents I recommended and my tenants never even applied. They know they have a sweet deal where they are and have no interest in moving. I'm now trying to find a place for them to rent, actually spent this morning on it! It's a real headache which I don't need as dealing with health problems myself and really just want to get the place sold. Should have got out sooner!


Our tenant have left and moved back to their home country. I think they were waiting to get their Irish pension before they left the country. They are now very Well financially due to the Irish pension they are bringing back with them.

Have you made sure your notice to leave was in order? If all is good go to Rtb. I think if they have stayed passed their move out date you have no choice but do go the rtb route. 
What was said to me(citizens information)if you delay the process then rtb may think you are happy for them to stay. It is not your responsibility to find them a place. As you say they have a sweet deal. Why would they move? Pay more than what they are paying now. Get the wheels in motion, organise your paperwork, nppr, and put a for sale sign in the garden. They should get a move on then. Good luck.


----------



## Silvius

Yes, I got a solicitor to check my notice to leave before I issued it just to be sure. It's all in order. I know it's not my responsibility to find them a place but it might be the easiest way out of this. I'll go to the RTB if needed but that process could take ages - what I really want is to sell the property asap.


----------



## Daithi7

Just keep sending them links for rental properties you source for them. 
Keep asking them ' have they found a place yet?'
And simultaneously go the rtb route,  as it's your only last option really. Good luck.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

Silvius said:


> Yes, I got a solicitor to check my notice to leave before I issued it just to be sure. It's all in order. I know it's not my responsibility to find them a place but it might be the easiest way out of this. I'll go to the RTB if needed but that process could take ages - what I really want is to sell the property asap.


those tenants sound like beauties


----------



## Sconeandjam

Daithi7 said:


> Just keep sending them links for rental properties you source for them.
> Keep asking them ' have they found a place yet?'
> And simultaneously go the rtb route,  as it's your only last option really. Good luck.


That is a good idea but going by their tenants behaviour so far they may make a claim that it is harassment.


----------



## Sconeandjam

Silvius said:


> Yes, I got a solicitor to check my notice to leave before I issued it just to be sure. It's all in order. I know it's not my responsibility to find them a place but it might be the easiest way out of this. I'll go to the RTB if needed but that process could take ages - what I really want is to sell the property asap.


Put your sign in the garden a few days after the move out date if they have not moved out. If you need to do up the house that may only take a few weeks. The auctioneer can do this knowing you may have to do some work to it. Hopefully they will get the message.


----------



## Silvius

The estate agents advised me not to fall out with the tenant whatever I do....


----------



## lff12

Silvius said:


> Yes, I got a solicitor to check my notice to leave before I issued it just to be sure. It's all in order. I know it's not my responsibility to find them a place but it might be the easiest way out of this. I'll go to the RTB if needed but that process could take ages - what I really want is to sell the property asap.


You might be better off in the long run going the RTB route now, especially if the tenant is already being difficult.


----------



## Silvius

Update to the posts above in case it's of interest to anyone in a similar situation. The tenant left, thankfully. They also left a lot of damage behind but are claiming that they received the house in that condition and are demanding the full deposit back. They're not willing to discuss the damage or the fact that they've been illegally subletting to up to 8 (yes, 8!) tenants at a time, as I recently discovered from the neighbours. If they don't get the full deposit back they're going to the RTB. Legal advice and advice from other property owners with experience of the RTB is to just give them the full deposit back as it's so hard to prove these things and it's best to just get them out of my life and count myself lucky they're gone. Their deposit was €1000, I've already spent €3,000 putting the house right. The house was in perfect condition when they received it but without enough before and after photos it's hard to prove that. Counting myself lucky it's over, just want to move on and don't need the stress of the RTB.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

I disagree. Represent yourself at RTB so you don't incur costs. At least force them down the route of "working" for the deposit if the RTB wants to award it back to them. At that stage, the time it'll take, they may not turn up, move on etc, or things (environment) may have moved in the landlords favour. And pigs might fly.

I certainly wouldn't give them back the deposit as easily as you are suggesting.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I've always won (or they've not turned up) my few disputes with tenants over deposits (actually all disputes) at the RTB. But its a business decision not to waste time and thus money on the RTB vs focusing on getting it back rented as soon as possible. A delay of a month costs far more than the deposit. There is the moral hazard aspect, but I think this futile crusade while the legislation encourages this behavior.

If you are selling it, then you might decide its worth trying the RTB. Because thats what the tenants do change their arm. You're funding it anyway. 

