Rent and housing measures to go before Cabinet

A Shaved Duck?

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Again, with Part 4 tenancy rights, the landlord can't just kick out current tenants even if a lease runs out unless there's a valid reason in line with the RTA2004.

When has that ever stopped landlords trying? the vagueness of the details is scary, rent freeze for two years..in what context.. all rents from a certain date or is it new contracts?..will this proposal overrule current contract laws etc.

This goverment had better get the details right on this or they could find themselves facing court preceedings from the plethora of hedge/pension funds that have thousands of apartments rented and also the funds to pursue this.

matrim

Lux23 wrote: »

I was evicted by two landlords who used the family clause as an excuse, both had new tenants in a few weeks later. If you think tenants are genuinely protected by that then you are really naive. I know that we were asked to leave because we were looking for much needed repairs.

If you had proof of that you should have taken them to the PRTB for illegal eviction

Lux23

matrim wrote: »

If you had proof of that you should have taken them to the PRTB for illegal eviction

Well I caught them out the first time, but the same letting agency had found us a flat in the same block for the same price (because they knew well they could get in trouble!). The second time I contacted the PRTB and its still ongoing 15 months later. What good is that to me now? It is not something you can establish until after you leave.

runawaybishop

Locking rent for 2 years, great idea for the tenant - when rents are rising. When rents drop will he then tell tenants they cant move out and to keep paying the landlord over market rate for 2 years? Does he actually want people to quit the market or something.

matrim

Lux23 wrote: »

Well I caught them out the first time, but the same letting agency had found us a flat in the same block for the same price (because they knew well they could get in trouble!). The second time I contacted the PRTB and its still ongoing 15 months later. What good is that to me now? It is not something you can establish until after you leave.

The long waits are the problem with the PRTB (for both sides). And while I agree that you can only bring a case afterwards, I really hope that the PRTB find in your favour and give the landlord a large fine. People bring the case like that are the only thing that will make landlords stop doing it

A Shaved Duck?

runawaybishop wrote: »

Locking rent for 2 years, great idea for the tenant - when rents are rising. When rents drop will he then tell tenants they cant move out and to keep paying the landlord over market rate for 2 years? Does he actually want people to quit the market or something.

Its kite flying and a vote harvesting exercise imo the classic appear to be doing something but the real consequences are pushed out 2 years.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

I was evicted by two landlords who used the family clause as an excuse, both had new tenants in a few weeks later. If you think tenants are genuinely protected by that then you are really naive. I know that we were asked to leave because we were looking for much needed repairs.

Then you should have opened a dispute with the PRTB.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

Well I caught them out the first time, but the same letting agency had found us a flat in the same block for the same price (because they knew well they could get in trouble!). The second time I contacted the PRTB and its still ongoing 15 months later. What good is that to me now? It is not something you can establish until after you leave.

This is entirely the wrong attitude. We need to prosecute the dodgy landlords under the established laws. Sure the system isn't perfect but until it's reformed, we need to keep landlords in check from abusing their power.

Lux23

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This is entirely the wrong attitude. We need to prosecute the dodgy landlords under the established laws. Sure the system isn't perfect but until it's reformed, we need to keep landlords in check from abusing their power.

But I have used the system, there is nothing wrong with my attitude either, I am just pointing out that the system was of no use to me when I really needed it.

Michael D Not Higgins

Lux23 wrote: »

But I have used the system, there is nothing wrong with my attitude either, I am just pointing out that the system was of no use to me when I really needed it.

Yes you have used the system, but you've given up on it. If everyone gives up on the system, then it doesn't do anything and landlords are never prosecuted/fined and their behaviour goes unchecked.

Just because some abuse the system doesn't mean they should and doesn't mean we should get lethargic and let them get away with it.

tunney

Del007 wrote: »

The landlord has sent a review but it has not been agreed upon. It seems to be a grey area which is all too common in this country

Its not really grey. You just don't want to hear the answer you have been given.

DulchieLaois

is this not a bit dangerous as rents could decrease like they did during the recession ?

But keeping them at a price, tis all upwards from now onwards

keane2097

DulchieLaois wrote: »

is this not a bit dangerous as rents could decrease like they did during the recession ?

