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
Comments
-
-
I dont know. However he did state they were nett increases so possibly includes some of the above.
Would be interesting to find out for certain. I have a suspicion that a good chunk of the increase is down to entire large-scale developments coming to the rental market. If that's the case, the earlier figures you quote are unlikely to be indicative of next years figures or the underlying reality.0 -
Link?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 last week according to Lorcan Sirr.0 -
It means there were moer registered landlords. How many were operating previously without registration? There are new late payment penalties.0
-
Section 42 has been repealed completely and permanently, so in my opinion tenancies have become indefinite tenancies since it is not possible to terminate a tenancy without cause anymore after the first 6 months. Any comments on this? I believe this is even more important than rent controls. I am not sure if section 34(b) which is still valid can be used to terminate at 4 years a current tenancy.0
-
Advertisement
-
Section 42 has been repealed completely and permanently, so in my opinion tenancies have become indefinite tenancies since it is not possible to terminate a tenancy without cause anymore after the first 6 months. Any comments on this? I believe this is even more important than rent controls. I am not sure if section 34(b) which is still valid can be used to terminate at 4 years a current tenancy.
Surely not. That would mean that the government ha e effectively stolen people's properties from them.0 -
-
testaccount123 wrote: »You know its not mandatory to rent your property to someone else?
You know that particular legislation wasn't in place when most owners decided to rent out a property?0 -
-
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.
That's an incredible response from a minister's personal assistant. I'm actually shocked at that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 30614
That's an incredible response from a minister's personal assistant. I'm actually shocked at that.
Its actually quite remarkable- however, its also not entirely surprising.
Keep in mind- Leo and Simon are warring parties both princes to the throne and it suits their agendas for the other party to fall flat on their face.
Its a heads I win- tails you loose for Leo- no matter what he does- he'll be painted as Robin Hood- and if/when Simon ends up defending his legislation in court- if the legislation falls (which contrary to popular belief isn't as rare an occurrence as people imagine)- Leo gets the kudos- while Simon has to pick up the pieces.
On a related note- I've an e-mail from a property owner in Smithfield in Dublin- who is involved in banking in London- and whose job may be moving back to Dublin. They do not own any other property (anywhere)- and had imagined they could simply take back their property and all would be hunky dory. They received correspondence from their tenants yesterday- who say they have been advised by Threshold not to agree anything with him- as he will probably have to make a significant payment to them to get his property back when he needs it. The tenants clearly think they are in for a payday when his job is relocated here (he has been actively trying to get a relocation since Brexit- and his company have confirmed they are moving jobs here and are actively recruiting both new staff and determining interest in pre-existing staff- to move to Dublin).
I think we're going to see more and more of this...........
I have to say Threshold were fast off the mark advising tenants they could legitimately get a payday if the landlord ever needs the property back. Wonder how much the guy is going to have to pay them. For good measure- the tenants have been there 7 years now- and their rent- which he reviewed in the run up to the 2 year rule last year- is about 40% below market rates- as he was terrified of getting new tenants.......... It really is a case of 'no good deed goes unpunished' for him...........0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13774
The Conductor that really is horrific for your friend, bloody hell. Hopefully someone will challenge this new legislation. How you can't take back your own home when you need it is beyond me.0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »Its actually quite remarkable- however, its also not entirely surprising.
Keep in mind- Leo and Simon are warring parties both princes to the throne and it suits their agendas for the other party to fall flat on their face.
Its a heads I win- tails you loose for Leo- no matter what he does- he'll be painted as Robin Hood- and if/when Simon ends up defending his legislation in court- if the legislation falls (which contrary to popular belief isn't as rare an occurrence as people imagine)- Leo gets the kudos- while Simon has to pick up the pieces.
On a related note- I've an e-mail from a property owner in Smithfield in Dublin- who is involved in banking in London- and whose job may be moving back to Dublin. They do not own any other property (anywhere)- and had imagined they could simply take back their property and all would be hunky dory. They received correspondence from their tenants yesterday- who say they have been advised by Threshold not to agree anything with him- as he will probably have to make a significant payment to them to get his property back when he needs it. The tenants clearly think they are in for a payday when his job is relocated here (he has been actively trying to get a relocation since Brexit- and his company have confirmed they are moving jobs here and are actively recruiting both new staff and determining interest in pre-existing staff- to move to Dublin).
I think we're going to see more and more of this...........
