Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

Donal55

GGTrek wrote: »

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.

The IPOA only represent 3% of landlords. Anyone kniw what the views are of the other landlord reprsentative associations?

GGTrek

Donal55 wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

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.

The IPOA only represent 3% of landlords. Anyone kniw what the views are of the other landlord reprsentative associations?

As far as I know the IPOA is the only landlord association that participated to every public consultation on government meddling of the residential tenancy law. All the other (few) Irish landlords' associations are tiny and not capable of mounting any serious legal challenge on their own.

Lux23

You know the government are supposed to write legislation for the Oireachtas to pass and are therefore perfectly within their rights to "meddle" with residential tenancy law. On what legal basis could landlords challenge the new laws anyhow?

murphaph

Lux23 wrote: »

You know the government are supposed to write legislation for the Oireachtas to pass and are therefore perfectly within their rights to "meddle" with residential tenancy law. On what legal basis could landlords challenge the new laws anyhow?

The constitution protects property rights. The government of the day in 1981 attempted to introduce rent controls but this was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. These measures sail close to the wind in this regard.

If the people of Ireland are happy for property ownership rights to be diluted somewhat to make these measures sit within the constitution, the government first needs to get the consent of the people in a referendum. The thing is, most people are property owners, not tenants. Most tenants even aspire to be property owners. So it's not at all a given that such a referendum would be passed!

The_Conductor

Lux23 wrote: »

On what legal basis could landlords challenge the new laws anyhow?

On constitutional grounds.
Ireland has very strong property rights enshrined in our constitution- and significant case law in defending those rights.
The Minister is trying to get around these constitutional rights- by emphasising the 'temporary' nature of his measures- however, the two year rent review rule brought in by his predecessor was also a 'temporary measure' and when you have a number of temporary measures taken in conjunction with one another- under Irish law, you have trouble.

If this is challenged- legally it would be incredibly difficult to defend it.

76544567

The_Conductor wrote: »

On constitutional grounds.
Ireland has very strong property rights enshrined in our constitution- and significant case law in defending those rights.
The Minister is trying to get around these constitutional rights- by emphasising the 'temporary' nature of his measures- however, the two year rent review rule brought in by his predecessor was also a 'temporary measure' and when you have a number of temporary measures taken in conjunction with one another- under Irish law, you have trouble.

If this is challenged- legally it would be incredibly difficult to defend it.

Who will challenge it though? There are a lot of people lining up looking todonate money for a challenge, but nobody out there who can accept that money and run with it. I thought the property owners association were making moves and am happy to donate a few hundred find them, but nothing happening yet.

Muhammed_1

The right to private property is not completely unqualified in the constitution. It is subject to a public interest clause.


On the other hand, the constitution does say that the 'private dwellings are inviolable' and there are no qualifications, and yet the courts have said that the police can enter if given permission from a court.


The constitution also says that women shall not be forced, by economic necessity, to work outside the home. I believe it was Joan Burton who declared that many irish women find it necessary to work outside the home for economic reasons.


The government ignores the constitution when it wishes.

The courts may not but what about the inviolability of dwellings?


Irish people mau also have rights to medical treatment under the constitution but the government refuses to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis, despite the fact that doctors say cannabis has medical affects.

Lux23

The_Conductor wrote: »

On constitutional grounds.
Ireland has very strong property rights enshrined in our constitution- and significant case law in defending those rights.
The Minister is trying to get around these constitutional rights- by emphasising the 'temporary' nature of his measures- however, the two year rent review rule brought in by his predecessor was also a 'temporary measure' and when you have a number of temporary measures taken in conjunction with one another- under Irish law, you have trouble.

If this is challenged- legally it would be incredibly difficult to defend it.

Fair enough. I would be surprised if someone doesn't challenge it so. Then again it would take so much time it would be hardly worth it.

murphaph

Lux23 wrote: »

Fair enough. I would be surprised if someone doesn't challenge it so. Then again it would take so much time it would be hardly worth it.

There's a lot of money at stake. It'll be worth it to someone.

Lumen

The_Conductor wrote: »

On constitutional grounds.
Ireland has very strong property rights enshrined in our constitution- and significant case law in defending those rights.

The Minister is trying to get around these constitutional rights- by emphasising the 'temporary' nature of his measures- however, the two year rent review rule brought in by his predecessor was also a 'temporary measure' and when you have a number of temporary measures taken in conjunction with one another- under Irish law, you have trouble.

