Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

Options
1…1314161819

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    bellissima
    Registered Users Posts: 37 ✭bellissima


    A number of landlords out there are letting one property because they inherited a house, or maybe found themselves with a spare property when they got married because both had houses. They are not in the letting business to make a lot of money. They just want the house maintained and a modest return until a son, daughter, niece or nephew may wish to live there. Many have not put up the rent for a long time. This hyper- regulation may see these people not bothering to let any more and taking back their houses on one of the legitimate grounds for doing so.They may be happy to shed the responsibility of tax returns, maintenance, PRTB etc It could see tenants who were happily living in properties for a long time now being asked to leave within eight months. Very counter-productive in some cases!


  • Options
    #453
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,059 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    bellissima wrote: »
    A number of landlords out there are letting one property because they inherited a house, or maybe found themselves with a spare property when they got married because both had houses. They are not in the letting business to make a lot of money. They just want the house maintained and a modest return until a son, daughter, niece or nephew may wish to live there. Many have not put up the rent for a long time. This hyper- regulation may see these people not bothering to let any more and taking back their houses on one of the legitimate grounds for doing so.They may be happy to shed the responsibility of tax returns, maintenance, PRTB etc It could see tenants who were happily living in properties for a long time now being asked to leave within eight months. Very counter-productive in some cases!
    None of that will make any difference to housing supply/demand unless there are changes to the number of occupants.


  • Options
    #454
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Lumen wrote: »
    bellissima wrote: »
    A number of landlords out there are letting one property because they inherited a house, or maybe found themselves with a spare property when they got married because both had houses. They are not in the letting business to make a lot of money. They just want the house maintained and a modest return until a son, daughter, niece or nephew may wish to live there. Many have not put up the rent for a long time. This hyper- regulation may see these people not bothering to let any more and taking back their houses on one of the legitimate grounds for doing so.They may be happy to shed the responsibility of tax returns, maintenance, PRTB etc It could see tenants who were happily living in properties for a long time now being asked to leave within eight months. Very counter-productive in some cases!
    None of that will make any difference to housing supply/demand unless there are changes to the number of occupants.
    I beg to strongly disagree on this latest statement. On average owner occupancies are less "dense" than tenants' ones. In a substantial amount of cases you will have less occupants when doing a swap of tenants with owner occupiers, so yes the current ill thought and rushed gov measures by driving occasional landlords out of the market will worsen instead of improving the housing crisis. These are not zero sum games. It might improve the situation for people that can afford to buy, but the collateral damage for tenants will be big.


  • Options
    #455
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    bellissima wrote: »
    A number of landlords out there are letting one property because they inherited a house, or maybe found themselves with a spare property when they got married because both had houses. They are not in the letting business to make a lot of money. They just want the house maintained and a modest return until a son, daughter, niece or nephew may wish to live there. Many have not put up the rent for a long time. This hyper- regulation may see these people not bothering to let any more and taking back their houses on one of the legitimate grounds for doing so.They may be happy to shed the responsibility of tax returns, maintenance, PRTB etc It could see tenants who were happily living in properties for a long time now being asked to leave within eight months. Very counter-productive in some cases!

    The number of landlords have increased this year.


  • Options
    #456
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    I particularly like Murphaph's description of how it is handled in Germany- it really sounds like a good way to go.

    I do agree with Athtrasna too though- the tenant does get to say how the complex is run- and shouldn't.

    So you want the tenant to pay your mgt fee and not have a say.
    Better so if its left the way it is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Donal55 wrote: »
    The_Conductor wrote: »
    I particularly like Murphaph's description of how it is handled in Germany- it really sounds like a good way to go.

    I do agree with Athtrasna too though- the tenant does get to say how the complex is run- and shouldn't.

    So you want the tenant to pay your mgt fee and not have a say.
    Better so if its left the way it is.