I have to say Threshold were fast off the mark advising tenants they could legitimately get a payday if the landlord ever needs the property back. Wonder how much the guy is going to have to pay them. For good measure- the tenants have been there 7 years now- and their rent- which he reviewed in the run up to the 2 year rule last year- is about 40% below market rates- as he was terrified of getting new tenants.......... It really is a case of 'no good deed goes unpunished' for him...........
Very hard to make sense of what your saying is it a case the tenants were advised notice periods and deposit return is required.
Because tbh the waffle about significant payday doesn't really sound like advice they would have been given.
What's is the actual wording threshold gave or are you working from third hand Chinese whispers information0 -
listermint wrote: »Very hard to make sense of what your saying is it a case the tenants were advised notice periods and deposit return is required.
Because tbh the waffle about significant payday doesn't really sound like advice they would have been given.
What's is the actual wording threshold gave or are you working from third hand Chinese whispers information
Documentary on rte a year or two ago. Girl was asked to leave and phoned threshold on camera to ask what her options were. Threshold told her one of her options was overholding.0 -
-
The_Conductor wrote: »Its actually quite remarkable- however, its also not entirely surprising.
Keep in mind- Leo and Simon are warring parties both princes to the throne and it suits their agendas for the other party to fall flat on their face.
Its a heads I win- tails you loose for Leo- no matter what he does- he'll be painted as Robin Hood- and if/when Simon ends up defending his legislation in court- if the legislation falls (which contrary to popular belief isn't as rare an occurrence as people imagine)- Leo gets the kudos- while Simon has to pick up the pieces.
On a related note- I've an e-mail from a property owner in Smithfield in Dublin- who is involved in banking in London- and whose job may be moving back to Dublin. They do not own any other property (anywhere)- and had imagined they could simply take back their property and all would be hunky dory. They received correspondence from their tenants yesterday- who say they have been advised by Threshold not to agree anything with him- as he will probably have to make a significant payment to them to get his property back when he needs it. The tenants clearly think they are in for a payday when his job is relocated here (he has been actively trying to get a relocation since Brexit- and his company have confirmed they are moving jobs here and are actively recruiting both new staff and determining interest in pre-existing staff- to move to Dublin).
I think we're going to see more and more of this...........
I have to say Threshold were fast off the mark advising tenants they could legitimately get a payday if the landlord ever needs the property back. Wonder how much the guy is going to have to pay them. For good measure- the tenants have been there 7 years now- and their rent- which he reviewed in the run up to the 2 year rule last year- is about 40% below market rates- as he was terrified of getting new tenants.......... It really is a case of 'no good deed goes unpunished' for him...........
A Minister's PA should not be putting an opinion about kind & generous landlords being in a minority in an official letter.
Is it really the case though that someone cannot take back their property for their own needs?
If you can take it back to sell it or to allow a relative to move in then surely you can have it back for your own use?
Where does the legislation say this?
If this is really the case then the property owner has lost his rights to his property & it will ended up being challenged.
The Threshold thing doesn't surprise me.0 -
A Minister's PA should not be putting an opinion about kind & generous landlords being in a minority in an official letter.
Is it really the case though that someone cannot take back their property for their own needs?
If you can take it back to sell it or to allow a relative to move in then surely you can have it back for your own use?
Where does the legislation say this?
If this is really the case then the property owner has lost his rights to his property & it will ended up being challenged.
The Threshold thing doesn't surprise me.
How does it get challenged though?
Does a single LL have to challenge it?
I for one, couldn't afford it anyway.0 -
How does it get challenged though?
Does a single LL have to challenge it?
I for one, couldn't afford it anyway.
The IPOA on behalf of small-time landlords or a large-scale landlord? I hope that the IPOA look to raise funding for a legal challenge.
The problem is that this type of scenario will mostly affect the LL with one property, making the cost of an individual challenge prohibitive.
Can anyone quote legislation that says you can't take back your property for your own use? I suspect that Thresholds advice relates to overholding & looking for a payout to leave or just refusing to go when issued with a notice to terminate.0 -
The IPOA on behalf of small-time landlords or a large-scale landlord? I hope that the IPOA look to raise funding for a legal challenge.
The problem is that this type of scenario will mostly affect the LL with one property, making the cost of an individual challenge prohibitive.
Can anyone quote legislation that says you can't take back your property for your own use? I suspect that Thresholds advice relates to overholding & looking for a payout to leave or just refusing to go when issued with a notice to terminate.
I sent an email to the ipoa asking are they planning on doing something and where do I sign up to add funds.
Heard nothing back yet anyway.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30614
I sent an email to the ipoa asking are they planning on doing something and where do I sign up to add funds.
Heard nothing back yet anyway.