From what I see sales have slowed. Might be while selling it.


----------



## Sconeandjam

Silvius said:


> Update to the posts above in case it's of interest to anyone in a similar situation. The tenant left, thankfully. They also left a lot of damage behind but are claiming that they received the house in that condition and are demanding the full deposit back. They're not willing to discuss the damage or the fact that they've been illegally subletting to up to 8 (yes, 8!) tenants at a time, as I recently discovered from the neighbours. If they don't get the full deposit back they're going to the RTB. Legal advice and advice from other property owners with experience of the RTB is to just give them the full deposit back as it's so hard to prove these things and it's best to just get them out of my life and count myself lucky they're gone. Their deposit was €1000, I've already spent €3,000 putting the house right. The house was in perfect condition when they received it but without enough before and after photos it's hard to prove that. Counting myself lucky it's over, just want to move on and don't need the stress of the RTB.


Great to hear your news. Did you take pictures of the property as they left? Also do you have the €3k in bills to show what had to be done? Skips, cleaning, repairs etc. That will cover you. Did you have any pictures of the property before they moved in? Definately worth looking for them.

Let them threaten you with RTB and you an say to them their names will appear on the website showing how the left the property. The risk of not be able the rent with a record on RTB site might stop them. 
I had a tenant a while back threaten me they would go to RTB. I said work away and your future landlords will see how you leave a house once you move on. I had pictures and bills for the damage she had caused. I write a letter to her with all the details of the damage. I put down my time not charged for cleaning her mess. You do not necessary need to have pictures of what the house was like before but if you have pictures of after the RTB would see the mess. She even went to the local TD first to stop me giving her notice and then she told me she brought my letter to them asking for help. They said to her she got off lightly!!

Odd that your neighbours did not contact you to tell you. I know of a landlord that had a 2bed house and there where 4 generations is the house totalling 15 persons. No wonder the house had to be stripped back after taking nearly 2years to get them out. That was using RTB and then having to go to court.


----------



## Sconeandjam

AlbacoreA said:


> I've always won (or they've not turned up) my few disputes with tenants over deposits (actually all disputes) at the RTB. But its a business decision not to waste time and thus money on the RTB vs focusing on getting it back rented as soon as possible. A delay of a month costs far more than the deposit. There is the moral hazard aspect, but I think this futile crusade while the legislation encourages this behavior.
> 
> If you are selling it, then you might decide its worth trying the RTB. Because thats what the tenants do change their arm. You're funding it anyway.
> 
> From what I see sales have slowed. Might be while selling it.


If they did not turn up would it go in your favour?

It is still holiday period so there may be a delay is sales. Auctioneer said that often they start back up in September. We have a house for sale since July and had a few viewings and a few offers so there is still movement.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Silvius said:


> Legal advice and advice from other property owners with experience of the RTB is to just give them the full deposit back as it's so hard to prove these things and it's best to just get them out of my life and count myself lucky they're gone.


I disagree. Tenant may not appeal to the RTB. If they do, tenant may make make a poor case for themselves.

The worst case is you have to give them back your deposit which you seem happy to do anyway. Where's the downside?


----------



## Silvius

Sconeandjam said:


> Great to hear your news. Did you take pictures of the property as they left? Also do you have the €3k in bills to show what had to be done? Skips, cleaning, repairs etc. That will cover you. Did you have any pictures of the property before they moved in? Definately worth looking for them.
> 
> Let them threaten you with RTB and you an say to them their names will appear on the website showing how the left the property. The risk of not be able the rent with a record on RTB site might stop them.
> I had a tenant a while back threaten me they would go to RTB. I said work away and your future landlords will see how you leave a house once you move on. I had pictures and bills for the damage she had caused. I write a letter to her with all the details of the damage. I put down my time not charged for cleaning her mess. You do not necessary need to have pictures of what the house was like before but if you have pictures of after the RTB would see the mess. She even went to the local TD first to stop me giving her notice and then she told me she brought my letter to them asking for help. They said to her she got off lightly!!
> 
> Odd that your neighbours did not contact you to tell you. I know of a landlord that had a 2bed house and there where 4 generations is the house totalling 15 persons. No wonder the house had to be stripped back after taking nearly 2years to get them out. That was using RTB and then having to go to court.


Yeah, I don't know the neighbours that well as I live in a different area. It was a mistake not keeping in closer contact with them. That said, they were happy enough to ring me and talk about it and how bad it was once the tenants were gone, but not while they were still there. They said everyone knew and so they all assumed I knew too...I guess nobody wanted to be the one to ring me. It's a bit Irish!