If this is challenged- legally it would be incredibly difficult to defend it.

Article 43 of the Irish Constitution wrote:

The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

The enumerated rights are "transfer, bequeath, and inherit property". I don't see anything in there about a specific right to charge any amount of rent, nor about "enjoyment" of the property or similar, only that you can own it and transfer it.

So, being required by law to respect the rights of tenants in situ (for instance, when ownership of the the property is transferred) in no way conflicts with the constitution.

Also, I could be wrong but I think some people assume "property" means "housing" in the same way that some people think "racing" means "horse racing".

The constitution could be talking about your car or your horse as much as your house.

4ensic15

Lumen wrote: »

The enumerated rights are "transfer, bequeath, and inherit property". I don't see anything in there about a specific right to charge any amount of rent, nor about "enjoyment" of the property or similar, only that you can own it and transfer it.

So, being required by law to respect the rights of tenants in situ (for instance, when ownership of the the property is transferred) in no way conflicts with the constitution.

Also, I could be wrong but I think some people assume "property" means "housing" in the same way that some people think "racing" means "horse racing".

The constitution could be talking about your car or your horse as much as your house.

You have only quoted Article 43.

Various rights have been implied in the constitution.
Held by the Supreme court "That, in the absence of any justification permitted by the Constitution, the provisions of s. 9 of the bill, depriving the persons affected thereby of substantial portions of their proper rents, constituted an unjust attack on their property rights contrary to Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 2, of the Constitution."


What do you think "proper rents" means?

Lumen

4ensic15 wrote: »

You have only quoted Article 43.

Various rights have been implied in the constitution.
Held by the Supreme court "That, in the absence of any justification permitted by the Constitution, the provisions of s. 9 of the bill, depriving the persons affected thereby of substantial portions of their proper rents, constituted an unjust attack on their property rights contrary to Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 2, of the Constitution."


What do you think "proper rents" means?

I assume you are referring to this?

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/7FC625DAD10A956C802575F3002D6B7E/$FILE/Housing_%5B1983%5D%20IR%20181.htm

Do you have the text of the 1981 bill which this Supreme Court judgement ruled on? I can't find it.

axcel

My friend just got a text from her landlord saying that the government has restricted landlords to increasing their rent to 4% a year but that her landlord was going to leave it as it was because they were such good tenants and she appreciated how well they looked after the house.btw this is in rathgar where the market is actually sick and not many people could afford. My hero. Now that's a fair landlord. <mod snip: Please don't try to deliberately antagonise other posters>

Graham

Lizcent wrote: »

My friend just got a text from her landlord saying that the government has restricted landlords to increasing their rent to 4% a year but that her landlord was going to leave it as it was because they were such good tenants

Odd behaviour from the landlord. I could put your rent up but I won't.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

Odd behaviour from the landlord. I could put your rent up but I won't.

Not necessarily odd behaviour.
Its far from unusual to go that extra mile to keep good tenants.
Lots of people on this forum seem to be saying- you're not running your rental property as a business- if you're not charging market rent- however, there are different ways of running businesses- and indeed, there are many different businesses out there that are wildly successful- who emphasise aspects of their business, other than simply profit maximisation.

The poster has good tenants, and while he/she is perfectly entitled to increase the rent by 4%, they are electing not to do so- and to inform the tenants that they are not going to do so. This means the tenant is not worried over the Christmas that there is going to be a rent increase on their agenda- and not stress over it. It also means the landlord doesn't have to go to market again- and do the usual deep clean etc before a new tenant (not that there would necessarily be any reason to expect anything other than a deep clean).

If the landlord is satisfied with the rent and with the tenants- and had not the rent set at an artificially low level previously- then happy days- let good enough alone?

DubCount

Graham wrote: »

Odd behaviour from the landlord. I could put your rent up but I won't.

Actually, that could be quite a clever move by the LL. The 4% increase will probably not increase their after tax income by much. They get to send a good message to good existing tenants. Also, if the legislation is held to be unconstitutional or overturned in the market by the introduction of sundry charges etc., the LL will not be restricted in giving an increase to market rates at any time by virtue of the timing of the last rent review.

Lumen

Has there been much discussion of the negative side-effects for other renters?

Prices are set at the margin. Right now, there is a sort of convection current whereby lower income people are being forced out to cheaper areas as their landlords increase rents. They are replaced by higher earners (or those with lower costs, or those prepared to pay a higher proportion of their disposable as rent).

