Tenant - notice period passed - what if they don't leave?

Cash_Q

Apologies I did post this question in another thread but it was a bit off topic so hoping I'll get an answer by starting a new thread..

If a tenant has been served their notice to leave and a statutory declaration that the house is being sold, and the notice period passes and the tenant has not left the property, what can a landlord do to have them move on?

Tenants in question have had significant notice but appear to be doing their best to obstruct the sale. What rights does a landlord have to get them out? I know it sounds awful and no-one wants to be a party to a person losing their home and having nowhere to go, but surely a landlord has a right to close a sale on their property once the notice has expired.

tretorn

I dont think it sounds awful at all. I have a house let and it will be required for a family member in the future. I expect the tenant to vacate the property and return it to me in the condition they got it.

I have to look after my family and other peoples housing requirements arent my priority.

the_syco

Cash_Q wrote: »

If a tenant has been served their notice to leave and a statutory declaration that the house is being sold, and the notice period passes and the tenant has not left the property, what can a landlord do to have them move on?

Get the sheriff to evict them.

The_Conductor

Your only option is to have followed the letter of the law- and if they still do not vacate the property- to lodge a case with the Residential Tenancies Board.
They are prioritising cases of overholding now- and undertake to hear the case within 6 weeks- however, if the tenant decides to dispute their findings, they can continue to boot having to move- further down the road. Eventually- when all legal avenues to extend their stay have been exhausted by a tenant- the RTB can take a case to the District Court on behalf of a landlord- to enforce their findings- after which the District Court can appoint a sheriff to enforce the findings.

Unfortunately- even a 'prioritised' system still means the case can drag on a year- during which time the tenant may or may not be paying rent.

The system is setup to protect tenants- and to have an automatic assumption of 'guilt' on the part of the landlord (even when they are the wronged party).

Cash_Q

Thanks for the replies, it's good to know the procedures for some peace of mind.

We're buying a house that was supposed to close in a few weeks and the tenant last week had their notice start again as the vendor hadn't issued a statutory declaration. It's seriously delaying the sale going through.

We are going ahead with the purchase anyway as we love the house and feel we've got a good price and have been waiting months as it is. At least we can keep saving until it goes through. But we live with family and others need the room once we leave so it's a nightmare.

We just fear that she'll dig her heels in when her notice is up, but it's reassuring to know what the vendor can do. Thanks again.

The_Conductor

Cash_Q wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, it's good to know the procedures for some peace of mind.

We're buying a house that was supposed to close in a few weeks and the tenant last week had their notice start again as the vendor hadn't issued a statutory declaration. It's seriously delaying the sale going through.

We are going ahead with the purchase anyway as we love the house and feel we've got a good price and have been waiting months as it is. At least we can keep saving until it goes through. But we live with family and others need the room once we leave so it's a nightmare.

We just fear that she'll dig her heels in when her notice is up, but it's reassuring to know what the vendor can do. Thanks again.

If the tenant digs her heels in- it could take up to 2 years to get her out.
There is a process- its a broken process- and government funded organisations (such as Threshold) actively advise tenants on how to play the system.

Do not sign a contract and do not pay a penny- until you are guaranteed vacant possession of the property- it is worthless to you with a tenant in it.

dubrov

Cash_Q wrote:

We just fear that she'll dig her heels in when her notice is up, but it's reassuring to know what the vendor can do. Thanks again.

I wouldn't be reassured. It could take a year to get the tenant out

The Student

The_Conductor wrote: »

If the tenant digs her heels in- it could take up to 2 years to get her out.
There is a process- its a broken process- and government funded organisations (such as Threshold) actively advise tenants on how to play the system.

Do not sign a contract and do not pay a penny- until you are guaranteed vacant possession of the property- it is worthless to you with a tenant in it.

No financial institution will allow you purchase a property without vacant possession.

SteM

The Student wrote: »

No financial institution will allow you purchase a property without vacant possession.

I was going to ask the OP about this. How can they draw down the mortgage without vacant possession?

KellyXX

From mine and my other halfs conversations with various housing charities they told us basically if someone doesn't feel like moving they can stay as long as they like almost. Years. And even if they can't afford the rent they don't have to pay what they can't afford and can still stay.

cruizer101

Op you should keep looking at houses, as others have said it could be more than a year and if takes that long they may well put price up also

Cash_Q

We have signed contracts and paid our 10% deposit so we can't keep looking at houses. The bank won't allow us to draw down until she leaves so we will have to keep reapplying for mortgage approval until she is gone.