----------



## Silvius

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I disagree. Tenant may not appeal to the RTB. If they do, tenant may make make a poor case for themselves.
> 
> The worst case is you have to give them back your deposit which you seem happy to do anyway. Where's the downside?


True, but the downside is the hassle of the RTB and having it hanging over me. I have photos of the house beforehand but not of some of the specific things/areas they damaged. For example I flipped the mattresses while trying to find the source of a bad smell and discovered the undersides were aboslutely destroyed and will all have to be thrown out. The tenants say they were like that since the beginning. I can't prove otherwise! I'm not happy to give them back the deposit but it's a case of what's expedient rather than what's right or fair. If I go to the RTB and lose my case because I can't prove it, it will all have been for nothing. Not sure what I'll do.


----------



## Silvius

Sconeandjam said:


> If they did not turn up would it go in your favour?
> 
> It is still holiday period so there may be a delay is sales. Auctioneer said that often they start back up in September. We have a house for sale since July and had a few viewings and a few offers so there is still movement.


Yes, I'm selling it, absolutely no question of renting again! Yeah, that's a possiblility, as far as I know they've left the country.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

give them back the deposit. You seem to be resigned to doing it as opposed to making them fight/earn the deposit back. Even though they clearly do not deserve it back.


----------



## Bluefin

As a non landlord I'd make them earn there deposit


----------



## Lone Star

Offer it back to them in cash via your solicitor - give them 700 and send them on their way.


----------



## Silvius

As I dig deeper into the house I keep finding more damage that was well hidden, things missing etc. I've changed my mind and decided to deduct the appropriate amount from the deposit and let them go to the RTB.


----------



## help999

Silvius said:


> Yes, I'm selling it, absolutely no question of renting again! Yeah, that's a possiblility, as far as I know they've left the country.


Can you tell me, i have read you can offset the tax own in regard to the mortgage interest used to buy the property.
If your rental income is 15k per year and 9k of that is interest you only pay tax on 6k is that correct??


----------



## Leo

Silvius said:


> As I dig deeper into the house I keep finding more damage that was well hidden, things missing etc. I've changed my mind and decided to deduct the appropriate amount from the deposit and let them go to the RTB.


I'd advise lodging a complaint with the RTB yourself first seeking full costs for all damage caused.  I have a friend who has similar issues with damage and furniture removed from the property who just withheld the deposit. The tenant lodged a complaint to the RTB and even admitted to some of the damage and removal of furniture during the hearing, but the RTB still ordered the landlord to return the full deposit.


----------



## Sarenco

Government consulting with AG re proposed eviction ban.

If any landlords are still debating whether or not they should exit the business, this may well push them over the edge.









						Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee
					

The Government will do "everything that we can" to ensure people remain in their homes this winter, the Minister for Justice has said, adding that the Government is seeking the advice from the Attorney General on whether it can implement an eviction ban.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

As of today the Bill had completed all Dáil stages, Seanad stage next. Although Oireachtas.ie says that the Seanad won't resume until 8 November so not sure when it will be at the point where the President can sign.


----------



## BlackandBlue

He has signed it








						Temporary eviction ban signed into law
					

President Michael D Higgins has signed into law a bill banning residential evictions from next month until the end of March.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

I had a look on daft.ie at "Portlaoise and surrounds" on daft.ie this morning. I don't know the place at all but I just picked it as an example of medium-sized urban area with about 10k dwellings. 

I was astonished at what I saw. There is literally ONE property for rent (0.01%) and 115 properties (1%) for sale.


I think 1% of all properties for sale is pretty normal in any market. It means if you want to buy in the area you'll probably find something of the type you want in or around the location you want. This is healthy!

But literally 0.01% of properties are officially to rent which is completely crazy in any market and indicative of huge undersupply and landlord exit from the market. For sure there is no doubt a grey market where exiting tenants find friends who'll take over and agents have lists of potential tenants for any property that comes up. I was last properly on the rental market in Dublin in 2009 and at any point there were literally 20 properties within a ten-minute walk of where I lived, ten of which would have been suitable for my needs there and then. I know that was abnormal (oversupply and a collapsing economy) but a situation like today where literally 1 dwelling out of 10,000 is officially for rent is crazy.

There has been a complete policy failure here. No one likes landlords but the world still needs them and policy (tax, rent controls, planning) has conspired to ensure that old landlords are leaving and no new ones are entering.


