Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

hytrogen

_Kaiser_ wrote:

- We all recognize that SOMETHING significant has to be done to address the crisis. More supply that is both suitable to demand and where it's needed is key (and urgent!), but equally reform of the rental sector is long overdue to provide security and stability for tenants, and similar security and supports for LL's to deal with problem tenants or situations

Agreed more housing supplied by the gov & local authorities, and before anyone says it, let's not call them social housing, just housing or accommodation? The only thing going against this plan is there's nothing to raid in the coffers to finance this move now we handed all our pensions & bond reserves to the IMF & sold our fisheries to the EU for farming subsidies..

Lumen

murphaph wrote: »

Do you have to wait a year to fire a stealing employee?

...

Lumen wrote: »

The biggest problem seems to be the slowness of the dispute resolution process, but that's an issue of enforcement of rights and responsibility, not the rights themselves.

beauf

Lumen wrote: »

The government doesn't interfere with the pricing of my widgets but it does regulate the pricing of my employees. I can't just reduce their salaries if market conditions change.....

Its an bad analogy. But since you went there...

Imagine to sack a stealing employee took you 2 years, you have to take them to court and you have to pay them the whole time.

Fian

amens wrote: »

If I do a rent review immediately increasing the rent from €1000 to €1100 with the increase not coming into effect for 90 days what is the current rent (that is effectively frozen) from the point of view of new legislation enacted next week, €1000 or €1100?

€1100 - however you cannot conduct this review until 24 months since the last review or since the tenancy commenced.

My next review is due in February so I will be capped at 4% p.a. on a rent 2 years out of date and probably now 20% below current market rate.

Zulu

Yourself isit wrote: »

A faceless professional landlord who isn't looking for cash for a 1600 per month property, doesn't kick people out to give the house to Tommy junior, or pops around to let themselves in every so often would be am advantage to many tenants.

Dear, oh dear. So very naive. If you genuinely believe your fate is better served by a corporate entity or vulture fund I applaud your ignorance.

Michael D Not Higgins

beauf wrote: »

Its an bad analogy. But since you went there...

Imagine to sack a stealing employee took you 2 years, you have to take them to court and you have to pay them the whole time.

And they stopped working for that entire 2 year period.

Graham

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

And they stopped working for that entire 2 year period.

and trashed the office/shop/restaurant/factory on the way out the door on their last day.

murphaph

In fairness Lumen accepts that the eviction process is sub-optimal, but I can't help but feel that he/she doesn't quite grasp what a big problem over holding tenants actually are. If a small company had one or two such employees, the company would fail. A small LL with one or two such tenants will likely fail. I do not like that the RTB get to decide when a "fast track" process should happen though. That is super arbitrary...some random civil servant deciding if your case should be heard quickly by the court. Could even be open to abuse/corruption IMO as the sums involved are often big.

The_Conductor

murphaph wrote: »

In fairness Lumen accepts that the eviction process is sub-optimal, but I can't help but feel that he/she doesn't quite grasp what a big problem over holding tenants actually are. If a small company had one or two such employees, the company would fail. A small LL with one or two such tenants will likely fail. I do not like that the RTB get to decide when a "fast track" process should happen though. That is super arbitrary...some random civil servant deciding if your case should be heard quickly by the court. Could even be open to abuse/corruption IMO as the sums involved are often big.

Just to clarify- my understanding is that its not even decided by a civil servant, its outsourced to Capita in Clonakility- who score the case and based on the score- its forwarded to the monthly tribunal in order of urgency. Obviously- the longer a case has been ongoing- the higher it'll score- so eventually even minor things reach the top of the pile.

Seanachai

Yourself isit wrote: »

A faceless professional landlord who isn't looking for cash for a 1600 per month property, doesn't kick people out to give the house to Tommy junior, or pops around to let themselves in every so often would be am advantage to many tenants.

This would worry me, I get what you're saying about the landlord who you find painting your flat when you come home from work but these companies have no social prerogative. What's to stop them from building apartments and then deciding that they only want to rent to professionals and as long as there are enough in the cities to pay the extortionate rates the housing problem just continues.

The_Conductor

Seanachai wrote: »

This would worry me, I get what you're saying about the landlord who you find painting your flat when you come home from work but these companies have no social prerogative. What's to stop them from building apartments and then deciding that they only want to rent to professionals and as long as there are enough in the cities to pay the extortionate rates the housing problem just continues.

Of course they won't put it this way- it'll be 4 months rent as deposit and you have to agree to any ongoing repairs or maintenance happening during office hours......

