Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

newacc2015

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Of Jobs, not just public service. Can't keep piling in jobs to Dublin and no where else.
Not everyone wants to live in dublin, I even dread driving up these days the roads can't handle the amount of cars..it's not bursting at the seams, it already burst, driving into cork is getting as bad, galway is a complete mess for traffic.
Sort out the dublin to Limerick rail line and you've opened up a lot of areas for housing commutable to Dublin daily.
Dublin is going to get more and more inaccessible and expensive regardless of what ministers do. More housing isn't the answer, then you need more roads. It's proper public transport outside of Dublin to Dublin.

So the Government should resort to tell private companies where to locate their jobs now? I think you guess what Google or Facebook would tell the Government to do. The Government tells firm locating in Ireland, we will give you higher grants if you locate outside of Dublin. But none of the firms want to.

Actually most people want to live in Dublin. I know this is something people outside of Dublin cant wrap their head around, but the IDA has been told by several firms no matter how much they pay their employees they will not locate outside of Dublin. Dublin is competing with top cities for jobs. It is Dublin, Amsterdam, Berlin etc. It not Lyon, Eindhoven, Limerick and Mannheim. If the jobs arent going to Dublin, they aren coming to Ireland

Make Dubliners commute several hours a day from Limerick to Dublin? Why dont we just put them in a gulag instead? It will probably be less stressful on them.

More high rise housing is the answer. Dubliners would love to live in nice 40 storey apartment blocks on a luas line to work. A lot of Americans living in cities live in high rise love them over a 2 hour commute each way from a hole of a city.

Zulu

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Does anyone want to hazard s guess as to when this will take effect?

I have an apartment grossly under rental market rate however I can't increase until July 2017 due to the 2 year rule. So if this new rule comes into play am I forced to limit my increase to 4% per year even if its current under market rate by 30% +?

The government doesn't seem to understand that it's only encouraging you to kick out your current tenants, and start a new lease at the market rate.

One more family/person(s) on the market driving up prices...

Lux23

Well if you did that it would be an illegal eviction.

Zulu

Lux23 wrote: »

Well if you did that it would be an illegal eviction.

Yeah true, unless you were say planning on selling or had a family member you wanted to give it to...

Sadly there's a real world out there where the Government are more and more encouraging citizens to bend or flatout break the rules.

Idbatterim

This new build studio flat is perfectly legal in Germany. It would be illegal in Dublin (no dual aspect and too small). This sort of thing suits so many people that do not need much space and certainly don't need a dual aspect. Allowing developers to build such units would alleviate the situation. But instead we get more nonsense.

murphaph I have been banging on about this for ages. Out of interest, what sq m is the minimum in berlin?

I currently rent, I have a big issue here with the housing crisis. But is it acceptable to tell people what they cant rent their properties for long term? I mean if this was a temporary measure for a few years, until the issues are sorted out and supply comes on stream, that would be fair enough. But the plan is a tinkering around the edge joke!

I created a thread a few weeks back, the housing crisis here is being created on purpose as it simply benefits all of the vested interests, government, banks, newspapers, people in negative equity and the IDIOTS who think never ending house price rises are a good thing!

One thing is for sure, this issue has been debated to death, the answers are simple yet these GOMBEEN MORONS seem to have no issue in sorting out the crisis!

They allow these far smaller units in the UK and Germany, two countries that are infinitely better run than our own and our shower of gob****es think they know better...

murphaph out of interest in berlin, what is causing the big issues with the rental market there? They allow mid to high rise and way smaller units, two of the big issue that need addressing here...

Claw Hammer

Seanachai wrote: »

Is the lack of building down to resistance from the developers/builders, or are they waiting for the state to cough up the money for social housing? Surely they can't be sorting through red tape for this length of time?

Four years ago rents were falling! Nobody would build in those conditions. Nobody would put up finance for building in that scenario. Nobody would assemble sites for building. Now there are few sites shovel ready and there is a shortage of finance available for building. The government can borrow to build because of the ECB, the banks cant lend to build because they are broke and cant afford another meltdown. Meantime this nonsense is going on. The lunatics have definitely taken over the asylum.

kupus

I said it before I'll say it again.

Everything is being done to take away the power of the Irish landlord.. Why is this happening and who does it benefit in the long run.

It started with house tax, so everybody has to pay for every property they own.