----------



## DannyBoyD

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> No one likes landlords


Seriously!? Why the landlord bashing again?

You might as well say 'no one likes hoteliers' or ' no one likes guest house owners'.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

DannyBoyD said:


> Seriously!? Why the landlord bashing again?


Read the rest of the sentence. I've put it in bold in case you missed it first time.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> No one likes landlords *but the world still needs them*



And if a little hyperbole isn't allowed to make a point from time to time I think we'd have a pretty dull experience here


----------



## T McGibney

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Read the rest of the sentence. I've put it in bold in case you missed it first time.
> 
> 
> 
> And if a little hyperbole isn't allowed to make a point from time to time I think we'd have a pretty dull experience here


You still said it, and it's unfortunate when anyone says it, as that attitude is at this stage baked into the national psyche and has as a consequence done immense harm. The last acceptable bigotry?


----------



## LS400

Ah stop with that nonsense,

I read NRCs mail in its entirety, nothing in it suggested LandLord Bashing. Its easy to pick out snippets and twist them to suit your narrative. 

It is a shocking read,

I checked in Lucan out of curiosity, a now huge area, 11 properties available on Daft to rent..   I don't know at this stage if this is even fixable.


----------



## DannyBoyD

LS400 said:


> twist them to suit your narrative


There was no "twisting", the exact words were quoted.

I'm neither a politician, local county rep, journalist, nor even a blogger; I have no 'narrative' which needs to be 'suited'.


----------



## Firefly

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I was astonished at what I saw. There is literally ONE property for rent (0.01%) and 115 properties (1%) for sale.


I think, and it's only a hunch, that some / a lot of landlords are leaving their properties empty due to excessive tennant rights and taxes.  Otherwise we'd see a lot of properties up & down the country for sale, but we're not. Maybe the property investors are happy with long-term capital appreciation. Of course, if this is true, it's a double-whammy for those looking to rent and to buy.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Firefly said:


> Otherwise we'd see a lot of properties up & down the country for sale, *but we're not*


There are literally a *hundred *times more properties for sale than to rent in the example I've given.

A reasonable assumption is that a lot of landlords are selling.


----------



## Firefly

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> There are literally a *hundred *times more properties for sale than to rent in the example I've given.


That might be true, but is the number of properties for sale a lot higher than it was say, 3 years ago? If landlords are leaving the rental market _and _selling up, I would expect a lot more For Sale signs around the place & online, but I don't see it.


----------



## Sarenco

Firefly said:


> If landlords are leaving the rental market _and _selling up, I would expect a lot more For Sale signs around the place & online, but I don't see it.


Listings of houses for sale on myhome.ie are up 32% year-on-year.


			https://media.myhome.ie/content/propertyreport/2022/q32022/MyHomePropertyReportQ3-2022.pdf
		


Meanwhile the number of rental properties on the market is at an all time low.  This is also reflected in a dramatic drop in the number of new tenancies being registered with the RTB.

All the evidence points to an exodus of landlords from the market and this has led to a chronic shortage of rentals coming to the market.


----------



## Firefly

Sarenco said:


> Listings of houses for sale on myhome.ie are up 32% year-on-year.
> 
> 
> https://media.myhome.ie/content/propertyreport/2022/q32022/MyHomePropertyReportQ3-2022.pdf


Thanks Sarenco. It's good to get something more official and accurate than my hunch!



Sarenco said:


> All the evidence points to an exodus of landlords from the market and this has led to a chronic shortage of rentals coming to the market.


I agree, they're leaving the market alright and in droves


----------



## Delboy

Tenants who owe over €70,000 in rent arrears can spend Christmas in house
					

Tenants blame Covid-19 for not paying €2,500-a-month rent for over three years




					www.irishtimes.com
				




Even when you play the system and even when the Judge calls you out on it, you still get more time.
75k rental arrears by mid Feb and thousands in legal costs


----------



## PebbleBeach2020

What a joke. Judges are so detached. Yet another reason to get out.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88

A nice advert in the Irish Times for how to live rent-free for over three years.


----------



## DK123

Friends.This is hardly a time to get out.Far from it.This is a time to get in.!!Check out all the investment sages advice over the last 100 years    perhaps.In my humble opinion of course.


----------



## AlbacoreA

DK123 said:


> Friends.This is hardly a time to get out.Far from it.This is a time to get in.!!Check out all the investment sages advice over the last 100 years    perhaps.In my humble opinion of course.


I don't the reckon the sages are aware of how distorted the  Irish rental market is.


----------