The new manner of dictating 'professionals only'- is by increasing the deposit to several months- and its entirely acceptable (and indeed the norm in most other countries)- and doesn't fall foul of the Act.

scriba

scriba wrote: »

We don't want to raise our rent by 400 to market rent. Or even 200. We rented to a nice couple for 100 below market at the time. We did this because we didn't believe in gouging people who needed a place to live. Even now, we don't want to extract from my tenants the full increase in rent that we are paying. But in order to compensate a little, we needed to raise our rent by about 15% after the two year period. That option is now gone for us.

We no longer have full control of our asset. Our government taxes our income, and will tax us also for the time we used it as a rental property if we (hopefully) sell it, at enough to have a deposit for another house - childcare, commute, and rent have pretty much decimated our potential for saving. We just want out - we'd sell tomorrow if the price was enough.

It could be worse. I like our tenants, which is good, considering that they'll probably be staying years now! Our mortgage is still being paid, although we're making a 500 loss after tax. But the way I see it, government interference in the market is costing us 400 a month more than it was back in Aug 2015, when we made business decisions in good faith. And that's not fair either.

Sorry but I really struggle with the logic of a person who is losing 500 a month yet refuses to maxamise their income from a rental property. Its terrible business sense and just throwing money away. You could half your loss per month by increasing to market rate. Its not gouging and even if it was I'd far rather be gouging someone else than gouging myself which is what you are doing by not increasing the rent to the maximum you possibly can*

* I know you can't increase it at all yet buy you said you wouldn't even get close to market rate if you could.

April 73 wrote: »

& I will lose 52% of the rental increase to the taxman.

.

Not saying you should evict your current tenants and get new ones in your scenario but in general are people honestly still using this as a reason not to increase rent, its like people refusing a pay rise or a promotion as they will have to pay more tax. Yeah you will pay over 50% of sin tax but you will keep 50% too which is a lot better than the 0% you would have gotten otherwise.

The_Conductor

Judith Fit Mosquito wrote: »

Sorry but I really struggle with the logic of a person who is losing 500 a month yet refuses to maxamise their income from a rental property. Its terrible business sense and just throwing money away. You could half your loss per month by increasing to market rate. Its not gouging and even if it was I'd far rather be gouging someone else than gouging myself which is what you are doing by not increasing the rent to the maximum you possibly can*

* I know you can't increase it at all yet buy you said you wouldn't even get close to market rate if you could.

If you have had a bad experience with previous tenants- and your current tenants are behaving impeccably, its entirely possible, or even probable, that you might give a discount at the outset, and then fail to keep pace with market price increases as you go along.........

It might be a poor business decision- however, there are a hell of a lot of landlords out there who don't simply look purely at the business fundamentals when assessing the rental potential of their property assets.

Seanachai

The_Conductor wrote: »

Of course they won't put it this way- it'll be 4 months rent as deposit and you have to agree to any ongoing repairs or maintenance happening during office hours......

The new manner of dictating 'professionals only'- is by increasing the deposit to several months- and its entirely acceptable (and indeed the norm in most other countries)- and doesn't fall foul of the Act.

The social housing in Crumlin and Kimmage will end up becoming a historical tour for future generations the way things are going. 'When these houses were built a working class person owning a house was almost taken for granted, in later years it became a luxury commodity to be traded however and their descendants had to live in hotel rooms'

DubCount

The_Conductor wrote: »

If you have had a bad experience with previous tenants- and your current tenants are behaving impeccably, its entirely possible, or even probable, that you might give a discount at the outset, and then fail to keep pace with market price increases as you go along.........

It might be a poor business decision- however, there are a hell of a lot of landlords out there who don't simply look purely at the business fundamentals when assessing the rental potential of their property assets.

+1

With existing legislation, even if a LL wanted to charge market rate, the 2 year rent increase provision means that they may be stuck on a much lower rent when the "freeze" is introduced. There is also a penalty for any LL who tried to reward good tenants by charging lower rent or any LL who was nice to a tenant who was struggling with rent increases at the last review.

These new rules leave no room for a reasonable conversation between a LL and a tenant. Some good tenants who would have secured discounts in the past, will be facing larger increases or evictions as a result of all this.

Zulu

Judith Fit Mosquito wrote: »

Sorry but I really struggle with the logic of a person who is...

YOu're making the flawed assumption that the landlord is intentionally a business person and that they are looking to make profit above all else.

It's entirely probable that they are an "accidental" landlord just looking to get throught this clusterfu*k with out screwing the next person. Right or wrong, there's plenty like that. Personally I rent out my property below the market rate to ensure I can pick the best tenant and to ensure I retain them. I couldn't afford someone overhold, or trash my place. if that happens to me, my family will not be able to rent where we are, and we'll be homeless probably. (Not on the street, but begging my family for temp accommodation)

Not all landlords are coining it in.

GGTrek

4ensic15 wrote: »

judeboy101 wrote: »

Can someone explain how a LL can charge what he likes on one side of a street but on the other side of the road its capped at 4%? Surely that's unconstitutional?

Arguably so.
In the matter of Article 26 of the Constitution and in the Matter of The Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill , 1981.

2. 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.

Very well quoted, some people in this forum live in socialist paradise and forget that the current Irish republic was forged by people who where quite afraid of socialist ideas, that is why they put strong property rights in the Constitution. Unfortunately some of the people who inherited the republic today have deviated substantially from the initial ideas (unbelievable that it was FF De Valera at the time that wanted the current constitution, how times have changed!)

Almost at the beginning of this thread I put the following links to the Supreme Court in 1982 quashing similar socialist legislation as the one proposed by Coveney and with even worse proposals from the other parties:

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

http://www.flac.ie/download/doc/g_whyte_constitutional_property_rights_and_public_interest.doc

https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2056474841

Some people in this thread and many in government forget that property rights include real estate, no matter if it is residential or commercial and the current proposal is a gross limitation of property rights which offers no compensation for the limitation of these property rights.

That is why Coveney is trying to say that rent control is only a temporary measure, because he knows that if he makes it permanent the new law will be quashed very quickly. The government could try to change the constitution if they wish but it will take a very long time (not these fast scams they are trying to pull at the Oireachtas) and most of landlords will be gone by the time is changed.

The main issue I see is the following, in some cases they froze rents since 1st of January 2015 effectively, with this proposal they are effectively continuing the freeze until 2020, that is 5 years freeze! I doubt the Supreme Court will take it as a temporary freeze if they also add together: (a) change of the law to make leases indefinite (b) prohibition of eviction in case of sale with big impact on sale value with no compensation.

It looks like a very bad case for the government. If they want to alter property rights so substantially, please go ahead and change the constitution and put it to referendum with a proper public consultation, not the joke consultation that Coveney had to do in October-November (it was all housing charities complaining and almost no landllords). The government knows that trying to alter property rights in the constitution will cause tons of unintended consequences all over the Irish economy.

I said it and I shall say again, the government is threading a very thin legal line this time and if they pass this legislation, it is almost guaranteed that there will be legal challenge based on constitutional law, since the interests at stake are just too big to be left to the government short-term whim.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

YOu're making the flawed assumption that the landlord is intentionally a business person and that they are looking to make profit above all else.

It's entirely probable that they are an "accidental" landlord just looking to get throught this clusterfu*k with out screwing the next person. Right or wrong, there's plenty like that. Personally I rent out my property below the market rate to ensure I can pick the best tenant and to ensure I retain them. I couldn't afford someone overhold, or trash my place. if that happens to me, my family will not be able to rent where we are, and we'll be homeless probably. (Not on the street, but begging my family for temp accommodation)

Not all landlords are coining it in.

Firstly I know very well a lot of LL's aren't "coining" it particularly due to the levels of taxation along with large mortgages. But a lot aren't helping themselves either by acting as a charity essentially by undercharging their tenants.

Its nothing to do with being a business person or being an accidental LL. You don't need to know anything about it to see that maximising your income to minimise your losses (or hopefully maximise your profit) is how you should go about it. People need to worry about themselves first and foremost and to me if you are losing money by letting a house but at the same time are not maximising your income from said house you are not being in anyway sensible or practical or looking after your own interests.

For example would you sell a car for considerably less than its worth because you took pity on the person buying it, you wouldn't and no one else would either but when it comes to renting some people appear to have a bit of a mental block.

In reality the fear of bad tenants is completely blow out of proportion also, there are not near as many bad tenants out there as some would lead you to believe. There are also many ways to minimise your risk of getting or being stuck with a bad tenant or non-paying tenant. It just needs good planning.

Zulu

Judith Fit Mosquito wrote: »

But a lot aren't helping themselves either by acting as a charity essentially by undercharging their tenants.

Its nothing to do with being a business person or being an accidental LL. You don't need to know anything about it to see that maximising your income to minimise your losses (or hopefully maximise your profit) is how you should go about it.

...from a purely capitalist perspective you are correct. But not everyone is a capitalist. Landlords can be empathic beings as well.

People need to worry about themselves first and foremost

Not everyone thinks like this. And it's only ignorance that appears to be preventing you from acknowledging that.

and to me if you are losing money by letting a house but at the same time are not maximising your income from said house you are not being in anyway sensible or practical or looking after your own interests.

so be it, but you have to appreciate that not everyone either thinks like you, or would want to have a hand in creating a world you're thinking would ultimately create. Some people (even landlords) aren't so machiavellian. Call it civic responsibility, call it naivety, or call it stupidity. It is what it is.

For example would you sell a car for considerably less than its worth because you took pity on the person buying it,

Bad example; this isn't remarkable. People cut their friends and family a better deal when selling cars all the time...

In reality the fear of bad tenants is completely blow out of proportion

You're a landlord?

also, there are not near as many bad tenants out there as some would lead you to believe.

Well I'd agree that there are more decent people than scumbags, but I question the basis you're making that assumption from.

There are also many ways to minimise your risk of getting or being stuck with a bad tenant or non-paying tenant. It just needs good planning.

There are, but planning isn't going to help. It comes down to 2 parts luck and 3 parts your own intuition. Which when dealing with an asset of multiples of hundreds of thousands of euro is far from ideal.

muggles

Coveney has now promised FF to extend rent pressure zones early in New Year. Galway, Limerick, Waterford and commuter towns around Dublin in the plan.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/coveney-writes-letter-to-fianna-fil-offering-to-change-rent-plan-35294199.html

beauf

I wonder where they got these stats....

With 65% of landlords owning only a single property and a further 17% only two, our rental market is dominated by accidental landlords. These are people who thought renting was a passive investment requiring little effort or cost.
Now 71% of them have to top up their rental income to meet their mortgage payments. Ironically our poorly regulated rental market is bad for many landlords too. Tax treatment of landlords is complex and treats large non-resident investment trusts more favourably that resident landlords.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/what-is-simon-coveneys-rent-strategy-3137686-Dec2016/

The_Conductor

beauf wrote: »

These are people who thought renting was a passive investment requiring little effort or cost.

This is so obviously someone with an agenda putting their own spin on a story.
I'd hazard that a sizeable majority of these single property owners- had no intention at the outset of letting the properties- these were their 'starter homes' which they were to use as collateral to trade up to a 'forever home' down the road- before that balloon was burst- and they ended up with negative equity they couldn't clear- and weren't allowed sell the property......

In many cases- these selfsame landlords have to rent elsewhere themselves- so they are both a landlord and a tenant- only they get taxed at up to 54% on their gross rental income- while they have to pay their own rent out of their net rental income- i.e. they can't even offset rental income against rental outgoings..........

This is a community of up to 80,000 people- who are being ignored by politicians- and simultaneously crucified by Revenue- for having the tenacity to believe the political horse manure that was bandied about from 2000 to 2007...........

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

beauf

Also very odd that all the media reporting, is overwhelmingly very one sided here.
All media bias is for the large landlords, (only 18% ) of the market, and for increases tenant protection and none for the LL.
No criticism of successive Govt housing and economic policies that have created this perfect storm of a housing/accommodation crisis.
... and are still fueling it.

Sounds like this is a done deal.

beauf

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...and pay for it. Always wondered why tenants don't also pay a fee for this.

The_Conductor

Its politically expedient to crucify landlords as bogeymen- and suggest that they are the root cause of all the ills in the housing sector. After all- it detracts from the actions and inactions of our politicians, and it provides a very convenient scapegoat- who a sizeable portion of the population dislike to begin with- and that's before you even start to mention our historical dislike of landlords and the mayhem they caused in the 19th century.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Yourself isit

Zulu wrote: »

Dear, oh dear. So very naive. If you genuinely believe your fate is better served by a corporate entity or vulture fund I applaud your ignorance.

I'm an owner now but when I was renting large scale landlords were the best.

newacc2015

Seanachai wrote: »

The social housing in Crumlin and Kimmage will end up becoming a historical tour for future generations the way things are going. 'When these houses were built a working class person owning a house was almost taken for granted, in later years it became a luxury commodity to be traded however and their descendants had to live in hotel rooms'

IMO this is where a lot of the supply problems come from. Every decade or so, some party decided to win the election they were going to pawn off the housing stock. So the amount of social housing DCC owned declined.

IMO social housing should not be sold. It should remain property of the state. When a property is no longer suitable for you ie an old women living in a 3 bed house. She should be moved to a purpose built older person complex and a family can take over the house.

Council housing will be a thing of the past. Instead of the Government doing their job of providing affordable housing, they are handing over blocks of state funded housing to provide companies or housing organisations for the state to pay for housing they gave away for free in the first place.

beauf

You can't rip older people out of their social infrastructure and community as you are suggesting. It can be devastating especially for an older person.

We don't build housing with a mix of types suitable for different people and family structures. So you can't move people into more suitable housing in their area it usually doesn't exist.

Not to mention the getto it creates. That people can buy their house stabilises an area. Many rougher areas become more stable as it ages and matures, as people invest their own resourses not just in a property but in an area.