I assume he means that "90%" most LLs are good landlords. Not that they are fine as in happy.
As someone who was both a LL and tenant at the same time I can tell you that if 90% of small LLs are fine they would not be hitting the exit button like they have been.
Now for balance of power. When I was renting the LL gave me notice to sell. It was starting to get really difficult to find anywhere and when your circumstances are not secure its not a great feeling but this "home" idea is nonsense. I never thought of the rented property as my home. I like many had rented my home out to tenants and moved. These were long term rentals also. These emotive matters are not simple.
Now when i needed to sell my rented house (previous home) the tenants (on 60% below market) overheld and stopped paying the rent. As a LL I can tell you "try it sometime". I didnt do that to my LL who didnt give me correct/any formal notice etc, but so what.... when I needed a few week a the end, he was sound about it. (again no need for rtb)
The rtb and the gov made things bad for me as a renter coz LL sold maybe on advice of colleagues and friends etc with things changing so fast and screwed me as LL so no one wins here. I would say that when this was happening I would feel from a vulnerability perspective there is not much in it between a LL and a tenant. If I had to push it it was worse as a LL. Things were so much better before the gov got involved. - and I was only a renter for most of that and main thing was trying to get the deposit back.
I said no such thing.Landlords did not and will not sign up to solving the housing problem or acting as Social Welfare officers.
If you don't like being quoted, perhaps it would be best not post.@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.
It is the States responsibility to support people not other private citizens.It is not just a commercial transation. There are people's lives involved.
It's not the same as work/employment either. If you leave a job, generally speaking you can get another job before long.
If you leave your apartment/flat, in this country at the moment, you're looking at homelessness in most cases.
As well as this, it's a very big step for most people to move (unless you live out of a suitcase).
Long-term tenants (i.e. non-short term) should not be forced to move unless there's an exceptional reason to do so.
The duration of a tenancy should be worked out prior to moving in. If someone signs up for say, 5 years, then that should be guaranteed (Obviously a change of law would be needed for this).
This idea that all tenants in Ireland should live in a permanent state of 'what if' is not on!
There are basic human rights involved. They are basic!
It is definitely not zero-sum or doesn't have to be. Everyone can have rights and respect each others rights without other's right being diminished in any way.
I agree in part. Regulation is necessary, but not the way they went about it.Things were so much better before the gov got involved.
Training to be a landlord. Holy God. Have you lost the plot.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).
Take last comment back. Maybe a joint course for tenants to ensure a basic standard of professionalism from a tenant regardless of who they are.Training to be a landlord. Holy God. Have you lost the plot.
Ok, can't disagree with that. (Not sure why you're addressing it to me).It is the States responsibility to support people not other private citizens.
It is but there's more to it.Renting is a commercial trans.
The choice to rent long-term is normal in Europe. It's not here. That should change, in my view. (Someone posted a link on this earlier)If people want stability either get a mortgage or get the State to house them.
I was referring to the risk for a tenant, where a note could come through the door at any time saying we're selling etc.A mortgage is living in as you reference living in a State of "what if" . It only stops being "what if" when the mortgage is paid.
No idea what that's referring to.How exactly is it fair I as a private citizens rights are less than another's.
No, of course not.Should the State be able to say to you that you have a spare room we are passing a law that you must rent it out?
Both tenants and landlords, I'd be fine with that.Maybe a joint course for tenants to ensure a basic standard of professionalism from a tenant regardless of who they are.
It is my asset to do with what I want. Exactly the same way your car, house and your savings are yours to do what you want.No idea what that's referring
By fake reasons I presume you mean ending a tenancy only to restart another one at a higher rent? That is now being regulated much more tightly by the RTB.You can always break a lease/tenancy early through mutual agreement. I guess you could say thats primarily the tenant dictating that. But the problem has been with landlords terminating tenancies for fake reasons so often that is now a unsustainable for tenants.
By fake reasons I presume you mean ending a tenancy only to restart another one at a higher rent? That is now being regulated much more tightly by the RTB.
Other than that landlords are free to sell, if a landlord wants to issue a vacation notice to sell for example, the current proposed moratorium would block them from doing that and selling (it is practically impossible to sell in this country with tenants in situe, even though SinnFein want to enforce this). Many landlords have only committed to providing short term supply, they haven't signed up for long term supply. If you interfere in the market to block them from issuing terminations to sell their place then the possibility of short term landlords ceases to exist. We need short term landlords to provide the supply for short term demand, otherwise people renting temporarily are going to be competing with people who need long term accom for the limited or shrinking long term supply and the crisis worsens.
You can say we need more long term supply but where does that come from, you either incentivise the short term supply to lock in somehow long term or create it separately (it's the governments job after all). You can't seize the assets of people who don't want to have their assets tied in long term and never signed up for that to provide long term supply .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?