I took relief when people said that the landlord can get help from the sheriff to get her out. Years of waiting is another story. It's a crap situation but we're signed in now so can't back out.

tretorn

Have you a solicitor cash Q, he or she is seriously negligent if you do have one.

The_Conductor

tretorn wrote: »

Have you a solicitor cash Q, he or she is seriously negligent if you do have one.

+1
I'm not sure how you were allowed to sign a contract- when vacant possession of the property was not ensured.

jimmycrackcorm

The_Conductor wrote:

Do not sign a contract and do not pay a penny- until you are guaranteed vacant possession of the property- it is worthless to you with a tenant in it.

Once the house changed hands, what's to stop the new owner just changing the locks and denying the tenants access? After all they aren't the landlord, so the RTB can't take a case against them.

The_Conductor wrote:

+1 I'm not sure how you were allowed to sign a contract- when vacant possession of the property was not ensured.

Nothing to stop contracts being signed. Getting the mortgage is the issue, and even then it's secured on the property regardless.

Claw Hammer

The_Conductor wrote: »

+1
I'm not sure how you were allowed to sign a contract- when vacant possession of the property was not ensured.

Of course, you can. The contract will make provision for vacant possession. If the owner does not provide vacant possession on the closing date you can withdraw from the contract and demand the wasted costs from the owner.

Claw Hammer

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Once the house changed hands, what's to stop the new owner just changing the locks and denying the tenants access? After all they aren't the landlord, so the RTB can't take a case against them.



.

The new owner takes over the old owners interests in the property subject to all the burdens the old owner had. The new owner will have notice that the tenants are in the property and will become the landlord on the closing of the sale. Building societies have been made to refund deposits to tenants who were on a property they repossessed.

Cash_Q

The bank will not allow us to draw down the mortgage without vacant possession. Contracts signed and closing date is ten days after tenants vacate the property as per date on their notice or sooner if the leave sooner (ha!). There is a clause that says we can pull out if we don't get financing from the bank. Our solicitor inserted this clause to protect us.

I spoke to the RTB today and was told that if the tenants aren't out on their due date that the landlord can open a dispute with them for overholding. If the tenants then dispute this and the RTB finds that the landlord has done everything by the book, he can have an order enforced by the court to have the tenants removed.

Rtb couldn't tell me what this will result in but did say that they are making cases like this a priority so it should take too long for their adjudicator to make a decision.

The_Conductor

Cash_Q wrote: »

I spoke to the RTB today and was told that if the tenants aren't out on their due date that the landlord can open a dispute with them for overholding. If the tenants then dispute this and the RTB finds that the landlord has done everything by the book, he can have an order enforced by the court to have the tenants removed.

Rtb couldn't tell me what this will result in but did say that they are making cases like this a priority so it should take too long for their adjudicator to make a decision.

They undertake to have 'an initial hearing' within 6 weeks.
The actual process- if a tenant decides to dispute the finding- can take up to a year- and you still have no guarantee that the tenant will have vacated the premises. According to the RTB's annual report- it takes them on average 8 months to initiate a court case to enforce a finding- and the tenant can then make their case in the District Court- if they so choose.

The ball is really in the tenant's court- and the system is setup to protect them at any cost.

guest2018

I am in a similar situation- signed a contract in summer 2014.
Since then the seller has been trying to get rid of the tenant, still unsuccessfully....
The tenant's debt is tens of thousands, he is still in the property, persistently appealing everywhere...
I had to change a solicitor to start suing the vendor.
Nobody knows when it finishes. I payed a deposit in 2013...

The_Conductor

guest2018 wrote: »

I am in a similar situation- signed a contract in summer 2014.
Since then the seller has been trying to get rid of the tenant, still unsuccessfully....
The tenant's debt is tens of thousands, he is still in the property, persistently appealing everywhere...
I had to change a solicitor to start suing the vendor.
Nobody knows when it finishes. I payed a deposit in 2013...

5 years later- and they still haven't left?
In cases like this- they are normally trying to blackmail the owner for a bribe to leave the property.
5 years though? If the owner were to have pressed the RTB for assistance- they would normally take a case on behalf of the owner- to ultimately have a sheriff appointed to enforce the RTB ruling.

No matter how many grounds for appeal the tenant has- 5 years later- and tens of thousands in rent arrears- is taking the piss.

guest2018

The_Conductor wrote: »

5 years later- and they still haven't left?
In cases like this- they are normally trying to blackmail the owner for a bribe to leave the property.
5 years though? If the owner were to have pressed the RTB for assistance- they would normally take a case on behalf of the owner- to ultimately have a sheriff appointed to enforce the RTB ruling.

No matter how many grounds for appeal the tenant has- 5 years later- and tens of thousands in rent arrears- is taking the piss.

This is a receivership case. The receiver's changed solicitors already. But the tenant seems is more competent than the solicitors, as they've made all possible mistakes to allow the tenant to appeal in all cases. I can suspect he's appealing again to the High Court now, the second time but with a different ground...

The_Conductor

Even if it is a receiver case- there is no reason the receiver hasn't requested the RTB take a case to enforce their ruling- and followed through with it.

Its madness in the extreme that the tenant is still there playing mindgames- 5 years later.

I imagine the only reason you're still hanging around- is you signed a contract 5 years ago- at prices from 5 years ago- and you can't afford to look elsewhere? Your deposit is safe- as you have not been given vacant possession of the property to close on- however, that's not the point, is it?

The situation you've briefly outlined- is nutty in the extreme- however, if I was able to keep booting the problem down the road and hadn't paid rent in 5 years- hell, I know I'd do it to.

Have you threatened to take a case against the receiver yourself? That might focus their minds.

guest2018

The_Conductor wrote: »

Even if it is a receiver case- there is no reason the receiver hasn't requested the RTB take a case to enforce their ruling- and followed through with it.

Its madness in the extreme that the tenant is still there playing mindgames- 5 years later.

I imagine the only reason you're still hanging around- is you signed a contract 5 years ago- at prices from 5 years ago- and you can't afford to look elsewhere? Your deposit is safe- as you have not been given vacant possession of the property to close on- however, that's not the point, is it?

The situation you've briefly outlined- is nutty in the extreme- however, if I was able to keep booting the problem down the road and hadn't paid rent in 5 years- hell, I know I'd do it to.

Have you threatened to take a case against the receiver yourself? That might focus their minds.

Yes, you're right- the prices have increased so much for the last few years that I cannot afford to buy a property now.

My court case against the receiver was postponed a few times as they were seeking the enforcement of the determination order in RTB, then in the Circuit Court, then it went the second time by the same way starting from scratch, when they lost in the Circuit Court due to previous solicitors mistakes...

So, they never said they failed but continued to promise ...

LuckyLloyd

KellyXX wrote: »

From mine and my other halfs conversations with various housing charities they told us basically if someone doesn't feel like moving they can stay as long as they like almost. Years. And even if they can't afford the rent they don't have to pay what they can't afford and can still stay.

This is incorrect if you pursue your rights as a Landlord correctly from the outset. Even with RTB appeals, etc you can reach a legal point where a sheriff can forcibly return your property in around a year. However, in order to get to the finishing line in the shortest time period, you need to make sure that you have left no avenue for appeal open - everything before and after a notice to terminate needs to be done strictly as per the law.

We can argue whether that should be the case or not, but the advice that should always be offered to landlords in the current context is to consult a solicitor at the first sign of resistance from the tenant and make sure that they're doing everything by the book.

Cash_Q

That's beyond ridiculous. Our vendor is dependant on this sale to proceed with his next purchase so he will be ready and waiting to take her to court if she refuses to leave. The RTB will rule in his favour as he has done everything by the book and she will be told to leave. Solicitors on both sides are ready to get her out so we're not worried.

KellyXX

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is incorrect if you pursue your rights as a Landlord correctly from the outset. Even with RTB appeals, etc you can reach a legal point where a sheriff can forcibly return your property in around a year. However, in order to get to the finishing line in the shortest time period, you need to make sure that you have left no avenue for appeal open - everything before and after a notice to terminate needs to be done strictly as per the law.

We can argue whether that should be the case or not, but the advice that should always be offered to landlords in the current context is to consult a solicitor at the first sign of resistance from the tenant and make sure that they're doing everything by the book.

Oh, a year if everything goes smoothly.
Silly me. A year is fine then. No problem at all.

LuckyLloyd

KellyXX wrote: »

Oh, a year if everything goes smoothly.
Silly me. A year is fine then. No problem at all.

I didn't say that isn't a problem. Just correcting your assertion that the tenant can stay as long as they like, or that the process takes years.

In any scenario where you are pursuing your legal rights, doing everything correctly as per the law is a basic requirement for it to run "smoothly" from your perspective. If you're sloppy in terms of your obligations and you leave yourself open to appeals about process or nuances in documentation, etc it really is your own fault unfortunately.

LuckyLloyd

Cash_Q wrote: »

That's beyond ridiculous. Our vendor is dependant on this sale to proceed with his next purchase so he will be ready and waiting to take her to court if she refuses to leave. The RTB will rule in his favour as he has done everything by the book and she will be told to leave. Solicitors on both sides are ready to get her out so we're not worried.