They're not talking to any non-members, regardless of your status, about anything whatsoever- until the 3rd of January. They are in the office today- but aren't answering phones, or responding to e-mails. The contact us form on their website is also offline.
Seems like they're in a batton-down-the-hatches mode- wholly aside from the fact that its Christmas time.0 -
Advertisement
-
The_Conductor wrote: »They're not talking to any non-members, regardless of your status, about anything whatsoever- until the 3rd of January. They are in the office today- but aren't answering phones, or responding to e-mails. The contact us form on their website is also offline.
Seems like they're in a batton-down-the-hatches mode- wholly aside from the fact that its Christmas time.
I can understand that.
Shutting down myself for Christmas soon too 😀
I suppose they are developing a strategy, but I'd sure like to join now.0 -
I've looked at the cost of joining & it's not astronomical at €150 for a single unit. Could be money well spent.0
-
I've looked at the cost of joining & it's not astronomical at €150 for a single unit. Could be money well spent.
If they say they are going to challenge this then I will happily join even at that price.
I think every LL should. If they aren't going.to mount a challenge soon though, not really any point t joining.0 -
The bill is law effective from today 24th of December 2016:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/rent-caps-in-dublin-and-cork-come-into-effect-tomorrow-769821.html
the president signed it yesterday, I said it that it was a Christmas present to the media and it was, unlike some posters in this thread that thought that it would take time for the president to sign and it would be referred to council, no such thing was done and it was signed as a matter of urgency. The only council to the goverment whas the attorney general who was nominated by the same government!
This is the final version of the bill, see PART 3 for the amendments to RTA 2004, very soon it is going to be published in Irish Statute book:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2016/9216/B92d16S.pdf
I expect a lengthy constitutional challenge to PART 3 of the bill and maybe even the planning Part 1 and 2 since local Councils are not happy at all about the loss of planning power: I do not understand the detailed implications of Part 1 and 2 of the bill, so I shall not comment on this.
You can still get back the property for your own use, section 34 has only been changed for sale. So starting from today, if you are selling a propertywith more than 10 self-contained units or you are selling more than 10 self-contained properties in a period of less than 6 months, you cannot terminate the tenancies because of the sale unless you prove that you are loosing more than 20% of the market value (with this value decided by such impartial body as the RTB!) by keeping the tenants.A Minister's PA should not be putting an opinion about kind & generous landlords being in a minority in an official letter.
Is it really the case though that someone cannot take back their property for their own needs?
If you can take it back to sell it or to allow a relative to move in then surely you can have it back for your own use?
Where does the legislation say this?
If this is really the case then the property owner has lost his rights to his property & it will ended up being challenged.
The Threshold thing doesn't surprise me.
How does it get challenged though?
Does a single LL have to challenge it?
I for one, couldn't afford it anyway.
This rule mostly affects the big landlords (including REITs and Private Equity charities) and pre-63 landlords with more than 10 units in their properties (which admittedly are quite few).
Challenging the law on constitutional grounds is not something that a small landlord can take on, it has to be first taken to the High Court and then appealed at the Supreme Court, the legal cost is astronomical (from tens of thousand to hundreds of thousands of euros), only an association like IPOA (and it would stretch their finances quite a lot unless additional funding is given by member and other interested parties) or the big REITs could afford such challenge. This is the nature of the Irish legal process, it is only for the very rich.
Again apart from rent control the amendment that will mostly challenge current small landlords is the repeal of section 42, to the best of my understanding and with discussions I had, tenancies cannot be terminated anymore at 4 years without cause. So all the discussion in other threads about avoiding the rent controls by adding extra fees (like management fees, local property tax, maintenance fees, ...) goes to the bin, since only in a brand new tenancy agreement the landlord has the negotiating power to force the tenant to accept these clauses if he wants to rent the property, after the tenancy agreement has been signed you can forget about a tenant accepting extra costs.
I am going to get some legal advice from experienced solicitors with respect to the effects of the repeal of section 42, if some people in here want to split the cost of the legal advice with me, please PM me.0 -
I have done a deep search on the web to look for any info on how to give notice using only section 34(b) without making use of section 42 which has been repealed. The RTB yesterday has introduced the first piece of interpretation on their side of the new amendments to the RTA 2004 and more will come:
http://www.rtb.ie/search-results/news/article/2016/12/23/rental-predictability-measures-introduced
The relevan bit can be found here in bold:
"Security of Tenure
Security for both landlords and tenants is essential if the rental sector is to be both an attractive option for tenants and a safe and viable investment choice for investors. The rental strategy aims to move towards a situation where longer term tenancies are the norm. The legislation extends tenancies from 4 years to 6 year tenancies. This will apply to all new tenancies that come into operation after today which includes a further Part 4 tenancy that come into existence after today. Landlords currently can terminate within the first six months of a tenancy without giving a reason. Once a Part 4 tenancy comes into existence it can only be terminated by using one of the grounds listed below.
