Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

awec

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.

So to clarify, anyone currently in a part 4 can still be evicted at the end of those 4 years for any reason?

Then at 4 years and 6 months they gain "part 4" rights again for 6 further years?

Personally happy to see these regulations come in as our landlord has always sunk the boot in and increased the max possible every single chance they have got, but our 4 years is up in June and wondering if I should just expect an eviction notice in the post.

murphaph

It is not unlikely that your LL will seek to exit the rental market and go with airbnb if he's in a position to do so. I know I'm strongly considering it.

GGTrek

The_Conductor wrote: »

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.

Problem is that section 42 and further part 4 tenancies seem to have been repealed completely by the new amendments. So afaik the landlord does not have anymore the first 6 months of a further part 4 tenancy to give a termination notice for no reason. Only section standing for termination for no reason at 4 years time is section 34(b), but it is not clear to me how to provide a termination notice only based on section 34(b) since RTB does not like section 34 termination notices with no reason.

Other change to landlord obligations to enforce the 4% rule:
Amendment of section 12 (obligations of landlords) of Act of 2004
in   paragraph   (h)(iii)   and   inserting   the   following   paragraph   after paragraph (h):
(i)in the case of a tenancy of a dwelling in a rent pressure zone (within the meaning given in section 19(7)), where the tenancy commences on or after the commencement of section 33 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act   2016, furnish   the   tenant,   in   writing,   with   the   following information at the commencement of the tenancy:
(i) the amount of rent that was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(ii) the date the rent was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(iii) a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to section 19(4).

So when signing a tenancy agreement or even if you don´t want to sign it since there is no obligation in law, you have to state the previous rent.

Problem is that neither the new tenant, nor the RTB have any means of verifying this statement. :P

awec

murphaph wrote: »

It is not unlikely that your LL will seek to exit the rental market and go with airbnb if he's in a position to do so. I know I'm strongly considering it.

My landlord is a company that owns hundreds, if not thousands of properties.

76544567

GGTrek wrote: »

Problem is that section 42 and further part 4 tenancies seem to have been repealed completely by the new amendments. So afaik the landlord does not have anymore the first 6 months of a further part 4 tenancy to give a termination notice for no reason. Only section standing for termination for no reason at 4 years time is section 34(b), but it is not clear to me how to provide a termination notice only based on section 34(b) since RTB does not like section 34 termination notices with no reason.

Other change to landlord obligations to enforce the 4% rule:
Amendment of section 12 (obligations of landlords) of Act of 2004
in   paragraph   (h)(iii)   and   inserting   the   following   paragraph   after paragraph (h):
(i)in the case of a tenancy of a dwelling in a rent pressure zone (within the meaning given in section 19(7)), where the tenancy commences on or after the commencement of section 33 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act   2016, furnish   the   tenant,   in   writing,   with   the   following information at the commencement of the tenancy:
(i) the amount of rent that was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(ii) the date the rent was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(iii) a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to section 19(4).

So when signing a tenancy agreement or even if you don´t want to sign it since there is no obligation in law, you have to state the previous rent.

Problem is that neither the new tenant, nor the RTB have any meaning of verifying this statement. :P

More hoops.
You know. I think I'm just out. Short term let's only for me from here on in and if that doesn't work I'm selling up. It's like a bloody minefield for a LL now. Just not worth the effort.

murphaph

awec wrote: »

My landlord is a company that owns hundreds, if not thousands of properties.

In that case I don't see any reason to worry as they will be obliged to offer the next tenant the place for the same rent (+4% if allowable at the time).

awec

murphaph wrote: »

In that case I don't see any reason to worry as they will be obliged to offer the next tenant the place for the same rent (+4% if allowable at the time).

Ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks murphaph.

Feel sorry for the landlords out there who have been doing their tenants a good turn but haven't a shred of sympathy for my own. They own so many properties in the area that they can pretty much manipulate the market to whatever they want.

Jayesdiem

GGTrek wrote: »

The_Conductor wrote: »

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.

Problem is that section 42 and further part 4 tenancies seem to have been repealed completely by the new amendments. So afaik the landlord does not have anymore the first 6 months of a further part 4 tenancy to give a termination notice for no reason. Only section standing for termination for no reason at 4 years time is section 34(b), but it is not clear to me how to provide a termination notice only based on section 34(b) since RTB does not like section 34 termination notices with no reason.

Other change to landlord obligations to enforce the 4% rule:
Amendment of section 12 (obligations of landlords) of Act of 2004
in   paragraph   (h)(iii)   and   inserting   the   following   paragraph   after paragraph (h):
(i)in the case of a tenancy of a dwelling in a rent pressure zone (within the meaning given in section 19(7)), where the tenancy commences on or after the commencement of section 33 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act   2016, furnish   the   tenant,   in   writing,   with   the   following information at the commencement of the tenancy:
(i) the amount of rent that was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(ii) the date the rent was last set under a tenancy for the dwelling;
(iii) a statement as to how the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling has been calculated having regard to section 19(4).