    Dont move outside the little Island of Ireland or you will be in for a big shock. Tenants actually do pay for the agent and management fees and have no say in the running of the scheme. Further more depending on the country tenants also provide their own furniture /  electrical goods and dont get a discount for doing so. In ireland tenants have a very easy life.


  • Options
    #458
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    I'd be fine with providing my own furniture and paying fees etc if I had the rights and security of tenure that German tenants have. I don't want to be responsible for the landlord's junk. I'd rather paint my own walls, put down my own carpet, etc. But I'm not going to do that if the landlord can come along tomorrow and say he's selling and evict me. If landlords want to be a business they need to start treating tenants as customers. A service that can be suddenly withdrawn for spurious reasons is not a good service.

    But I think the government understands this. Landlords will get their tax cuts, but only if they give tenants security of tenure. It'll be opt-in, getting around the false but strongly held perception that the constitution grants unassailable private property rights. Reluctant landlords who want the freedom to cash out of the market whenever they want without the hassle of sitting tenants can continue to do so but won't get favourite tax treatment.


  • Options
    #459
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    But I'm not going to do that if the landlord can come along tomorrow and say he's selling and evict me. If landlords want to be a business they need to start treating tenants as customers. A service that can be suddenly withdrawn for spurious reasons is not a good service.

    Under the current legislation, there's little point a landlord entering into a long-term lease when a tenant can opt-out of that agreement at will. Just another unintended consequence of the constantly shifting legislative sands.


  • Options
    #460
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    I'd be fine with providing my own furniture and paying fees etc if I had the rights and security of tenure that German tenants have. I don't want to be responsible for the landlord's junk. I'd rather paint my own walls, put down my own carpet, etc. But I'm not going to do that if the landlord can come along tomorrow and say he's selling and evict me. If landlords want to be a business they need to start treating tenants as customers. A service that can be suddenly withdrawn for spurious reasons is not a good service.

    But I think the government understands this. Landlords will get their tax cuts, but only if they give tenants security of tenure. It'll be opt-in, getting around the false but strongly held perception that the constitution grants unassailable private property rights. Reluctant landlords who want the freedom to cash out of the market whenever they want without the hassle of sitting tenants can continue to do so but won't get favourite tax treatment.
    Landlords in Germany can't evict to sell (but Ireland will change this soon too) but they can claim own use to evict, even if the tenant has beautifully furnished the place.


  • Options
    #461
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    murphaph wrote: »
    Landlords in Germany can't evict to sell (but Ireland will change this soon too) but they can claim own use to evict, even if the tenant has beautifully furnished the place.

    Yes, but it's a long process and they have to justify it

    I don't have an issue with landlords claiming for their own use if they need it. The main issue for most Irish tenants is the evict to sell clause.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    I'd be fine with providing my own furniture and paying fees etc if I had the rights and security of tenure that German tenants have.

    One thing I've learned from this thread is that 'German' model is also wrought with flaws and the rental market is just as disastrous there.


  • Options
    #463
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    The main issue for most Irish tenants is the evict to sell clause.

    Why do you have an issue with this? Banks generally refuse to give mortgages to sitting rents. So immediately your landlord has had his property devalued as it is limited to cash buyers only. Then there is the fact only about 20% of property sales are to BTL investors. So immediately your landlord have reduced his potential pool of buyers again. At what stage does someone desire to have tenancy security outway the property owners right to get the best price?

    If you want a long term letting like you seem to want in your previous posts, pick a landlord who will offer it. If you live in Dublin, there is nothing stopping you getting a letting from an REIT who wont be selling the apartment tomorrow or moving in his family members. Some offer unfurnished AFAIK.

    Some of your issues with the rent market are resolved with just letting from an REIT. There is no need to change all the tenancy laws, if tenants just rented from landlords who suit their needs better


  • Options
    #464
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,715 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    Yes, but it's a long process and they have to justify it

    I don't have an issue with landlords claiming for their own use if they need it. The main issue for most Irish tenants is the evict to sell clause.