But keeping them at a price, tis all upwards from now onwards

If prices drop you can move to a better place for the same money, a similar place for less money or ask your landlord to adjust.

Del2005

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Yes you have used the system, but you've given up on it. If everyone gives up on the system, then it doesn't do anything and landlords are never prosecuted/fined and their behaviour goes unchecked.

Just because some abuse the system doesn't mean they should and doesn't mean we should get lethargic and let them get away with it.

They haven't given up the case, they are waiting 15 months for the outcome of a potential illegal eviction. What good is a ruling to them now?

You'd swear that there was something happening next year that the government wants to try and keep everyone happy, but end up making an even bigger mess. All the 2 year freeze will mean is that instead of getting a 10% increase this year there will be a 25% increase in 2 years as zero has been announced about solving the real issue which is supply of property.

murphaph

When a landlord agrees x rent with an RS tenant and the economy tanks just after the review, will the state continue paying the agreed rent or try to strongarm landlords into reductions like last time?!

_Kaiser_

murphaph wrote: »

When a landlord agrees x rent with an RS tenant and the economy tanks just after the review, will the state continue paying the agreed rent or try to strongarm landlords into reductions like last time?!

I think we all know the answer to that one!

The bottom line is the State (more accurately a handful of vote-hungry politicians) should only "interfere" enough to ensure that there are minimum standards for rental properties, legally-binding obligations on both sides, and a swift and independent appeals process in the event of a dispute.

What they've done here (as usual with this current Government) is take a half-assed, not fully thought out, sledgehammer approach to the current rental/homelessness problem, the real effects of which won't be really felt for another 2 years.... but which are likely to exacerbate the problem!

... but that's OK, because the real point is to try and convince the electorate that they've done SOMETHING so that it'll get them a few more votes, and you have to admit "rents to be frozen for 2 years" is a nice populist headline, and the hope is we'll forget that they've done nothing about the problem for the last 4 years!

pc7

Even the changes to interest you can claim wouldn't encourage me to take on a RA tenant again. I know not all RA are bad but I've had a bad experience and won't go there again. If the mortgage interest is say 4K you can currently offset 3k (75%), being able to offset the extra 1k is not enough of an incentive to risk RA tenants again.

quadrifoglio verde

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think we all know the answer to that one!

The bottom line is the State (more accurately a handful of vote-hungry politicians) should only "interfere" enough to ensure that there are minimum standards for rental properties, legally-binding obligations on both sides, and a swift and independent appeals process in the event of a dispute.

What they've done here (as usual with this current Government) is take a half-assed, not fully thought out, sledgehammer approach to the current rental/homelessness problem, the real effects of which won't be really felt for another 2 years.... but which are likely to exacerbate the problem!

... but that's OK, because the real point is to try and convince the electorate that they've done SOMETHING so that it'll get them a few more votes, and you have to admit "rents to be frozen for 2 years" is a nice populist headline, and the hope is we'll forget that they've done nothing about the problem for the last 4 years!

I agree, when Labour go door to door they can say they've increased rent certainty.
When fg go door to door and knock on their target abc1s they can say they've prevented long term rent control

jetfiremuck

Kelly stepped in it and spooked the landlords. The mindset is fixed and no walking it back. These measures will reduce availability to RA tenants. The daily rant of' talk to your landlord' that went on including the reduction in the RA allowance has skewed an already out of balance rental market. All they are doing is wallpapering over the cracks. I've heard of quite a lot(volume) of rental increases Going to tenants. The base now is the highest last rental...and up from there.

handlemaster

RA are going to get a surprise with new rentals . The rents will be higher than ever.

Eugene Norman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think we all know the answer to that one!

The bottom line is the State (more accurately a handful of vote-hungry politicians) should only "interfere" enough to ensure that there are minimum standards for rental properties, legally-binding obligations on both sides, and a swift and independent appeals process in the event of a dispute.

What they've done here (as usual with this current Government) is take a half-assed, not fully thought out, sledgehammer approach to the current rental/homelessness problem, the real effects of which won't be really felt for another 2 years.... but which are likely to exacerbate the problem!

... but that's OK, because the real point is to try and convince the electorate that they've done SOMETHING so that it'll get them a few more votes, and you have to admit "rents to be frozen for 2 years" is a nice populist headline, and the hope is we'll forget that they've done nothing about the problem for the last 4 years!

