The erstwhile renter becomes an owner occupier.
Zero sum game in this case.
One property gone from the rental market cancelled out by one or more renters that are also gone.
Irish State could be inadvertently complicit in small landlords losing their investment BTL properties in RPZs.
- Thread starter CarrotStick
- Start date
Zero sum game in this case.
One property gone from the rental market cancelled out by one or more renters that are also gone.
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
I presume that you mean "impinge" but I realise that YANAL.
Emphasis is mine.Fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution
The Irish Constitution recognises and declares that you have certain fundamental personal rights. These are confirmed and protected by the Constitution.www.citizensinformation.ie
The right to earn a livelihood
As a citizen, you have a right to work and to earn a living, whether you are male or female. However, that general right doesn’t mean that you can insist on being employed in a particular role or area or by a particular employer.This includes a landlord.
Last edited:
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
Balderdash, and you know it, a portion of these new owner occupiers would have lived with Mummy and Daddy.
Last edited:
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
I know a lot of landlords that earn a living maintaining their property portfolios.
The property right can be regulated. He still owns the property, can transfer it, can sell it. He makes a loss.
I rent an income of €1200 for a 2 bedrooms apartment in Dublin. I cover my costs but could make more. Could the state be liable for my loss of income. My income is after all lower than this case. My personal situation is different but I respect the same regulations.
So they are earning a living... Could the state be liable for their loss of income from the rent controls. He is earning an income. It's not sufficient to cover his debt.
I rent an income of €1200 for a 2 bedrooms apartment in Dublin. I cover my costs but could make more. Could the state be liable for my loss of income. My income is after all lower than this case. My personal situation is different but I respect the same regulations.
Trying to change the goalposts now?
Your original reference to constitutional rights was this:
In any case, the aforementioned cap on bankers' remuneration shows that the state can, and does, place restrictions on individuals' ability to earn a living.
Anyway, I look forward to reading about your day in court in the paper.
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
Yes.
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
This is an article from the Irish Constitution silly. I Why would I be in court, once again your jumping to some strange conclusions.
Simply because some legal eagles that you know say so?
When are they/you going to test this in court?
I know. But you originally cited constitutional rights relating to property ownership, only to then change tack and cite those related to earning a living. Neither obviously support your claims that the state is liable here. But IANAL either.
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
That’s quite obvious.
Now back to the original scenario, what would you do if you were the borrower in that case? Let me guess, roll over and play dead. Please answer the question.
Last edited:
The law is there and hasn't been deemed unconstitutional. It might be challenged one day in court. However it must be noted that other countries have some form of rent controls with nearly the same property rights (word for word) in their constitution.
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
If you think bankers pay was really capped and they were not given deferred share options etc, your wet behind the ears. Welcome to the real world, all that is stated in public is not always true.
Last edited:
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
Can you name these Countries?
They could try to challenge the law if they so wish. It does not mean they would win. It's not because someone doesn't agree with a law that it is unconstitutional.
Art 17 French Constitution. France has some form of rent controls as that you can't increase more than a fixed percentage during a lease.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,766
CarrotStick - Will you stop talking to yourself!
Get some of your barrister and landlord clients to contribute to askaboutmoney.
IANAB so I don't know that many.
Brendan
moneymakeover
Registered User
- Messages
- 915
New York has rent controls
Germany Berlin has rent controls
Ireland some apartments were subject to rent controls in the 70s
Hence the value was limited
Bad and all as the 2% is in Ireland
if sinn fein get in it will be 0%
Germany Berlin has rent controls
Ireland some apartments were subject to rent controls in the 70s
Hence the value was limited
Bad and all as the 2% is in Ireland
if sinn fein get in it will be 0%
CarrotStick
Registered User
- Messages
- 77
IANAL There have been three significant Supreme Court judgments in the 1980s and 1990s, including one which struck down rent controls on the basis of property rights. These three judgments form cases precedent on the issue. Paul Gallagher AG gave advice that rent freezes would be open to constitutional challenge and most likely would be found unlawful.
Last edited:
The Horseman
Registered User
- Messages
- 724
There is no reference to rent controls in the French constitution. It would be unlikely to see what would be an ever changing policy becoming enshrined in any constitution.
Primary legislation would meet such a specific requirement.
Initial research on your claim regarding rent controls suggest they are only operating in Paris on a trial 5 yr basis.