    I don't see why on earth the clause to evict for selling should be removed. If you own a property you should retain rights to that property, I'd argue more rights than are there already not less. A tenant is simply renting a property and should not have such strong rights to stay there in events like selling, moving in etc etc.

    It will have a big impact on the ability to sell and the price that can be achieved and it's totally unfair on the property owner.

    Renting should never give someone the rights they would have owning a place and that's the direction we are heading in and I would very much disagree with it.

    Even as things stand any LL would be mad to rent to people they think might want to live there long term as they could be stuck with them for a long long time.


  • Options
    #465
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    handlemaster wrote: »
    Dont move outside the little Island of Ireland or you will be in for a big shock. Tenants actually do pay for the agent and management fees and have no say in the running of the scheme. Further more depending on the country tenants also provide their own furniture /  electrical goods and dont get a discount for doing so. In ireland tenants have a very easy life.

    Landlords here however dont want the 10/20 30 year leases like our Dutch or German cousins provide. A lot of them want it both ways here from what I'm hearing.


  • Options
    #466
    76544567
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭76544567


    As a landlord I would love a 10 year lease.
    Problem is its only me committing to the 10 years.
    The tenant, even though they sign a lease for the 10 years is in no way tied to it.
    Whereas the LL would be.
    If it was a proper two sided lease agreement, then yes, very happy to deal.


  • Options
    #467
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    76544567 wrote: »
    As a landlord I would love a 10 year lease.
    Problem is its only me committing to the 10 years.
    The tenant, even though they sign a lease for the 10 years is in no way tied to it.
    Whereas the LL would be.
    If it was a proper two sided lease agreement, then yes, very happy to deal.

    Have a proper deposit then- like on the continent- where 4 or 6 months rent isn't unusual- so the tenant has a vested interest in the property. At the moment- the one month deposit- simply doesn't reflect the risk associated with tenanting a property (for a significant number of tenants). By all means lodge the deposit with the RTB (or an agency specifically designated to handle deposits- having a body other than the RTB manage deposits would be viewed favourably by both tenants and landlords- as the glacial pace at which the RTB operates is not conducive for either tenants or landlords).

    The risk is very much one sided- and the structures, such as they are- protect the tenant, not the landlord.


  • Options
    #468
    76544567
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭76544567


    A friend had a tenant leave after 7 months after the tenant had signed and asked for a two year lease. It was the week before Christmas. They just left sending a text looking for their deposit back. My friend decided to keep the 1 month deposit as it was over a month before it was rented again.
    Well he was hauled before the PRTB and told to give the deposit back. Even after producing the signed lease agreement, the text from the tenant to move out and proof that he was unable to get it in rentable shape and rent it for over a month.
    Lease meant nothing for the tenant.


  • Options
    #469
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Donal55 wrote: »
    Landlords here however dont want the 10/20 30 year leases like our Dutch or German cousins provide. A lot of them want it both ways here from what I'm hearing.

    Maybe for balance you'd post the conditions attached to that. Including the associated protection for the LLs.


  • Options
    #470
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    <deleted quote snipped>

    Evict them for sale? Wouldn't that be two birds with one stone?


  • Options
    #471
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    76544567 wrote: »
    I dont know what to do.
    "

    The reality is you could do nothing before this legislation anyway. LL had almost no control even before this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    beauf wrote: »
    Maybe for balance you'd post the conditions attached to that. Including the associated protection for the LLs.

    Exactly. Protection for both sides. Lots of people on here promoting the German and Continental model. Those protections are a two way street including long leases.
    However I digress, what we have in the FG/FF plan is not whats practiced abroad.


  • Options
    #473
    76544567
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭76544567


    That guy I was quoting doesnt want to sell. Not everyone can sell or want to sell, for various reasons. I feel for them.
    Some people even just want their properties back and left vacant and used by themselves whenever they want or need to instead of renting.

