Taoiseach: "Possible ban on evictions during energy crisis"

Status
Not open for further replies.
My claim was you haven't been able to evict people "whenever" for years.

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

Because on the back of the moratoriums, is pressure to have much longer tenancies. That why it is interesting to consider.
 
Last edited:
AlbacoreA said:
My claim was you haven't been able to evict people "whenever" for years.
Click to expand...

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

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

Don't shoot the messenger.
 
AlbacoreA said:
Language in the rules is specific and exact for a reason.
Click to expand...
Beside the point again. Your charge that I "genuinely (did) not know the basics" fell flat on its face. As did your parallel claim regarding evictions for stated reasons, which gave rise to that bogus charge.
 
AlbacoreA said:
Language in the rules is specific and exact for a reason.

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

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

You're overlapping and conflating disparate issues there.

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

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

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

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

This is all slightly off topic. The issue is moratoriums on evictions. Most of these will simply be tenancies that end. They won't be in dispute.
 
Maggs065 said:
There has to be fluidity in the private rental market or you won't get people investing and those that have are running for the hills.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Certainty is an important factor with any major investment.
Maggs065 said:
The government have shifted the blame for lack of housing on the small private landlord,
Click to expand...
I think the institutional investor that is actually funding the building of housing is, bizarrely, getting more of the blame.
Maggs065 said:
while quietly pocketing up to 50% of the rental income.
Click to expand...
They pocket half of my earnings as well. That's income tax for ya.
Maggs065 said:
And now they are threatening us with indefinite tenancies. And landlords are still the bad guys!
Click to expand...
It's a fear of the next government that's really frightening people.
 
There should be training or verification to ensure a basic standard of professionalism in a landlord, regardless of whether they are a big or small landlord.

For a long time I was on the side of the smaller landlord. Now, it matters less, because the main thing I care about is professionalism (by which I mean just the basics of how to treat people, respecting boundaries, knowing the law, etc).
 
It is not just a commercial transation. There are people's lives involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

what has happened and continues to happen is the tenants get more rights and the landlord gets less.
Click to expand...
There are basic human rights involved. They are basic!

It is definitely not zero-sum or doesn't have to be. Everyone can have rights and respect each others rights without other's right being diminished in any way.
 
T McGibney said:
(shakes head in despair and logs off)
Click to expand...
I would estimate about 90% or more of landlords are fine. There is always a % of any group that spoils things. Same applies to tenants.

A landlord is in a position of considerable power, having keys to someone's home.
It is just reality to recognise that power can be abused, and is by some - a small minority probably, but such people should not be allowed in the position, that's where I'm coming from.
 
There are many interesting posts on this thread. Admittedly, I was unable to fully follow some of the semantics or reasoning contained in a number of responses which I put down to limitations on this side of my keyboard.

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

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

Within Ireland, market sentiment for small landlords in the BTL arena has already been significantly eroded. One can argue the toss whether this is caused largely, or in part by over-regulation, the rate and nature of legislative change, taxation treatment, possible future political changes and so forth. In my personal view, the cause is largely irrelevant now, as significant, (and again in my personal opinion,) irreversible damage has already been done. It matters little whether he popped his clogs or kicked the bucket… he is gone. I am at a loss to see how majority landlord sentiment which is to pull their investment, can be arrested and reversed in the short to medium term. There already is an exodus of small landlord’ investment capital to other asset classes and jurisdictions. I believe the focus and energy of landlords (or property investors which is a more apt term) should instead be spent on how best to exit the Irish BTL market and instead identify alternate investment opportunities outside of the Irish BTL market rather than kicking a dead horse (apologies for overplay on the death metaphors, but you get my point).
 
Last edited:
wondering said:
A landlord is in a position of considerable power, having keys to someone's home.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. The balance of power is already very heavily weighted in the tenants favour. Any landlord thinking that having a set of keys gives them any power whatsoever is in for a rude awakening should they decide to use those keys.

You seem to be confusing the private sector rental market with a social service. It should not be the responsibility of individuals to solve challenges of this nature. Continuing to heap more restrictions on private landlords due to the failure of the state to provide housing in sufficient numbers will only achieve the further reduction in properties available to rent.
 
All any decent landlord requires is a tenant to sign a lease pay the rent and look after the property.
Landlords did not and will not sign up to solving the housing problem or acting as Social Welfare officers.
The Landlord bought the property with their hard earned cash and should be free to do what they want with their property once they adhere to a lease etc.
You cant go to Lidl and walk out the door with your weekly shop because you have no money. You can refuse to pay your rent for years and squat in a property. Who pays the mortgage on the property when this happens. The Landlord.
Sorry renting out a property is a commercial decision. In my case after 40yrs working it is my pension my living.
I have always treated tenants well and kept my property well. But when a lease is up or when I decide to sell my property thats what I will do.
Tenants financial situation here in Ireland or any other country do not belong to the landlord.
I rented for years in both Ireland and North America. No landlord ever gave a monkeys about my financial situation nor did I expect them to.
I have 3yrs this November remaining on a lease with SDCC. After that I will sell. In fact every six months I contact the Council offering them the property to buy.
If you are thinking of buying a buy to let dont touch it.
 
@Leo, Feel free to respond in the thread of course, but I ask you not to quote me again out of context to go on some kind of rant.

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

The problem is LL rights (power is a confusing term here) have been eroded to the point where you're expected to suck up the costs of a 2yr non paying tenant and whatever damage they cause could be 10s of thousands. It's only a small (relatively) number of cases but if happens to you it makes the whole exercise not worth it. Even if you don't lose financially the worry and stress of it, isn't worth it.
 
As someone who was both a LL and tenant at the same time I can tell you that if 90% of small LLs are fine they would not be hitting the exit button like they have been.
Now for balance of power. When I was renting the LL gave me notice to sell. It was starting to get really difficult to find anywhere and when your circumstances are not secure its not a great feeling but this "home" idea is nonsense. I never thought of the rented property as my home. I like many had rented my home out to tenants and moved. These were long term rentals also. These emotive matters are not simple.
Now when i needed to sell my rented house (previous home) the tenants (on 60% below market) overheld and stopped paying the rent. As a LL I can tell you "try it sometime". I didnt do that to my LL who didnt give me correct/any formal notice etc, but so what.... when I needed a few week a the end, he was sound about it. (again no need for rtb)
The rtb and the gov made things bad for me as a renter coz LL sold maybe on advice of colleagues and friends etc with things changing so fast and screwed me as LL so no one wins here. I would say that when this was happening I would feel from a vulnerability perspective there is not much in it between a LL and a tenant. If I had to push it it was worse as a LL. Things were so much better before the gov got involved. - and I was only a renter for most of that and main thing was trying to get the deposit back.
 

No disagreeing with any of that.

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

Of course it's more nuanced that. The population is growing so LLs leaving has greater effect on supply than numbers suggest. Also I would say its most the cheaper properties that are leaving and the large investment LL's have mostly focused on the higher end of the market as its more profitable. So the shortage at the lower end is more acute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register