If a landlord wishes to stop a Further Part 4 tenancy coming into existence they may serve a notice during the Part 4 tenancy with the notice period given to the tenant expiring on or after the end of the tenancy. A notice served in this way should provide a reason for termination but the reason does not need to be one of the grounds set out below. To ensure the notice is valid it is best practice for the notice period given to end during the first six months of the Further Part 4 tenancy.
If a landlord wishes to terminate during the first six months of the Further Part 4 tenancy they may serve a notice during the first six months without providing a reason or needing to rely on one of the grounds below. This method of termination will change soon and updates will be provided on our website."
So my understanding of the new changes was correct, no more termination without reason after the first 6 months. The importan question now becomes:
what kind of reasons are acceptable to the RTB for a section 34(b) termination which are not one of the following section 34 reasons?
1. The tenant has failed to comply with the obligations of the tenancy (having first been notified, in writing, of the failure, and given an opportunity to remedy it.)
2. The landlord intends to sell the dwelling within the next 3 months
3. The dwelling is no longer suited to the needs of the occupying household
4. The landlord requires the dwelling for own or family member occupation
5. Vacant possession is required for substantial refurbishment of the dwelling
6. The landlord intends to change the use of the dwelling0 -
<quote snipped>
I've been reading your posts with interest over the last week or so GGTrek.
It appears you could well be correct & that the ability of a LL to end a tenancy at any time beyond the first six months is severely curtailed now.
What happens now at the end of six years? Does a second Part IV kick in or is it a case of Part IV kicking in after six months - and lasting indefinitely now? Is there is no break ability after six years - we now have indefinite tenancies with very limited reasons to terminate. It's not even clear right now what these termination reasons are.0 -
Wonder what the definition of substantial refurbishment is0
-
I have done some more research on the fact that with repeal of section 42, tenancy agreements beyond 6 months have become for all practical effects indefinite leases. Security of tenure that was abolished by the RTA 2004 has been re-introduced by stealth on a combination of (intentional or unintentional) badly drafted law, badly drafted High Court judgements and RTB tribunals bias to favour tenants. Before 2004 a tenant had to stay 20 years in a lease before aquiring security of tenure and landlord had plenty of options to evict tenant before the 20 years with no cause, with the RTA 20016 the government of Ireland has effectively introduced a strong security of tenure for existing tenancies with more than 6 months.
I've been reading your posts with interest over the last week or so GGTrek.
It appears you could well be correct & that the ability of a LL to end a tenancy at any time beyond the first six months is severely curtailed now.
What happens now at the end of six years? Does a second Part IV kick in or is it a case of Part IV kicking in after six months - and lasting indefinitely now? Is there is no break ability after six years - we now have indefinite tenancies with very limited reasons to terminate. It's not even clear right now what these termination reasons are.
My argument starts with this very relevant thread in early 2016 after a very badly drafted (in my opinion) judgment of the High Court:
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057593082/2?
Only one poster correctly interpreted the nefarious effects for landlords of this judgment of the High Court:
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68
and the even more nefarious effects of the subsequent RTB tribunal pro-tenant interpretation and application of this judgment: RTB Tribunal Reference No: TR1114-000936 / Case Ref No: 0714-13260:
"In our view, the Notice of Termination served in June, 2014 remains invalid for noncompliance with section 62(1)(e) of the 2004 Act despite the fact that a reason is discernible from an accompanying letter. The Tribunal is not satisfied to exercise a power under section 64A to determine that the failure to state a reason does not render the notice invalid in this case because to do so would have the effect of altering the circumstances in which a tenancy might lawfully be terminated during the currency of a dispute in a manner which interferes with vested rights and interests. The slip or omission arising from the failure to state a reason cannot in those circumstances, in our view, properly be considered as not prejudicing in a material respect the Notice of Termination within the meaning of section 64A."
In practice a notice of termination that tells the tenant that the 4 years of his current tenancy are up:
—A Part 4 tenancy may be terminated by the landlord—
(b) irrespective of whether any of those grounds exist, if—
(i) a notice of termination giving the required period of notice is served by the landlord in respect of the tenancy, and
(ii) that period of notice expires on or after the end of the period of 4 years mentioned in section 28 (2)(a) in relation to the tenancy.
