Another bright idea from government

garhjw

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0908/903160-housing/

Now landlords are supposed to inform RTB before issuing termination. This is getting ridiculous. Essentially advocates overholding.

ANXIOUS

Wow, they've lost the plot.

amcalester

Another step closer to permanent tenancies.

handlemaster

This is just ridiculous its like every new idea has to point a stick at the landlords. What is the point of this if not just to try and make it as difficult for landlords as possible. There is no point for this

Gatling

So they tell the tenancy board first who will then send a letter to the tenant advising them of what they should expect next ,

Seems reasonable

myshirt

Gatling wrote: »

So they tell the tenancy board first who will then send a letter to the tenant advising them of what they should expect next ,

Seems reasonable

Yes, as if the time you need them out by isn't long enough already. It's a transfer of a government problem onto the private landlord. It's wrong. It diminishes property rights. The government can sit around scratching their stones while the landlord loses more money. Yeah that makes sense.

Gatling

myshirt wrote: »

Yes, as if the time you need them out by isn't long enough already. It's a transfer of a government problem onto the private landlord. It's wrong. It diminishes property rights. The government can sit around scratching their stones while the landlord loses more money. Yeah that makes sense.

I think people are jumping the gun here , how will a letter from the tenancy board telling tenants what and how to proceed when they leaving going to cost you or others money ,

Sad Professor

I don't see how this advocates over-holding or will hurt landlords, except maybe lazy ones. The idea is that the RTB can contact the soon-to-be evicted tenant offering "guidance". Maybe they'll get a "Welcome to homelessness" pack encouraging them to consider other options, like moving back home, moving to the west, or emigrating. :pac: But seriously, it's pretty pointless and is unlikely to have any effect except kill more time while Eoghan and Leo work on their spin machine.

Indefinite and sitting tenancies are the norm in many European countries and even some North American cities and are going to happen here too. It's only a matter of time and will be necessary to pacify would-be homeowners who will be mighty pissed when the penny finally drops that they'll never own their own home and will be stuck in Ireland's stinking rental sector for the rest of their lives. But as with rent control, FG's ideology and/or paralysis means that it when it eventually comes it will probably be in the form of rushed emergency legislation that will make matters worse and be vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

handlemaster

Gatling wrote: »

myshirt wrote: »

Yes, as if the time you need them out by isn't long enough already. It's a transfer of a government problem onto the private landlord. It's wrong. It diminishes property rights. The government can sit around scratching their stones while the landlord loses more money. Yeah that makes sense.

I think people are jumping the gun here , how will a letter from the tenancy board telling tenants what and how to proceed when they leaving going to cost you or others money ,

Dont worry their working on it

GGTrek

I went to the source of the news:
http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/homelessness/statement-minister-eoghan-murphy-following-housing-summit

The relevant paragraphs for landlords:
"Landlords, when issuing a Notice of Termination to a tenant will be required to notify the RTB. The RTB will write to each tenant providing them with advice and guidance, including the name and contact details of the relevant local authority officials to contact if they are having difficulty in accessing alternative accommodation. This will facilitate a risk-based targeting of tenancy sustainment efforts and early responses to prevent homelessness, and provide for the development of more proactive LA actions thanks to direct sharing of data.
The new inter-agency group will roll-out and oversee a targeted national awareness campaign for homelessness prevention, promoting available services, including the Tenancy Protection Service. (This will include using online and digital channels to prevent homelessness for those who are not yet at a point of crisis that would require phone or face to face advice)
Homeless HAP supports will continue to be used as an intervention and prevention tool to allow tenants to remain in their tenancies where possible. The HAP Place Finder Service is being rolled out nationally to each of the 31 local authorities to target HAP supported rental properties for households in emergency accommodation. Place Finders assist in finding suitable accommodation and assisting with the deposit and first month’s rent. Additional people are being allocated to the Place Finder Services in Dublin."

RTB pre-notification means: more bureaucracy, more time and therefore more costs added. Unless I can do it online on the RTB portal. If it is the usual b....it paper format with solicitor countersigning statutory declaration then they are just taking the proverbial ....
Tenancy Protection Service: more money for Threshold and the likes.
Finally they are just going to put into law the recent judgement on HAP: tenant enters as working one, stops or reduces working, forces landlord to accept HAP (another one sided govvie scheme)

My main worry is that once they open the feast again at the Oireachtas  (they will have to) all sorts of whackos TDs and interested parties will join the feast to screw even more the landlords hiding behind the homeless excuse but in reality pushing their communist/socialist agenda. Their main target will clearly be the removal of as many termination notices as possible especially the ones with no reasons given (first 6 months and section 34(b) exactly as AAA and Sinn Feinn tried in January. Will it help to reduce homelessness? The answer is a resounding NO, but it looks good on the sold out media.

I hope to be wrong, but as usual hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

jamesthepeach

So is this notifying of revenue effective immediately or is it just a kite for now?
There I was thinking maybe they have thought about things and maybe this announcement would be news that might make me even consider going back into rental again.
But no.
All the kite says to me is that they are intent on drowning landlords in red tape and piling on the sh!t even more. There is in no way any attempt or intention to improve the side of the landlord.
If you were on the fence about getting out then get out now would be my advice. Its just more and more and more hassle coming your way the longer you wait.

handlemaster

The government are just playing populist BS now. The putting tenants personal responsibility on the landlord is just pointless. More and more landlords will leave and more to the point new ones will not be attracted . Why is this important is the government are dependant on the private sector to house social tenants and tenants that work and pay the taxes it takes to run this country.

GGTrek

jamesthepeach wrote: »

So is this notifying of revenue effective immediately or is it just a kite for now?

It is not now, it is a proposal from the government and it is a notification to RTB, not revenue. To force landlords to perform this they will have to go through the Oireachtas in order to change (again and again) the Residential Tenancies Act. Problem of this process, as I have outlined it in my previous post: you open up again the pandora's box for all the various whackos/socialist/communists/interested parties TDs to put in amendments that will seriously curtail the whole list of termination notices from landlord (mostly Section 34) so the risk for unintended (or maybe fully intended) consequences is substantial. My mistrust for the govvie and the TDs is total.

What many socialists/communists want is simply a removal of private property rights for non-PPR properties (if they could they would remove it also for PPR, but since the vast majority of Irish people own at least a property they know they would be seriously screwed if they even mentioned such an idea). This is their agenda according to their ideology, this is the paradise they hope for:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594170/Venezuelan-president-orders-landlords-sell-homes-60-days-face-fine-24-000-wild-bid-plug-housing-shortage.html

SmallgirlBigcity

Is this in effect now or as the last post suggested - just a proposal from the government? Thanks.

GGTrek

SmallgirlBigcity wrote: »

Is this in effect now or as the last post suggested - just a proposal from the government? Thanks.

At the moment it is just a proposal from the government. But as it happened with the last two Christmas presents of 2015 and 2016, you can be almost sure they will try to get this into law (and maybe add something else as well) before end of 2017 to show the govvie is doing something. Maybe some of the proposal might even go into the budget (even more rushed in such case)

rossmores

It is already next to impossible to get rid of recession rentals the long notice offers no encouragement to leave and with dwindling supply seem many LLs are stuck with them...
If the loony left get there way this xmas it will be the final nail in private LLs cant increase rent to a reasonable rate while all other costs can and are rising.

jamesthepeach

rossmores wrote: »

It is already next to impossible to get rid of recession rentals the long notice offers no encouragement to leave and with dwindling supply seem many LLs are stuck with them...
If the loony left get there way this xmas it will be the final nail in private LLs cant increase rent to a reasonable rate while all other costs can and are rising.

Seems to be getting worse alright.
Glad I got out while I could. I worry for those I know who are still in though.
Before you know it when it becomes unviable it will be impossible to get out at all. You will be forced by govt to swallow losses and not even be able to end the investment.

mrslancaster

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Seems to be getting worse alright.
Glad I got out while I could. I worry for those I know who are still in though.
Before you know it when it becomes unviable it will be impossible to get out at all. You will be forced by govt to swallow losses and not even be able to end the investment.

Some of the recommendations made by Threshold in their pre-budget submission would make a lot of landlords think about getting out.

Tigger

Deposits to be capped at one months rent.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/government-to-cap-rental-deposits-and-crack-down-on-landlords-805708.html

Mrs Shuttleworth

GGTrek wrote: »

What many socialists/communists want is simply a removal of private property rights for non-PPR properties (if they could they would remove it also for PPR, but since the vast majority of Irish people own at least a property they know they would be seriously screwed if they even mentioned such an idea). This is their agenda according to their ideology, this is the paradise they hope for:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594170/Venezuelan-president-orders-landlords-sell-homes-60-days-face-fine-24-000-wild-bid-plug-housing-shortage.html

I suspect it's a little bit more than that, and the elements of Bilderberg/EU allied to FG are now showing their metal.

Google Luigi Fogli.

JillyQ

Why in God's name would anyone want to become a landlord, after reading those two links. The government appear to be hell bent on getting private out of the property market.

Stephen Hawkins football boots

Excellent news for vunerable tenants .well done Mr Murphy

Another joke of a move. Some serious discrimination against LLs going on with all these new measures. Why is no one getting in the media to fight the corner for LLs, making points like the higher deposit is needed to cover potential damage or lost rental on the property worth hundreds of thousands rented to tenants who have far too much rights over the property and thus could costs the LL 10's of thousands.

That article is full of digs at LLs and then you have threashold in there too, a total rouge entity.

GGTrek

Stephen Hawkins football boots wrote: »

Excellent news for vunerable tenants .well done Mr Murphy

Be careful what you wish for. The measure of capping deposits will basically exclude every tenant that does not have a decent salary since landlords in Ireland only have deposit to go to in case of a non-rent paying tenant or a tenant that causes damage or does not pay last month rent (last one is very common). Tenants with good salary are the only ones worth keeping since they have something to loose if they break leases or damage property, attachment of earnings is possible only in these cases.

Remember that the biggest issue in Ireland is not rent increases or deposit retention (just media spin and Threshold spin), but rent arrears and overholding (look at the 2017 RTB adjudications). The media spin and Threshold spin is screwing the market. Expect number of available properties for rent to fall even further given the utter stupidity of this government. Who is going to supply residential tenancies if the risk as usual is put all on the landlords' shoulders, think about what effect the stupid proposals will have on supply: reduction.

I cannot even digest the lies of this government like “We are undertaking a review of the Rebuilding Ireland plan and we will look at any option open to Government which are affordable and which will increase the supply of housing,” They are doing the exact opposite with their measures, they are reducing supply in the name of the socialist ideology (or better: be seen in a good light in the mostly socialist media)

Mrs Shuttleworth

Kassandra White Telegraph wrote: »

Another joke of a move. Some serious discrimination against LLs going on with all these new measure. Why is no one getting in the media to fight the corner for LLs, making points like the higher deposit is needed to cover potential damage or lost rental on the property worth hundreds of thousands rented to tenants who have far too much rights over the property and thus could costs the LL 10's of thousands.

That article is full of digs at LLs and then you have threashold in there too, a total rouge entity.

Landlords really should "turn into the slide" with all these new measures and engage in all lawful activity to generate income from the property without letting under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.

It's been happening organically but a conscious effort to cripple/paralyze the sector might generate enough anger from potential tenants in the medium term to level the playing pitch.

ted1

Tigger wrote: »

Deposits to be capped at one months rent.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/government-to-cap-rental-deposits-and-crack-down-on-landlords-805708.html

Daft, completely daft. Where else would you hand over an asset worth over a million for only 3.5k deposit

ted1

Stephen Hawkins football boots wrote: »

Excellent news for vunerable tenants .well done Mr Murphy

What about vulnerable landlords? I will certainly never again let to someone who may be considered to be vulnerable, only to someone with a solid job

sk8board

as a LL with multiple tenancies, I don't have any issue with this RTB notification as such, as long as it doesn't affect the timeline for removal.
As long as I'm removing the tenants in good faith, then I'd have no problem notifying the RTB to ensure they get whatever supports they need in the current.

That said, if this is a tenant issue (breaking the lease for whatever reason), I wouldn't want this notification process slowing things down - which TBH I don't think is the case.

I'm only looking fwd to the budget to see if they allow LPT against tax, or allow (non-accidental) LL's to professionalise and form companies.

April 73

This government seem to be intent on legislating against private landlords.
We are getting close to a situation where you will be forced to rent your property with virtually no rights over who you can rent to, how much you can rent for & how long that tenant can live in your property.

JaMarcusHustle

Re: the RTB notice of terminations. Is there any information on timelines? i.e. will landlords have to wait until the tenant receives their information pack before they can issue termination notice or can you just (i) sent notification to RTB by registered post (ii) wait 1 day until post has been signed for, thus RTB have been notified, and (iii) straight away notify your tenant of termination....? If so, then it's not that big of a deal, but just more stupid, pointless hoops landlords have to jump through.

Part of me thinks there is a concerted effort to make remaining a landlord in this country unprofitable, unfeasible, a massive pain in the arse or all of the above, just so landlords sell up and increase the housing supply.

DubCount

I know that there have been many measures that have been called "the last straw", but in a market which is seeing reductions in the number of private landlords we have various laws "protecting vulnerable tenants".

We have 2 year gaps between rent increases, RPZ's, and now the only issues the government/media want to address is deposit levels, deposit holding schemes, notification of evictions to RTB.....

Soon we wont have to worry about "protecting vulnerable tenants", there will be no tenants left - vulnerable or otherwise.

sk8board

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Part of me thinks there is a concerted effort to make remaining a landlord in this country unprofitable, unfeasible, a massive pain in the arse or all of the above, just so landlords sell up and increase the housing supply.

I think removing those LL's would be a good thing to professionalise the market far more than it is. As a LL, all I hear is stories of incompetent/accidental LL's, which the market would be better off without.

That said, I think they are already making it easy for those guys to leave - my rental tax % across 3 places for my 2016 returns last week is 59%, as follows:
52% income tax (40%+4%+8%), with the other 7% coming from:
+ 3 LPT's
+ 25% of mortgage interest
+ the post-tax maintenance/repairs/cap-allowances/accountant etc

that 7% is a very good year too. Its been higher.

So I keep 41% of my rent, and the Government gets the other 59%. Yep, LL's are really profiteering.


My budget request: make the LPT tax deductible (as they said they would a few years ago), and also allow LL's to form companies.

Regulations professionalise the industry, but theres no financial reason for a LL to be professional.

LuckyLloyd

I expect AirBnB regulations to be next. Then a ramping up of the CPO schemes.

So you won't be able to short term let easily; and won't be able to leave a property idle. Sell it or rent it out under the tenancy legislation. If they also start stimulating building of new homes it could sort out the housing crisis within a couple of years.

Hopefully we will also see legislation to address overholding once the crisis eases.

Mrs Shuttleworth

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I expect AirBnB regulations to be next. Then a ramping up of the CPO schemes.

So you won't be able to short term let easily; and won't be able to leave a property idle. Sell it or rent it out under the tenancy legislation. If they also start stimulating building of new homes it could sort out the housing crisis within a couple of years.

No one seems to realise that these policies are going to lead to a sharp contraction in bank lending, leaving the property market largely dominated by cash buyers and far less of an incentive to potential developers of starter homes.

ted1

Why can't the government tackle the interest rates set by banks ? Surely that's s huge issue with both tenants and home owners

Stephen Hawkins football boots

ted1 wrote: »

What about vulnerable landlords? I will certainly never again let to someone who may be considered to be vulnerable, only to someone with a solid job

All tenants are vunerable solid job or not.Landlords saying family members moving in, refurbishment etc.I have a solid job, but when I'm asked to leave my property, there is nothing I can afford, if i was to have any quality of life.I know 'LL have it tough too, but tenants are shafted

Markcheese

Will there be an equivalent letter for tenants and landlords, before a tenancy is signed advising them of the others record... Ie. John and Mary want to lease your house, but John has had issues in the past with the PRTB, with over holding, or damage or not paying the final month's rent...
. . . Or, dear Mary and John your potential new land lord has has issues with not returning deposits, or what ever..

ted1

Stephen Hawkins football boots wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

What about vulnerable landlords? I will certainly never again let to someone who may be considered to be vulnerable, only to someone with a solid job

All tenants are vunerable solid job or not.Landlords saying family members moving in, refurbishment etc.I have a solid job, but when I'm asked to leave my property, there is nothing I can afford, if i was to have any quality of life.I know 'LL have it tough too, but tenants are shafted

You being asked to leave is an issue for you and that's the difference between renting and being an owner. It's the states duty and not a private landlords to provide you with a roof.

Tenants not paying rent or thrashing apartments is a serious serious and landlords should be able to protect themselves.

Sad Professor

I used to be very opposed to double deposits but I've decided they are the least of the problems with our rental market. I'd rather the govt leave them be (since landlords will find some way of extracting more money from tenants anyway) and focus instead on making renting more attractive and long-term, i.e. make private renting worth the ridiculous money we're paying for it. A deposit protection scheme, long-term leases, sitting tenancies, regular improvements to the property, etc. Private tenants who pay their rent and take care of the property should be able to live there for many years without worrying about being evicted. If that means accelerated evictions for private tenants who don't pay their rent or that landlords have to sell to other landlords, then so be it. This along with more favourable tax treatment will attract the kind of investors we need while pushing out the ones we don't.

The barrier to this is that social housing was effectively privatised during the boom years - at the expense of the taxpayer and to the benefit of private landlords who now want to evict same tenants into homelessness. I don't blame landlords, though, social tenants are the state's responsibility and this is what you get when you rely on the private market. But it means private tenants will probably continue to be screwed while the govt and their electorate trashes out the various ideological issues they have re: social housing.

Stephen Hawkins football boots

Stephen Hawkins football boots wrote: »

All tenants are vunerable solid job or not.Landlords saying family members moving in, refurbishment etc.I have a solid job, but when I'm asked to leave my property, there is nothing I can afford, if i was to have any quality of life.I know 'LL have it tough too, but tenants are shafted

That's because you are renting, you don't own the property and thus you will not and should not have total control over it.

If you want total control buy your own place.

_Kaiser_

Kassandra White Telegraph wrote: »

That's because you are renting, you don't own the property and thus you will not and should not have total control over it.

If you want total control buy your own place.

Easy to say.. not so easy to do when, aside from supply issues forcing prices up, tenants are struggling to keep the roof they have, never mind save for another.

These measures will only impact those landlords who are trying to game the system by claiming "refurbishments" to evict tenants and then reletting at higher prices. For a genuine landlord I don't see the issue.

As for the complaints about deposit limits.. it's not supposed to be used as pocket money for the LL, and if indeed there is significant damage to a property then 2/3k probably wouldn't be much use anyway (and there are legal means to recoup that - or if those fail then there probably wasn't a hope in the first place),.. but it will stop the auction-letting that seems to be going on, and given the problems we see here all time that tenants have in getting deposits back, until the deposits are held in trust by a 3rd party, limiting their exposure to loss (people who generally can afford it far less) is no bad thing.

But no-one is forcing this upon landlords. The market is up, supply is tight which improves selling prices.. so sell. It seems to me that a lot of the landlords complaining are those who've been exploiting the loopholes and expecting to just "collect the cash" each month.

Well those days are coming to an end and while there's still a lot to do to address the problems like overholding and damage, it'd be nice to see these steps are the first stages in establishing renting as a professional and viable alternative to the "must get on the property ladder" nonsense that causes so many problems in this country in the first place.

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Easy to say.. not so easy to do when, aside from supply issues forcing prices up, tenants are struggling to keep the roof they have, never mind save for another.

These measures will only impact those landlords who are trying to game the system by claiming "refurbishments" to evict tenants and then reletting at higher prices. For a genuine landlord I don't see the issue.

The issue is that most LLs who use the refurbishment or own use or selling reasons for ending a tenancy are genuinely doing one of them but yet you have people calling for these reasons for ending a tenancy to be removed.

My point is that there should always be a way for a property owner to gain back possession of their property, they own the property and that has to trump a tenants rights in certain circumstances.

Issues caused by tenants such as over holding are far more common than LLs pretending to move in so that they can evict tenants yet there are no measures being introduced to help out LL in these situations. A serious dose of cop on is needed for those making policies on tenancies etc.

4ensic15

Living in leased accommodation and not paying the rent is theft. Thieves should be charged and be put in jail if they don't have a very good excuse.

Spanish Eyes

Being the cynic that I am, and the snail's pace of RTB interraction regarding disputes, I would expect the letter to tenant on termination notice will be received within 24hours of notification by landlord to RTB.

Ha Ha.

Anyway, a one month deposit rule will (as someone else said) only affect certain renters.

Yes those with good refs from good companies. Sorted.

And the day will come when certain or many companies will lease the property instead of the tenant. Soon to come your way. Brilliant.

Where does that leave everyone else?

Mrs Shuttleworth

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

These measures will only impact those landlords who are trying to game the system by claiming "refurbishments" to evict tenants and then reletting at higher prices. For a genuine landlord I don't see the issue.

That is completely incorrect. I have a tenant leaving next week of his own volition and he's paying €500 a month less than market rate. Strictly speaking I'm not allowed raise the rent to match other rents in the development and have to give a new tenant a statement of the old rent the outgoing tenant was paying. The property needs refurbishment which I'll be doing. But when that's complete I'll be renting out for corporate short lets or holiday lets solely.

subrosa

4ensic15 wrote: »

Living in leased accommodation and not paying the rent is theft. Thieves should be charged and be put in jail if they don't have a very good excuse.

Deposit retention is theft. Thieves should be charged and be put in jail if they don't have a very good excuse

robp

Im Germany and Italy the norm is two months rent for the deposit.

LuckyLloyd

Kassandra White Telegraph wrote: »

Another joke of a move. Some serious discrimination against LLs going on with all these new measures. Why is no one getting in the media to fight the corner for LLs, making points like the higher deposit is needed to cover potential damage or lost rental on the property worth hundreds of thousands rented to tenants who have far too much rights over the property and thus could costs the LL 10's of thousands.

That article is full of digs at LLs and then you have threashold in there too, a total rouge entity.

This is going one way in the media because people are dying in the streets, families are living miserable uncertain existences in temporary accommodation and couples earning good wages are struggling to buy homes. Remember that an important strand of the Irish Independence movement stemmed from an attempt to end landlordism. There is a small part of the national psyche that distrusts landlords.

As this forum attests to, landlords are attempting to use fake termination notices to get around RPZ rules. They are looking to use leverage in the market to push for higher deposits. They are withholding deposits at the end of tenancies for spurious reasons. And there is an undercurrent of how to work around or avoid the tenancy legislation as currently constructed.

Of course, most Landlords are getting on with it and most people can find accomodation that is workable. But in a non functioning market that is causing real consequences, if you truly ask Irish society whether they come down on the side of the few who cannot get a roof over their head or the few who suffer a lessor return on their property investment it should be clear to you which side is likely to win the argument.

The government are aware of this, and have embarked down a path on the problem. The logical conclusion of that path is legislating away the loopholes and gaps that Landlords can hide within, and they seem determined to reach that point.

TheShow

if the govt got off their asses and built affordable housing available to everyone, i.e. not just social housing, t a level to quell the demand, then we wouldn't have this problem. But they are refusing to do so and instead are putting more and more ridiculous outlandish demands on landlords.
Yes tenants need rights and certainty, but should landlords not be afforded the same? its now at the stage where you have no control who rents the property, you cant charge market rates, and you cant ask someone to leave, and on top of all that you get screwed on tax. Where is the benefit for owning an investment property. that's why i'm selling mine.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The government are aware of this, and have embarked down a path on the problem. The logical conclusion of that path is legislating away the loopholes and gaps that Landlords can hide within, and they seem determined to reach that point.

The reason LLs are looking for loopholes is because the government keep introducing idiotic rules. A LLs job is to make money that why he rents property and any LL is a fool not to try and maximise this profit at the lowest risk. Reversing the rules they have brought in and reducing tenants power to hold a LL to randsom in their property would do far more good than introducing more and more rules which are just going to make things worse.

As long as you have anti-constitutional (were they challenged) rent controls, a crowd in charge of tenancies who are crazily biased in favour of tenants (the RTB), tenants who can over hold with no punishment for years, no real mechanism for LLs to chase former tenants for rent or repair money owed etc etc etc they will continue to find alternaitves to long term letting and fair play to them I say. They are looking after themselves and their family as no one else will.

_Kaiser_

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That is completely incorrect. I have a tenant leaving next week of his own volition and he's paying €500 a month less than market rate. Strictly speaking I'm not allowed raise the rent to match other rents in the development and have to give a new tenant a statement of the old rent the outgoing tenant was paying. The property needs refurbishment which I'll be doing. But when that's complete I'll be renting out for corporate short lets or holiday lets solely.

I have a feeling that holiday/AirBnB lets will be next to be clamped down on - I've already seen reports of management companies banning it - and that's no bad thing. Commercial letting to corporates will similarly no doubt also be looked at if it takes off. It's a business-to-business transaction, with no doubt different taxation and zoning rules.

The bottom line is that yes, there aren't enough properties being built, yes some of these new rules are knee-jerk and go too far ... but people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, many have lost it and are living in hotel rooms, and the problem is only getting worse and spreading further out.. both geographically and in terms of those affected.

LuckyLloyd sums it up... if it comes down to people being out on the streets, or landlords making less profit until the core supply issues are addressed.. well that's only going to end one way really.