Those with 2or 3 properties feeling the pinch of finances have to let them go. Somebody else will take it on, but by then the gov aided by its "consulting lobbyists" will formulate another plan to extract money thru some other means. Some H+S driven BS like a fire extinguisher needed in every room that needs to be examined every year, by a service company.
Costing even more money.... So that person has to sell because its not worth dealing with all the hassle.

Fast Forward a generation and we have a different type of landlord. A multinational company landlord to be exact. paying all these taxes and duties and costs. So the government have to only deal with them.

Put it this way, its a lot easier to deal with 12 landlord companies instead of 100,000 single landlords.

The_Conductor

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Does anyone want to hazard s guess as to when this will take effect?

I have an apartment grossly under rental market rate however I can't increase until July 2017 due to the 2 year rule. So if this new rule comes into play am I forced to limit my increase to 4% per year even if its current under market rate by 30% +?

There are 155 amendments to the bill- but Damien English is brining it before the Dáil this afternoon, and the commencement date on it is next Monday the 19th of December. It is expected that both the government and opposition will support the measures.

beauf

As soon as the Govt announce a new action

The Government’s new rental strategy has been launched today. It will target areas with rising rents in Dublin and Cork with immediate effect, limiting rises in rent to 4% per year in these areas.

we get this....

http://www.thejournal.ie/tyrrelstown-residents-eviction-3136171-Dec2016/

I wonder if this is repeated elsewhere but not being reported.

Fian

The Rental strategy is available here:

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/strategy_for_the_rental_sector_final.pdf

The significant proposals are:

Part IV tenancies to move to a 6 year duration rather than 4 year, as a first step towards indefinite duration. Dublin and Cork to be Rent Pressure Zones, other areas open to being designated. A cap of 4% annual increase to apply to all rents in rent pressure zones. This will apply to existing tenancies in respect of the period since the last rental increase. The cap will also apply to NEW tenancies based of rent under previous tenancy - so each accommodation will have a rent cap based on 4% anualised increase from the last point the rent was set. Existing freezes on rent review will run their course, when the first review is made under the new system in a rent pressure zone the reviews move to annual reviews capped at 4%

4% increase per annum strikes me as a reasonable return.

The main criticism I would have of the proposals is the fact that different accomodation will have different caps based on an accident of timing. So if a rent review took place recently then the 4% will build on something close to current market rent. If it has been almost two years since the last rent review then the 4% is locked into a base that is well below current market rents.

All in all the proposals seem reasonable.

godtabh

Fian wrote: »

The Rental strategy is available here:

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/strategy_for_the_rental_sector_final.pdf

The significant proposals are:

Part IV tenancies to move to a 6 year duration rather than 4 year, as a first step towards indefinite duration. Dublin and Cork to be Rent Pressure Zones, other areas open to being designated. A cap of 4% annual increase to apply to all rents in rent pressure zones. This will apply to existing tenancies in respect of the period since the last rental increase. The cap will also apply to NEW tenancies based of rent under previous tenancy - so each accommodation will have a rent cap based on 4% anualised increase from the last point the rent was set. Existing freezes on rent review will run their course, when the first review is made under the new system in a rent pressure zone the reviews move to annual reviews capped at 4%

4% increase per annum strikes me as a reasonable return.

The main criticism I would have of the proposals is the fact that different accomodation will have different caps based on an accident of timing. So if a rent review took place recently then the 4% will build on something close to current market rent. If it has been almost two years since the last rent review then the 4% is locked into a base that is well below current market rents.

All in all the proposals seem reasonable.

Reasonable for who?

It seems to me that landlords arent considered at all in this proposals. I'm not going to comment on impact this will have on available rental properties (though I think it will further decrease it) but I think less and less will be spent on rental properties as landlords and their costs (which are considerable given how the rental sector is taxed).

Doesnt look like a long term solution more of a populist solution.

murphaph

Fian wrote: »

The main criticism I would have of the proposals is the fact that different accomodation will have different caps based on an accident of timing. So if a rent review took place recently then the 4% will build on something close to current market rent. If it has been almost two years since the last rent review then the 4% is locked into a base that is well below current market rents.

I'm in this situation with a property and it'll be ridiculous if this comes to pass. A lucky LL is due to review rent around now, knowing the government's intentions and an unlucky one reviewed rent just shy of 2 years ago, not knowing the review was going to be locked in forever. To be fair, every LL should get to review the rent at the point this new system comes into force, nullifying the 2 year limit in legislation to allow this. Otherwise it's simply grossly unfair. This is a measure that leaves such a sour taste in the mouth that I would look to sell the property.

SteM

Do the government tell car rental companies how much they can raise their prices by in the summer? Do they tell hotels how much they can raise their rates by when there's a big concert on?

Why are they capping what landlords charge? Why don't they do the right thing and build ****ing houses - that's the only way rental costs will start to decrease in this economy.

Gileadi

I've a question, the rent can be raised 4% per year under the new guidelines (if I read them correctly) but a rent review can only occur every 2 years.

Does that mean that if you haven't reviewed the rent in the last 23 months (just under 2 years) that next month you could seek a raise of up to 8%?

ted1

They need to tackle bad tenants aswell. If a tenant falls to pay rent they should be immediately giving the boot. None of this over staying rubbish. If they are anti social they should be giving the boot.

hidinginthebush

Can someone tell me if the "rent pressure zones" cover all of Dublin and Cork, or is it only within certain parts of the cities? 

As someone living in Dublin and having seen rent increases of 30% in the past, this pleases me. I can see why LL's would be disappointed though. Also I think if they cut tax on rent profits it would alleviate a lot of the issues too surely?

Edit: from the document...
The criteria for the designation of an area as an RPZ are whether, in the area
concerned:
• annual rent inflation has reached or exceeded 7% in four of the last six quarters; and
• the average rent in the most recent quarter is above the national average rent.
n Immediately on enactment, the following areas will be designated as RPZs, as they
already meet the criteria –
• Dublin (i.e. the administrative areas of the 4 Dublin local authorities);
• The Cork City Council administrative area.
n Additional local authority areas may be proposed for designation over time, subject to
the criteria for designation being satisfied. In due course, subject to the availability of
more refined area-based rent data, areas smaller than local authority areas, such as local
electoral areas, where significant localised rent pressures are being experienced, may be
considered for designation.

Fian

godtabh wrote: »

Reasonable for who?

It seems to me that landlords arent considered at all in this proposals. I'm not going to comment on impact this will have on available rental properties (though I think it will further decrease it) but I think less and less will be spent on rental properties as landlords and their costs (which are considerable given how the rental sector is taxed).

Doesnt look like a long term solution more of a populist solution.

I agree that this will impact supply and probably not help the fundamental problem in the long run.

I also agree that this will absolutely disincentive landlords investing in the property - especially if the property has not had rent increases recently. Why bother - there will be loads of people who will be desperate for anywhere to rent since supply will be restricted and rents capped.

I mean 4% is reasonable for both sides really, landlords and tenants. I am a landlord not a tenant.

Gileadi

Gileadi wrote: »

I've a question, the rent can be raised 4% per year under the new guidelines (if I read them correctly) but a rent review can only occur every 2 years.

Does that mean that if you haven't reviewed the rent in the last 23 months (just under 2 years) that next month you could seek a raise of up to 8%?

In addition, the provisions introduced in November 2015, whereby rent can only be reviewed every two years, will cease to apply in a Rent Pressure Zone when the next two-year review takes place – thereafter, annual rent reviews will apply.

Found the answer, when the 2 year window expires rents can be reviewed annually

Fian

Gileadi wrote: »

I've a question, the rent can be raised 4% per year under the new guidelines (if I read them correctly) but a rent review can only occur every 2 years.

Does that mean that if you haven't reviewed the rent in the last 23 months (just under 2 years) that next month you could seek a raise of up to 8%?

Yes, Or you could hope that the legislation does not come into force before then and raise it by more, being aware you will be capped at 4% p.a. based off the then current rent when the legislation comes into force.

murphaph

Idbatterim wrote: »

murphaph I have been banging on about this for ages. Out of interest, what sq m is the minimum in berlin?

There is no minimum in Germany. If you want to live in a shoebox it's up to you. my missus used to live in a 1 room studio, smaller than the graphic I posted above.

Idbatterim wrote: »

murphaph out of interest in berlin, what is causing the big issues with the rental market there? They allow mid to high rise and way smaller units, two of the big issue that need addressing here...

The sheer number of newcomers mainly. Berlin is and has been growing at a rate of approximately 45,000 people a year and this is set to continue. The problem seems to be that many of the newcomers are low wage, be they asylum seekers or artists, and consequently do not pose a good opportunity for developers to build as although rents are much higher than 10 years ago, they are higher still in Munich and Hamburg, so I guess developers prefer to build there if they can.

Berlin is mainly a victim of its own "success". Thank God at least we have a functioning public transport system.

Fian

murphaph wrote: »

I'm in this situation with a property and it'll be ridiculous if this comes to pass. A lucky LL is due to review rent around now, knowing the government's intentions and an unlucky one reviewed rent just shy of 2 years ago, not knowing the review was going to be locked in forever. To be fair, every LL should get to review the rent at the point this new system comes into force, nullifying the 2 year limit in legislation to allow this. Otherwise it's simply grossly unfair. This is a measure that leaves such a sour taste in the mouth that I would look to sell the property.

I am also in this situation, my property is due for a rent review in February. It means the 4% will be applied to a base well below current market rent, because of an accident of timing.

Idbatterim

so it appears nobody is impressed with this shambles of a governments "attempts" to solve this crisis! I put the attempts in brackets, because I believe for many reasons, they actually dont really want to solve it... Too many vested interests gain from it...

amcalester

Having a look through this report and one thing that has hit me is that "good tenants" are now less valuable to a landlord.

If the LL is limited in increasing the rent as the market rate increases then it makes more sense to increase to the maximum at every opportunity. So now these good tenants will have their rent increased at more regular intervals.

wally79

Fian wrote: »

Yes, Or you could hope that the legislation does not come into force before then and raise it by more, being aware you will be capped at 4% p.a. based off the then current rent when the legislation comes into force.

Can you really wait 2 years and raise by 8%?

I haven't looked in detail but read it as 4% being the max increase per review regardless of time since last one but you could now have reviews annually instead of every 2 years in these areas

Ferrari3600

Idbatterim wrote: »

I created a thread a few weeks back, the housing crisis here is being created on purpose as it simply benefits all of the vested interests, government, banks, newspapers, people in negative equity and the IDIOTS who think never ending house price rises are a good thing!

There are a lot of good posts in this thread, this observation in particular is spot on I think.

Fian

wally79 wrote: »

Can you really wait 2 years and raise by 8%?

I haven't looked in detail but read it as 4% being the max increase per review regardless of time since last one but you could now have reviews annually instead of every 2 years in these areas

The proposal is explicit in referring to 4% per annum - so yes your first increase can be 8% - 2 years (+90 days notice) after the last rent increase.

Since the criteria for a rent pressure zone is that market rents have increased by at least 7% in 6 out of last 8 quarters you could make an argument that the initial increase should permit increase of 7% per annum for the period before the law comes into force - with 4% per annum to apply after that. This would mean all properties would operate off a reasonably similar base. However that would not be a popular provision.

godtabh

Its interesting that the government only tackles on side of the equation. As has been pointed out for the rental market to work protection needs to be available on both sides. Its clearly not.

Give tenants security of tenure if the follow the rules. Give land lords proper powers to evict if they dont.

Graham

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

There are a lot of good posts in this thread, this observation in particular is spot on I think.

It's less of an observation and more of a conspiracy theory.

Kapips88

Its becoming a situation where a LL invests in a rental property and loses all control of what he can do with it.
Basically lending money to the government and taking all the risk. Because they make the rules and change them on a whim.
The owner no longer has any control once let. Totally gone.

Who would stand for that? Watch them all go to short term lets like AirBnB now when this next farcical set of rules comes in.

Better off selling up and buying a rental in another country if you still want to be in property.

Imagine someone is charging way below market rate. They have a big catastrophe in the property that costs a fortune to get fixed.
Now they have to sit on that loss and can only increase the rent by 4% to pay for it. Even if it was already way below market value.

And what about people that the meddlers caught with the 2 year rule. Just as they are coming out of the 2 year tie up, now they are tied in knots again and cannot increase the rent.

Something needs to be done about the government, never mind a housing crisis.

beauf

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Of Jobs, not just public service. Can't keep piling in jobs to Dublin and no where else.
Not everyone wants to live in dublin, I even dread driving up these days the roads can't handle the amount of cars..it's not bursting at the seams, it already burst, driving into cork is getting as bad, galway is a complete mess for traffic.
Sort out the dublin to Limerick rail line and you've opened up a lot of areas for housing commutable to Dublin daily.
Dublin is going to get more and more inaccessible and expensive regardless of what ministers do. More housing isn't the answer, then you need more roads. It's proper public transport outside of Dublin to Dublin.

I think this a major cause of the current crisis. Create jobs outside of Dublin, and it solves a lot of problems. That and the lack of social housing provision.