So when signing a tenancy agreement or even if you don´t want to sign it since there is no obligation in law, you have to state the previous rent.

Problem is that neither the new tenant, nor the RTB have any meaning of verifying this statement. :P

Of course they do. The RTB have rent records from the previous tenancy if the landlord registered it. In my case I had a new tenant sign her tenancy agreement this week, which I assume protects me from legislative change because it was signed off prior to the introduction of any new law.

murphaph

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Of course they do. The RTB have rent records from the previous tenancy if the landlord registered it. In my case I had a new tenant sign her tenancy agreement this week, which I assume protects me from legislative change because it was signed off prior to the introduction of any new law.

Up until now it has not been a requirement to keep the RTB informed of any changes to the rent during a tenancy however.

beauf

awec wrote: »

My landlord is a company that owns hundreds, if not thousands of properties.

awec wrote: »

Ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks murphaph.

Feel sorry for the landlords out there who have been doing their tenants a good turn but haven't a shred of sympathy for my own. They own so many properties in the area that they can pretty much manipulate the market to whatever they want.

It seems tenants and the Govt want to push out small LL in favour of larger LL's. So you'll be seeing more of that I expect.

murphaph

beauf wrote: »

It seems tenants and the Govt want to push out small LL in favour of larger LL's. So you'll be seeing more of that I expect.

And that's if you can even find a rental...I'm thinking outside the cities the big landlords won't bother.

Fian

Fian wrote: »

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.

Very good point, it technically was a rent review imo.

DubCount

Judith Fit Mosquito wrote: »

Very good point, it technically was a rent review imo.

Not sure I would agree. There was no notice period, it was not in writing, it did not involve a new rental rate or a date from which it takes effect, and it did not come with examples of other comparable rates. I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't sound like a valid notice to me.

GGTrek

This joke of a law has been sent to the President for signature today, the Senad did not even discuss it:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/seanad-passes-rent-cap-laws-769571.html

Important about the speed (they gave 5 days to the President to sign): "Senators also passed a motion asking President Higgins to sign the legislation earlier than ordinarily allowed, so that the caps can be introduced immediately."

Another worrying sign for landlords outside Dublin and Cork:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/simon-coveneys-bill-on-rental-sector-passed-by-the-seanad-35312099.html

These zones will be extended to parts of Galway, Waterford and commuter counties around Dublin, once rents in these areas are assessed in the new year.

The extension to those areas came after Mr Coveney agreed with Fianna Fáil that the assesment process should be fast tracked.

cerastes

murphaph wrote: »

It is not unlikely that your LL will seek to exit the rental market and go with airbnb if he's in a position to do so. I know I'm strongly considering it.

There must be downsides to airbnb? Id already given up renting out my house long before this came in, and lived in it since, but I was thinking of doing room to lets on the basis of the benefits, I know thats not affected by the new legislation but Id ruled out airbnb myself because the same benefits not being available and a decision just to stay away from it all from bad experiences.

This whole can of worms has reminded me how I came to un-entangle myself from renting which essentially amounted to bad tenants who no matter how much you vet can essentially feel they can do as they please and get away with it it (aside from a change in my own circumstances, that Im actually relieved by now).

I was appalled to listen to (I think it was a rerun) of a livetalk programme on LMFM where one of the speakers said landlords were "bitching" and said if they didnt impose this now, they'd have no social housing?? I was aghast that the person couldnt put 2+2 together and realise that councils had disposed of their social housing and now this person (I looked the show up later and I think it may have been O'Dowd?) seemed to think landlords were obliged to provide social housing, and yet again he couldnt get his thick head around how there werent enough lettable properties not realising no person in their right mind would invest in such a thing on the basis of the conditions.

I'm not sure what the advantages of airbnb are over simply letting rooms? but Im wondering how this mess has been applied seemingly suggested as teetering on unconstitutional, what might they impose in other circumstances like rent a room or airbnb. I know nothing about airbnb, and my understanding is the full tax will be applied and none of the benefits of renting a room?.

quadrifoglio verde

Airbnb isn't as attractive if you're resident in the property due to the rent a room rules.

However if the property isn't your principal residence and is in an area where airbnbs are in high demand, then airbnb becomes very attractive.
Higher rate of return to offset the increased workload, without the crap that a landlord has to deal with

tommyb123

tommyb123 wrote: »

Hey folks. So we got a letter from the estate agents last week telling us our rent will be going up by 300euro a month in March. We moved in in feb 2015. Because the rent review was already carried out does this mean we will not be covered under this new legislation?

Anyone have any idea where we stand with regard to the new legislation ? Will out rent be restricted to the 4% increase or will the fact they have already carried out the review screw us ??

April 73

tommyb123 wrote: »

Anyone have any idea where we stand with regard to the new legislation ? Will out rent be restricted to the 4% increase or will the fact they have already carried out the review screw us ??

My understanding of the current legislation is that a rent review can only take place two years after signing a new tenancy & that 90 days notice must be given before the rent increases.

So I think the agent issued the rent review too early.. Which makes it an invalid review. I would challenge the agent on this one.