    However I can sell, and that is what I will be doing if this goes through. Im really hoping a challenge will have it dropped on a multitude of grounds so I dont have to, but thats where I am at the moment.


  • Options
    #474
    thierry14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭thierry14


    76544567 wrote: »
    I was just reading a thread over on AAM, that gave me the idea to look over here to see if these new rules could be somehow objected to.
    I imagine there are a lot of similar stories.
    I know out of all of my friends who own rentals there are anyway.
    I have two and if nothing is done about it Im selling up anyway. I dont really have any reason that is binding me to keep them, like some people have. Its like my properties dont belong to me anymore, so i dont see the point in hanging on to them waiting for the next hammer blow to make it even worse.


    Government have just killed the rental market with all these rules, hearing more and more of these stories

    If I were you I would just sell it, give the the tenants there notice and have a peaceful life


  • Options
    #475
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    76544567 wrote: »
    That guy I was quoting doesnt want to sell. Not everyone can sell or want to sell, for various reasons. I feel for them.
    Some people even just want their properties back and left vacant and used by themselves whenever they want or need to instead of renting.

    However I can sell, and that is what I will be doing if this goes through. Im really hoping a challenge will have it dropped on a multitude of grounds so I dont have to, but thats where I am at the moment.

    Please don't quote from other Internet fora. If you want to continue that discussion please do so on their site. Thanks

    Mod


  • Options
    #476
    76544567
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭76544567


    <QUOTE>
    beauf

    The reality is you could do nothing before this legislation anyway. LL had almost no control even before this.</QUOTE>

    Well the guy who wrote the post I was quoting said that he was going to ask the tenant to leave after the 4 years of the part 4 was up. I believe its 6 years now, soon to be life probably.


  • Options
    #477
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    76544567 wrote: »
    That guy I was quoting doesnt want to sell. Not everyone can sell or want to sell, for various reasons. I feel for them.
    Some people even just want their properties back and left vacant and used by themselves whenever they want or need to instead of renting.

    However I can sell, and that is what I will be doing if this goes through. Im really hoping a challenge will have it dropped on a multitude of grounds so I dont have to, but thats where I am at the moment.
    Do like I did. Send an email to IPOA info@ipoa.ie and explain that you are willing to participate in the funding of a legal challenge to the new regulations. Pass the word around to other landlords you know. Since 2008 the Irish government has given nothing but aggravation to landlords: they destroyed housing supply and they blame the landlords. It is time the landlords mount a challenge to the Irish politicians to show we are tired of their meddling in the renting market. Last challenge to political meddling on property rights was in 1982. A long time has passed and the current political generation needs to be reminded of the limits to their always rushed meddling at budget and Christmas time.


  • Options
    #478
    76544567
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭76544567


    I'll do that.
    They really need to update their website because I would imagine they have a hell of a lot of people wanting to join now. And who want to donate money for a challenge. They should start a go fund me page for it.


  • Options
    #479
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    senordingdong wrote: »
    One thing I've learned from this thread is that 'German' model is also wrought with flaws and the rental market is just as disastrous there.
    It's certainly not the tenant's utopia it's often made out to be.


  • Options
    #480
    mattser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,218 ✭✭✭mattser


    76544567 wrote: »
    A friend had a tenant leave after 7 months after the tenant had signed and asked for a two year lease. It was the week before Christmas. They just left sending a text looking for their deposit back. My friend decided to keep the 1 month deposit as it was over a month before it was rented again.
    Well he was hauled before the PRTB and told to give the deposit back. Even after producing the signed lease agreement, the text from the tenant to move out and proof that he was unable to get it in rentable shape and rent it for over a month.
    Lease meant nothing for the tenant.

    They should reduce the name again to the Tenants Board.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    April 73
    Registered Users Posts: 846 ✭✭✭April 73


    mattser wrote: »
    They should reduce the name again to the Tenants Board.

    Brilliant. The best assessment of the PRTB/RTB that I have seen.


Advertisement