If this bill keeps existing lower income tenants in situ, the effect will be that the rents for all new rental stock (new builds and owner occupied stuff being sold to investors) will skyrocket, assuming* that new stock can be priced at marginal market rent rather than at average rents for existing tenancies in the area.

Assuming fixed budgets, higher earners will be paying more for a worse location and medium earners will be priced out entirely.

Young people living at home in Dublin will stay put for longer, older people trying to relocate from areas of the country with worse employment prospects will be forced to stay put or live on the far periphery, and young foreigners thinking of moving here will go some place else to work.

I suppose this another way of saying "people's personal circumstances will become stabilise", but that's not great if you have aspirations.

* It's a bit mad that a new build or property purchased from an owner occupier in a popular area could have double the rent of a rent-controlled existing tenancy, but I think that's how it works in other places.

beauf

Exactly what happened in Germany and Berlin.

Though they also have a problem with under the counter payments.

The_Conductor

If we are going to bring 18k new units on stream in 2017, of good quality, reasonably sized dwellings- where people actually want to live- then the scarcity element- which is what is driving rents- will begin to moderate.

The ESRI- is looking at the manner in which output is being ramped up- and predicts 25k units per annum coming on stream from 2020 onwards- which is only 3 years down the road. Its not quite the 30k we allegedly need- but its within an asses roar of it.

Supply side economics look likely to play a bigger part in 'fixing' the broken market- than any other factor- and hopefully it will lead to an unwinding of 'temporary measures' and a reappraisal of the market- based on reasonable supply and demand.

Will this mean those on social housing or lower incomes- may become marginalised and forced to move from high demand areas- yes, it will. Is this a bad thing- there is not a yes or a no answer to that one. I would argue that any local authority housing in high demand areas- should have an element ring fenced for public sector employees who work in the area- Gardaí, teachers, nurses etc, a further element ringfenced for the open market- and then perhaps half of it, or a little less- ringfenced for social housing tenants- which would hopefully prevent the historic ghettoization that we are all familiar with- think Tallaght, Clondalkin, Neilstown, Adamstown, Inchicore, Darndale etc etc

The manner in which output is being ramped up- has the potential to slowly fix a lot of the ills of the market- however, there are some measures necessary to try and mitigate against the failures of our past.

Lumen

The_Conductor wrote: »

I would argue that any local authority housing in high demand areas- should have an element ring fenced for public sector employees who work in the area- Gardaí, teachers, nurses etc

A better idea would be to vary public sector pay based on local accommodation costs, e.g. through variable (up and down!) accommodation allowances.

It's absurd that a garda in Leitrim gets the same rent allowance as one in Dublin. I understand the point of rent allowance (that Gardai are required to be shunted around the country) but the lack of discrimination is perverse. And the rolling of it into pay is ridiculous.

(sorry, a bit off-topic)

The_Conductor

Lumen wrote: »

A better idea would be to vary public sector pay based on local accommodation costs, e.g. through variable (up and down!) accommodation allowances.

It's absurd that a garda in Leitrim gets the same rent allowance as one in Dublin. I understand the point of rent allowance (that Gardai are required to be shunted around the country) but the lack of discrimination is perverse. And the rolling of it into pay is ridiculous.

(sorry, a bit off-topic)

Its what happens in other countries- i.e. public sector employees get an accommodation rating based on the relative cost of living in general areas. In the UK- a policeman in parts of London can have a rating 10 times higher than one in rural Wales.

In Ireland- the argument is jobs should be moved out of Dublin- and anyone who works in Dublin does so of their own volition and should not have their additional expenses (and its far from just housing- childcare etc are significantly higher) recognised. If you complain- the refrain is- move- no-one is telling you that you *have* to work there.

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

Not necessarily odd behaviour.
Its far from unusual to go that extra mile to keep good tenants.
Lots of people on this forum seem to be saying- you're not running your rental property as a business- if you're not charging market rent- however, there are different ways of running businesses- and indeed, there are many different businesses out there that are wildly successful- who emphasise aspects of their business, other than simply profit maximisation.

Not increasing the rent for good tenants I can understand. Texting a tenant out of the blue to say the government have said I can put your rent up but I won't is just odd.

Fian

DubCount wrote: »

Actually, that could be quite a clever move by the LL. The 4% increase will probably not increase their after tax income by much. They get to send a good message to good existing tenants. Also, if the legislation is held to be unconstitutional or overturned in the market by the introduction of sundry charges etc., the LL will not be restricted in giving an increase to market rates at any time by virtue of the timing of the last rent review.