The section above changes to 6 years for new tenancies starting on or after the 24th of December 2016 (this answers part of your questions April73), but for current tenancies it stays as 4 years. For further part tenancies that start on or after the 24th of December 2016 they new term of 6 years will apply.
However the important section after the repeal of section 42 that makes tenancies beyond six months indefinite is Section 62(1)(e):
62.—(1) A notice of termination to be valid shall—
(e) if the duration of the tenancy is a period of more than 6 months, state (where the termination is by the landlord) the reason for the termination,
The High Court judgment linked above confirmed section 62(1)(e) validity. In the case of a termination for any cause except section 34(b) the reason for termination are (almost) clearly stated in the statute, however for section 34(b) termination the badly drafted RTA 2004 states that section 34(a) do not need to apply but section 62(1)(e) says that in any case (unless the tenancy has less than 6 months) a reason has to be provided. That is why the document of the RTB I linked above says that it can be any reason in addition to section 34(a) reasons that I listed above.
The RTB tribunal, if it wasn´t so strongly biased pro-tenant could have resolved this issue by (in my opinion) correctly applying the new RTA 2015 section 64A (which was a suggestion of the High Court judge and a pro-landlord section) that says:
“64A. On the hearing of a complaint under Part 6 in respect of a notice of termination, an adjudicator or the Tribunal, as the case may be, may make a determination that a slip or omission which is contained in, or occurred during the service of, the notice of termination shall not of itself render the notice of termination invalid, if he or she or it, as the case may be, is satisfied that—
(a) the slip or omission concerned does not prejudice, in a material respect, the notice of termination, and
(b) the notice of termination is otherwise in compliance with the provisions of this Act.”.
However again they decided to screw the landlord, since they were left discretion to do so by the High Court judge and they said that not stating a reason for what should be a natural termination of a tenancy at 4 years is a material issue and not just an omission on how a notice of termination should be written. Landlord did not appeal to High Court on this point of interpretation of the law, so we do not have a definite answer.
What all these bad legislation and bad/conflicting judgments have left is a big mess if a landlord wants to terminate a tenancy at what should be the natural termination of a tenancy if one looks superficially at the statute. The mess is (as I stated in the post above) there is absolutely nothing in any High Court judgment, in any RTB Tribunal determination, in the Irish statutes about which reasons beyond the ones required by section 34(a) (or other reasons for termination in the RTA 2004 and amendments) are allowed to terminate a tenancy according to section 34(b).
I have been thinking that only common law regarding standard contract law is left to determine which reasons could be allowable, which are breach of contractual terms that cause discharge of contractual obligations. I have started to check the case law and it is very complex and beyond the scope of this thread.
The main point to take home from the argument above is: after the repeal os section 42 the landlord is now left to the merciful/subjective/biased interpretation of the RTB tribunals and ultimately the High Court about which reasons could be allowed to terminate a tenancy at 4/6 years according to section 34(b), since there is no clear case law and nothing in the statute about which reasons are allowable. That is why in my opinion all tenancies beyond 6 months have become indefinite for all practical purposes.
My opinions on the questions of April73:
> What happens now at the end of six years? If the law does not change again (which is the intention of Coveney to make all tenancies indefinite in statute) after 6 years a new automatic 6 years tenancy starts with terms and conditions identical to the previous one.
> Does a second Part IV kick in or is it a case of Part IV kicking in after six months - and lasting indefinitely now? A secont part 4 kicks in immediately, not after 6 months and for all practical purposes (as explained above) it is an indefinite tenancy in all but name.
> Is there is no break ability after six years - As explain above, you need to have a reason to break after 4 years for a current tenancy or after 6 years for a tenancy started after 24th of December 2016. So there is no break ability without cause and the cause that allows to break the tenancy at 4 or 6 years is unknown in statute and case law.
Without test cases taken to RTB tribunals or worse to the High Court, no clarity on the reasons will emerge. That is why the goverment of Ireland has just created a legal mess with the repeal of section 42 and seriously hurted the property rights of landlords, much more than the rent control measures.
Of course should the IPOA or other landlords win a constitutional case against the repeals of section 42 combined with the rent control measures, all this mess will disappear. But it is a big if. Sorry about the big legal argument, but it is necessary to make people understand how badly landlords property rights have been attacked by current government RTA 2016.0 -
Mod note
This is not legal discussion. I know the situation around the legislation is unclear and people are seeking clarity but this forum is not for dissecting legislation.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement