Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

Electric Sheep

Kapips88 wrote: »

He also had a boiler that had to be replaced which cost a small fortune, but he cant put the rent up anywhere near market value to recoup some of the costs.

Landlords are responsible for maintenance. They are not supposed to jack up the rent to "recoup" their legal obligations.

Graham

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Landlords are responsible for maintenance. They are not supposed to jack up the rent to "recoup" their legal obligations.

Sounds like a fair reward for charging well below market rent. :rolleyes:

Electric Sheep

Graham wrote: »

Sounds like a fair reward for charging well below market rent. :rolleyes:

Legally required maintenance does not deserve a reward.

Graham

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Legally required maintenance does not deserve a reward.

Could you point out where I suggested otherwise?

Electric Sheep

Graham wrote: »

Could you point out where I suggested otherwise?

Please see where I quoted you above.

Zulu

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Legally required maintenance does not deserve a reward.

Make up your mind. If it's a business, it deserves a reward.
Or are we now to accept that as a business there is to be no reward?

Electric Sheep

Zulu wrote: »

Make up your mind. If it's a business, it deserves a reward.
Or are we now to accept that as a business there is to be no reward?

No extra reward such as raising the rent to cover the legally required maintenance that the landlord was perfectly aware of when he set the rent at the beginning of the tenancy.

Graham

Electric Sheep wrote: »

No extra reward such as raising the rent to cover the legally required maintenance that the landlord was perfectly aware of when he set the rent at the beginning of the tenancy.

Although raising the significantly below market rent to just a below market rent to cover some of the costs incurred would be seen as reasonable by most people who understand it's not in the interests of tenants to force a landlord out of the market.

The_Conductor

Electric Sheep wrote: »

No extra reward such as raising the rent to cover the legally required maintenance that the landlord was perfectly aware of when he set the rent at the beginning of the tenancy.

In the example given- the landlord was not letting the property at the market rate- he was letting it as a significant discount to the market rate. He has incurred unexpected expenditure, of several thousand euro- and is now forbidden from increasing the rent (to a level which could still be below market rates) to assist him in covering the unexpected costs. All the while- he/she is taxed at up to 54% of the gross rental income...........

I can see why so many landlords will just throw in the towel and say its simply not worth it- esp. those who tried to help their tenants by keeping the rent significantly below the going rate.

caff

Honestly the government needs to stop tinkering about the edges and give long term certainty to both tenants and LL. This legislation is a step in the right direction for tenants, LLs now need some easier way to deal with problems tenants. Really housing should be treated more like a utility (esb, telecoms etc..) than a commodity like it is now in this country.

bellissima

I have been charging a rent well below the market value because the tenants are on rent allowance and would have had to leave had the rent gone up. The two year rent agreement ended in August last and I gave them notice of an increase but deferred it till jan 1st of 2017. The increase is more than reasonable, based on the latest Housing Assistance Payment figure. If they now have difficulty in securing this marginal increase from the housing authority I will have no option but to serve notice on them based on one the valid reasons for doing so ie going back to live there myself or renovation. I cannot continue to rent the property for an uneconomical rent, though I was happy to allow people get on their feet because I had no mortgage myself.. They are there for a long time and I was happy enough to have them there indefinitely. Now I may have to ask them to leave, giving them eight months max there, by law. I wonder is this new law going to impact negatively on some cases!

Electric Sheep

The_Conductor wrote: »

In the example given- the landlord was not letting the property at the market rate- he was letting it as a significant discount to the market rate. He has incurred unexpected expenditure, of several thousand euro- and is now forbidden from increasing the rent (to a level which could still be below market rates) to assist him in covering the unexpected costs. All the while- he/she is taxed at up to 54% of the gross rental income...........

I can see why so many landlords will just throw in the towel and say its simply not worth it- esp. those who tried to help their tenants by keeping the rent significantly below the going rate.

There should not be unexpected expenses - the landlord should have factored in a generous allowance for maintenance just as owner occupiers do. A landlord who cannot cover maintenance costs for a rental should not be renting out property.

Graham

Electric Sheep wrote: »

There should not be unexpected expenses - the landlord should have factored in a generous allowance for maintenance just as owner occupiers do. A landlord who cannot cover maintenance costs for a rental should not be renting out property.

The landlord covered the maintenance costs.

The landlord is now prevented for adjusting the rent to account for ANY future additional costs, anticipated, legislated or otherwise.

The_Conductor

caff wrote: »

Honestly the government needs to stop tinkering about the edges and give long term certainty to both tenants and LL. This legislation is a step in the right direction for tenants, LLs now need some easier way to deal with problems tenants. Really housing should be treated more like a utility (esb, telecoms etc..) than a commodity like it is now in this country.

Problem tenants (of whom there are plenty) are only one part of the equation- the other part of the equation is the wholly inequitable taxation of landlords- there should be a level playing field for all landlords, big and small- and everyone should know that X% of their rent is going to the government in tax. At the moment- we have the REITs running the show- managing to evade paying any tax at all- while a local tax compliant landlord can be taken to the cleaners and pay up to 54% of the gross rental income in tax.

What I suggest is a flatrate tax on the gross rental income- and I suggest it should be collected at source- of 12.5%

Tenants pay their rent to the RTB- who deduct the 12.5% and forward it to Revenue- and forward the remainder onto the landlord.

The RTB also hold deposits for tenants/landlords- in a scheme akin to the Scottish scheme- and indemnify the landlord for any damage over and above the deposit.

If long term tenancies become the norm- a greater focus has to be made to allow tenants to rent unfurnished properties- the Irish fascination with dwellings full of crap furniture and bedding- has to be consigned to history.

The continental approach- whereby a property is inspected by the RTB prior to a tenancy- the tenant is given a blank canvas- and at the end of the tenancy- they clear it out fully, and repaint it- akin to what happens in France, Germany and many other countries- really should be explored.

Also- this one month deposit lark- where it bears no semblance whatsoever to actual deposit needs- should be revisited- and all deposits held by the RTB. The norm in Germany is 3 months deposit- with up to 6 months often offered to secure a property- fine, do it.

Further- we need mechanisms to chase tenants who don't pay their rent- and if this is RAS or other scheme tenants- they should be held liable if the non-payment of rent is through their neglecting to lodge paperwork on time.

The whole sector is due a shakeup- however the current proposals are solely aimed at tenants- there is absolutely nothing whatsoever there for landlords (other than a kick in the teeth).

Kapips88

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Landlords are responsible for maintenance. They are not supposed to jack up the rent to "recoup" their legal obligations.

He charges €350 pm below the property next door.
His boiler (actually I think it might be an immersion, not exactly sure which) cost him well over €2500 to replace.
He was going to put the rent up by €150 pm after two years, to try and offest the cost of the maintenance. I would have thought that was still a good deal for the tenant. Hes not trying to rob anybody. He is just trying to get out of a hole. And now he is stuck in it thanks to the government.
He would rather just have his apartment back at this stage and not rent it at all.
Surely it cant be legal to screw someone out of their property they way the government are.

Kapips88

The_Conductor wrote: »

In the example given- the landlord was not letting the property at the market rate- he was letting it as a significant discount to the market rate. He has incurred unexpected expenditure, of several thousand euro- and is now forbidden from increasing the rent (to a level which could still be below market rates) to assist him in covering the unexpected costs. All the while- he/she is taxed at up to 54% of the gross rental income...........

I can see why so many landlords will just throw in the towel and say its simply not worth it- esp. those who tried to help their tenants by keeping the rent significantly below the going rate.

But how do they get their properties back if they dont want to sell them.
Theyve been robbed.

testaccount123

Kapips88 wrote: »

He charges €350 pm below the property next door.

Then he's a fool.

The_Conductor

testaccount123 wrote: »

Then he's a fool.

No he isn't.
He is a human being with a conscience and decided to cut the tenant some slack. He shouldn't be crucified for being nice.

Electric Sheep

testaccount123 wrote: »

Then he's a fool.

A fool who did not do his homework before renting out his property. The absolute definition of an amateur landlord who cries hard done by when his lack of professionalism and business knowledge comes back to bite him in the butt

The_Conductor

Kapips88 wrote: »

But how do they get their properties back if they dont want to sell them.
Theyve been robbed.

They use the family member clause to reclaim the property- and beg or pay a family member to live there for whatever duration is necessary to extinguish the rental tag on the property.

If they do want to sell the property- the new rules whereby the tenancy doesn't end- come into being. Thus- you can only sell a property with a tenant in it- to a cash buyer (as no mortgage provider will lend towards a property which has a sitting tenant, its financially too risky). This means you're effectively devaluing the property by having a tenant in it- by what amount- I don't know.

The legislation is so completely one sided- its not funny........

Even the ESRI have come out and stated in its current form it will reduce the number of properties on the rental market (they don't give figures though).

Its populist rhetoric- designed to get votes- and its probably successful in that respect. Providing Coveney gets out of his current portfolio within the next 12 months- and doesn't have to pick up the pieces- he can sell it as a success.

titan18

Electric Sheep wrote: »

A fool who did not do his homework before renting out his property. The absolute definition of an amateur landlord who cries hard done by when his lack of professionalism and business knowledge comes back to bite him in the butt

Course, you'd probably lambast him too if he was acting like a business and charging as much as he possibly could to the tenant.

testaccount123

The_Conductor wrote: »

No he isn't.
He is a human being with a conscience and decided to cut the tenant some slack. He shouldn't be crucified for being nice.

Rubbish. Renting property is a business. The sooner we get to the point where it is treated as such by all parties the better.

murphaph

Electric Sheep wrote: »

A fool who did not do his homework before renting out his property. The absolute definition of an amateur landlord who cries hard done by when his lack of professionalism and business knowledge comes back to bite him in the butt

He'll never make that mistake again. From now on there will be no easy going landlords. Every year without fail rents will increase 4% for all.

Electric Sheep

titan18 wrote: »

Course, you'd probably lambast him too if he was acting like a business and charging as much as he possibly could to the tenant.

I would expect him to act like a business - since he is running a business. He should know how to work out a business plan that will cover maintenance and other expenses and work out a rent that will cover that.

This landlord said he rented below market price because he wanted a "good" tenant, not because he wanted to do a favor to the renter. It sounds like his idea of a good tenant is one that does not expect him to meet his legal obligations.

murphaph

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I would expect him to act like a business - since he is running a business. He should know how to work out a business plan that will cover maintenance and other expenses and work out a rent that will cover that.

This landlord said he rented below market price because he wanted a "good" tenant, not because he wanted to do a favor to the renter. It sounds like his idea of a good tenant is one that does not expect him to meet his legal obligations.

So he should have continuously maintained the rent at the top end of the market rate? Yes or no.

testaccount123

murphaph wrote: »

He'll never make that mistake again. From now on there will be no easy going landlords. Every year without fail rents will increase 4% for all.

They'll increase by 4% if the demand is there. If it isnt it wont. Its bloodly ridiculous having to listen how landlords feelings have been hurt every time the government moves to change regulations in the housing market. You dont get Vodafone issuing self-pitying statements about how they were being really nice before and now they have extra costs when mobile phone regulations are changed. Its like listening to a bunch of children.

Electric Sheep

murphaph wrote: »

So he should have continuously maintained the rent at the top end of the market rate? Yes or no.

Yes.

The_Conductor

testaccount123 wrote: »

Rubbish. Renting property is a business. The sooner we get to the point where it is treated as such by all parties the better.

There will be no more Mr. Nice Guy in future- and if there are commensurate rules brought in to protect landlords against tenants who overstay, don't pay their rent and/or damage property- landlords won't feel the need to give tenants deals to protect themselves from unknown tenants.

There are a cohort of tenants out there- as indeed, there are a cohort of landlords- who know how to play the system to their advantage.

The current legislation is lopsided in the extreme- there has to be commensurate safeguards built-in for landlords- alongside a financial incentive not to exit the market. As it stands- the legislation is simply painting a significant number of landlords into a corner- and they may very well decide to abandon the sector- and either sell properties, or leave them vacant for a period while they decide what they're going to do.

There will be no more Mr. Nice Guy in future- there shouldn't have been in the past- but there also shouldn't have been 25% rent increases............

Of interest- if market rents falls (aka we are ramping up supply side solutions adjacent to this- its predicted we'll construct 18,500 units in 2017- and possibly as many as 25,000 units per annum by 2020)- and supply reaches a stage that it outstrips demand (which is foreseeable)- will rent falls also be limited to 4% per 2 years- and if they are- will tenants kick up a fuss that rents aren't falling fast enough? Keep in mind between 2007 and 2008- national rents fell by 38% (that was the most extreme fall) and continued to fall for some further years. Rents were moderating even before these measures- however, the Minister is prescribing an increase- which come hell or high water- will be applied. Will there be a commensurate stickiness restricting falls to the selfsame 4% every 2 year review?

The_Conductor

testaccount123 wrote: »

You dont get Vodafone issuing self-pitying statements about how they were being really nice before and now they have extra costs when mobile phone regulations are changed. Its like listening to a bunch of children.

Have a read of the submissions Vodafone, EIR and the other telecom companies continually lob into Comreg- they most certainly do issue self pitying statements the whole time. You might be familiar with them, but I assure you they are there.

blackcard

The_Conductor wrote: »

In the example given- the landlord was not letting the property at the market rate- he was letting it as a significant discount to the market rate. He has incurred unexpected expenditure, of several thousand euro- and is now forbidden from increasing the rent (to a level which could still be below market rates) to assist him in covering the unexpected costs. All the while- he/she is taxed at up to 54% of the gross rental income...........

I can see why so many landlords will just throw in the towel and say its simply not worth it- esp. those who tried to help their tenants by keeping the rent significantly below the going rate.

You will always find cases where a landlord loses out but the vast majority of them are doing fine. If they have a problem now, it is because of some landlords gouging.
Why would many landlords throw in the towel when they can increase rents by12% over the next 3 years