I don't think it would be wise for landlords to follow this example - there is a risk that the text could be taken to be evidence that a "rent review" has occurred and that therefore no further review could take place for 12 months and in 12 months only 4% could be applied. Further the 2% per annum cap will apply until the first review after the new measures come into force.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

Not increasing the rent for good tenants I can understand. Texting a tenant out of the blue to say the government have said I can put your rent up but I won't is just odd.

Maybe it was sent to reassure the tenant over xmas and beyond, but phrased, badly.

GGTrek

Finally the Oireachtas published the bill as passed by the Dáil that will probably be approved by the Senad tomorrow:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2016/9216/B92d16S.pdf

I expect this to be the final bill, in my opinion the Senad will just rubber stamp it tomorrow and the president will sign within a few days. The only amendment of PART 3 that does not affect the current tenancies is the extension to 6 years of new part 4 tenancies, problem is that it is totally unclear now what happens to further part 4 tenancies: have they become indefinite tenancies by the backdoor with the repeal of section 42 and the repeal of any mention of further part 4?

The relevant changes are section 37 at page 43 of the document and section 41 at page 45 of the document.

sublime1

And will it come into law immediately? What about situations where tenants have give notice that they are moving out - will the landlord be able to set the market rate for the new incoming tenants?

Barely Hedged

Lizcent wrote: »

My friend just got a text from her landlord saying that the government has restricted landlords to increasing their rent to 4% a year but that her landlord was going to leave it as it was because they were such good tenants and she appreciated how well they looked after the house.btw this is in rathgar where the market is actually sick and not many people could afford. My hero. Now that's a fair landlord. <mod snip: Please don't try to deliberately antagonise other posters>

I just got a text from my bank saying they're not going to put my mortgage up by an extra 1% because wholesale funding costs just went up by that amount for them. They said it's because I've paid my mortgage every month and on time since inception.

You can guess that's a bloody lie. I have entered into a contract to pay a set amount each month for their services of providing debt for me. Why renting should be any different or interpreted differently shows the complete state of the Irish rental sector and the massive bias in favour of tenants who can absolve themselves of all responsibility and the risk associated with being a landlord

76544567

GGTrek wrote: »

Finally the Oireachtas published the bill as passed by the Dáil that will probably be approved by the Senad tomorrow:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2016/9216/B92d16S.pdf

I expect this to be the final bill, in my opinion the Senad will just rubber stamp it tomorrow and the president will sign within a few days. The only amendment of PART 3 that does not affect the current tenancies is the extension to 6 years of new part 4 tenancies, problem is that it is totally unclear now what happens to further part 4 tenancies: have they become indefinite tenancies by the backdoor with the repeal of section 42 and the repeal of any mention of further part 4?

The relevant changes are section 37 at page 43 of the document and section 41 at page 45 of the document.

So does that mean that if someone is already 2 years into a part 4 that they can still be asked to leave in another two years? And only after that does the 6 year part 4 kick in?

Or is everyone currently half way through a part 4 at the moment now on a 6 year part 4?

The_Conductor

76544567 wrote: »

So does that mean that if someone is already 2 years into a part 4 that they can still be asked to leave in another two years? And only after that does the 6 year part 4 kick in?

Or is everyone currently half way through a part 4 at the moment now on a 6 year part 4?

If it is worded specifically to cover 'new part IV' tenancies- any pre-existing Part IV tenancies have their predetermined termination dates- it is only once they go over their current 4 year cycle that they migrate to a 6 year cycle.

Don't be surprised if the President refers the legislation to council before signing it- any legislation that brings in 'temporary measures' which would not otherwise be put before the houses of the Oireachtas, habitually is.

76544567

The_Conductor wrote: »

If it is worded specifically to cover 'new part IV' tenancies- any pre-existing Part IV tenancies have their predetermined termination dates- it is only once they go over their current 4 year cycle that they migrate to a 6 year cycle.

Don't be surprised if the President refers the legislation to council before signing it- any legislation that brings in 'temporary measures' which would not otherwise be put before the houses of the Oireachtas, habitually is.

You are right.
I suppose it's wait and see.
I am currently considering a few options but it's all over the place at the moment.
I started a new thread to as other LLs what they are planning to do and outlined some of my thinking on it, but who knows really.
It's a total mess.