Plenty of States intervene in rental property price fixing. It works. They don't have boom and bust

Ireland believes in a housing free market until the banks need a bailout, a state owned property ownership company owns vast swathes of the market, and the state owned banks effectively don't pursue defaulters.

Otherwise though we all agree, the government should stay out.

murphaph

It doesn't always work, eg Stockholm.

machiavellianme

Why is it ok to impose limits on landlords and how much they can charge or when they can increase prices but when Sky or Virgin Media or ESB or Tesco etc. do it year on year, there's nothing about it from the government?

April 73

I hate to be a cynic but this will lead to people being asked to leave their rented property. Talk all you like about Part IV tenancy rights but the reality could be this:
Boot tenants out claiming you are going to sell. Put property on the market at an inflated asking price, pay €300 in advertising fees for EA, take property off the market one month later claiming no interest. You have proof that you tried to sell. Rent the property again at an increased rent to new tenants.

This would be well worth doing for anyone currently renting below market rates as it looks like they will be locked into below market rates. I know it's not in the spirit of the rules but there are landlords who will do this.

The goverent didn't protect landlords when rents fell. Then they reduced mortgage interest relief & increased costs and taxes & have now capped rents in a rising market. No wonder landlords are exiting the market.

matrim

April 73 wrote: »

I hate to be a cynic but this will lead to people being asked to leave their rented property. Talk all you like about Part IV tenancy rights but the reality could be this:
Boot tenants out claiming you are going to sell. Put property on the market at an inflated asking price, pay €300 in advertising fees for EA, take property off the market one month later claiming no interest. You have proof that you tried to sell. Rent the property again at an increased rent to new tenants.

This would be well worth doing for anyone currently renting below market rates as it looks like they will be locked into below market rates. I know it's not in the spirit of the rules but there are landlords who will do this.

The goverent didn't protect landlords when rents fell. Then they reduced mortgage interest relief & increased costs and taxes & have now capped rents in a rising market. No wonder landlords are exiting the market.

You then have to offer the tenant the chance to move back in. I'm not sure if that is at the same rent as before or different

copacetic

Not sure how well this will work, but we are being forced into accidental landlords this week and had to set a rent today. Agent and ourselves decided to go right at higher end basically because this change forces you to do so when renting for the first time, or between tenants I guess.

April 73

matrim wrote: »

You then have to offer the tenant the chance to move back in. I'm not sure if that is at the same rent as before or different

Where does it say that? "Intends" is surely open to interpretation.

3. The landlord intends, within 3 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.

Electric Sheep

Lux23 wrote: »

I was evicted by two landlords who used the family clause as an excuse, both had new tenants in a few weeks later. If you think tenants are genuinely protected by that then you are really naive. I know that we were asked to leave because we were looking for much needed repairs.

I have no trouble believing you on that - how many posts have we seen in this forum by landlords whose definition of a good tenant is one who does not complain? Many landlords seem to think that expecting the landlord to do the legally required maintenance to a rental is being a bad tenant.

CollyFlower

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I have no trouble believing you on that - how many posts have we seen in this forum by landlords whose definition of a good tenant is one who does not complain? Many landlords seem to think that expecting the landlord to do the legally required maintenance to a rental is being a bad tenant.

That seems to be the way it is, I know a tenent who's look after their rental, ie, replacing furniture carpets, etc and the landlord hasn't increased the rent for about 5 years, they're only paying 70 a week for their flat...and that's In the D4 area.

Jaketherake

I think there will be a sharp spike in rents this month, and then a slow but large increase over the next two years.

Anyone renting now or due a rent review will see the sharp increase straight away because landlords know that when this comes in they have two years of static rent. So up we go to market rate and higher with new market rates set.

But there will be people who have been renting on the now active 1 year freeze and got a review in say March this year. I think that what it will mean is that those rents are stuck for 1 year because that was the criteria for that rent increase in the first place. And then on their one year anniversary the landlord will raise to the max possible (because he knows that raise will be stuck for the two years after that), maybe even slightly more than the market rate, creating a new higher market rate.

So, rents are going to shoot up quickly and they wont be settling down now.

They should have left it alone, but the govern,ment just cant help interfering with and then wrecking markets