Baby01032012

April 73 wrote: »

My understanding of the current legislation is that a rent review can only take place two years after signing a new tenancy & that 90 days notice must be given before the rent increases.

So I think the agent issued the rent review too early.. Which makes it an invalid review. I would challenge the agent on this one.

That is correct. What the agency did was illegal. I wish I could do the same, instead I'm bound by the law on a rent that's 30% below market value and that 30% below will be limited to a 4% increase when the 2 year term expires.

April 73

Surely agents should understand the laws surrounding tenancy agreements. If a tenant just accepted this they would pay €3600 a year more than they legally have to.

Tommyb123 - It's worth looking at the RTB website to see exactly what wording needs to be included to make a valid rent review. You should definitely challenge this.

I agree that where s lanlord is charging below market rent this new legislation following immediately on from Alan Kelly's two year freeze is clobbering a certain section of landlords unfairly.
Where someone is charging market rates (which are incredibly high in some areas) a 4% increase seems not too unreasonable - if the rule really is for a three year period. By then there will have been five years of rent controls though. When does temporary become permanent?

4ensic15

Rents are only 10% higher than they were in 2007. If in 2007 that rent increases had been limited by law to no more than 1% a year for the next then
the current position would be no different .

DubCount

DubCount wrote: »

Not sure I would agree. There was no notice period, it was not in writing, it did not involve a new rental rate or a date from which it takes effect, and it did not come with examples of other comparable rates. I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't sound like a valid notice to me.

Due to the very badly written and confusing law around rent reviews though the review is being considered the act of just looking at the rent and deciding if it should be increased or decreased (where as mine and many others would say the review should be the actual change in rent).

The LL in this instance has looked at the rent and decided not to change it (and has admitted this by texting the tenant) so I think it can be considered a review. Also an invalid review counts as a review and resets the time period on when the next review can occur.

76544567

4ensic15 wrote: »

Rents are only 10% higher than they were in 2007. If in 2007 that rent increases had been limited by law to no more than 1% a year for the next then
the current position would be no different .

Many landlords who were active in 2007 would have been making a loss in the intervening years and might only now be in a position to actually alleviate part of those losses.
So it's ok to make a loss, but not ok to make a profit it seems.

Fian

tommyb123 wrote: »

Anyone have any idea where we stand with regard to the new legislation ? Will out rent be restricted to the 4% increase or will the fact they have already carried out the review screw us ??

If you moved in in Feb 2015 no rent review can be carried out until Feb 2017. At that point a 4% rent increase can be imposed, after the 90 day notice period.

murphaph

Got this today:

Good afternoon Mr. XXX,

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding however your email was brought to Leo's attention. The bill was passed by the Seanad yesterday and will now be enacted. Unfortunately, you are probably in the minority in that you have been fair and generous to your tenants. I hope things work out for you with your new tenants.

Kind regards,
<mod snip: you edited out your name but left the employee>
Personal Assistant
Leo Varadkar TD
Minister for Social Protection

So, a PFO from Leo and a massive assumption on their part that the majority of landlords have been price gouging. I think these clowns have no idea what's coming as the much maligned small time landlord sells up to (mostly) owner occupiers, reducing the number of bed spaces overall.

testaccount123

Thats hilarious! Im amazed how rents are rocketing while every LL on boards is charging his tenants 30% under market rate out of the goodness of his heart.

The sooner these spoofers are driven out of the housing industry the better.

Graham

testaccount123 wrote: »

Thats hilarious! Im amazed how rents are rocketing while every LL on boards is charging his tenants 30% under market rate out of the goodness of his heart.

The sooner these spoofers are driven out of the housing industry the better.

Sweeping and wildly inaccurate whilst also suggesting driving landlords out of the market is a good idea.

hytrogen

testaccount123 wrote:

The sooner these spoofers are driven out of the housing industry the better.

And replaced by who or what exactly?? The 'evil corporate vulture fund faceless' landlord, muggins off the street who's been banging his drum for a house because he's entitled to it under his benefits or worse the government?!

Donal55

murphaph wrote: »

Got this today:


So, a PFO from Leo and a massive assumption on their part that the majority of landlords have been price gouging. I think these clowns have no idea what's coming as the much maligned small time landlord sells up to (mostly) owner occupiers, reducing the number of bed spaces overall.

People keep saying on here that landlords are selling up yet figures show that there were nett increases of landlords of 1400 for first 9 months of this year and an annual total of almost 2000 increase as of last week according to Lorcan Sirr.
At the rate these landlords are selling up pretty soon we'll have a surplus of tenancies available ☺

Graham

Donal55 wrote: »

People keep saying on here that landlords are selling up yet figures show that there were nett increases of landlords of 1400 for first 9 months of this year and an annual total of almost 2000 increase as of last week according to Lorcan Sirr.
At the rate these landlords are selling up pretty soon we'll have a surplus of tenancies available ☺

Would be interesting to see how many of those additions were the bulk purchase and return to the market of previously uncompleted complexes.