Sounds good. Fingers crossed the tenant doesn't decide to drag it out to the point of being forcibly evicted, but if she does at least you know it should reach a conclusion in a set time period.

murphaph

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I didn't say that isn't a problem. Just correcting your assertion that the tenant can stay as long as they like, or that the process takes years.

In any scenario where you are pursuing your legal rights, doing everything correctly as per the law is a basic requirement for it to run "smoothly" from your perspective. If you're sloppy in terms of your obligations and you leave yourself open to appeals about process or nuances in documentation, etc it really is your own fault unfortunately.

No it isn't. It's the fault of the overholder. That they may be able to find a small technical fault in part of the process doesn't mean it isn't their fault!

LuckyLloyd

murphaph wrote: »

No it isn't. It's the fault of the overholder. That they may be able to find a small technical fault in part of the process doesn't mean it isn't their fault!

Grand, we can all agree we need to expedite the process in cases of overholding. But ultimately whatever the process involves it’s up to you to pursue your rights in a legally correct manner.

Cash_Q

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Sounds good. Fingers crossed the tenant doesn't decide to drag it out to the point of being forcibly evicted, but if she does at least you know it should reach a conclusion in a set time period.

Yes we are hoping that she'll just leave in August but preparing ourselves in the case that she might not leave and that it could drag out for longer. Either way we're all locked in contract wise and the vendor needs her gone as much as we do.

4ensic15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is incorrect if you pursue your rights as a Landlord correctly from the outset. Even with RTB appeals, etc you can reach a legal point where a sheriff can forcibly return your property in around a year. However, in order to get to the finishing line in the shortest time period, you need to make sure that you have left no avenue for appeal open - everything before and after a notice to terminate needs to be done strictly as per the law.

We can argue whether that should be the case or not, but the advice that should always be offered to landlords in the current context is to consult a solicitor at the first sign of resistance from the tenant and make sure that they're doing everything by the book.

Not correct. You will not get through adjudication, tribunal hearing and high court within a year. Following which it will take several more months to get to the Circuit Court for enforcement. Even after getting to hearing in the circuit court it often takes the sheriff several months to get a tenant out. If the tenant judicially reviews the circuit court it will add months again.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

Not correct. You will not get through adjudication, tribunal hearing and high court within a year. Following which it will take several more months to get to the Circuit Court for enforcement. Even after getting to hearing in the circuit court it often takes the sheriff several months to get a tenant out. If the tenant judicially reviews the circuit court it will add months again.

Not correct.
The high court is only used for POINT OF LAW. It would not be part of the majority of cases.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Not correct.
The high court is only used for POINT OF LAW. It would not be part of the majority of cases.

If the tenant appeals on a point of law, and some have, successfully, then a year can be added to the process. Even if the appeal is unmeritorious, it will delay things. There is nothing to stop any tenant appealing to the High
Court.This landlords served notice in 2014. The tenant is still not gone.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

LuckyLloyd

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the tenant appeals on a point of law, and some have, successfully, then a year can be added to the process. Even if the appeal is unmeritorious, it will delay things. There is nothing to stop any tenant appealing to the High
Court.This landlords served notice in 2014. The tenant is still not gone.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

A future tenant won't be able to appeal on that point of law though. There are only so many points of law that can go through the courts to create precedents. And not every tenant will have the knowledge of due process or the ability to formulate valid appeals or resources to hire a solicitor to do so on their behalf.

What you've linked is even more reason to hire a reputable solicitor with expertise in the area of law when running into resistance from tenants. Ms Dunivya will be rightly evicted in due course. All it ever comes down to is a matter of time.

Needless to say, anyone reasonable supports changes to legislation to expedite the process. We can debate what that involves. But even then, it will be a matter of time and due process - all that will change will be less time and simplifications of the path to the Sheriff being empowered.

The_Conductor

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the tenant appeals on a point of law, and some have, successfully, then a year can be added to the process. Even if the appeal is unmeritorious, it will delay things. There is nothing to stop any tenant appealing to the High
Court.This landlords served notice in 2014. The tenant is still not gone.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

Fecking hell- I know its only a short form reading- however, its staggering.
So- the notice of termination was found to be sound- however, as the RTB took the case against Ms. Dunivya - without including the landlord (Mr. Gibson) as a party to the case- the high court are batting it back to the RTB (again) and advising they need to hold a fresh tribunal- however, they are acknowledging no fundamental issue with the 2014 notice of termination...........

GGTrek

The_Conductor wrote: »

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the tenant appeals on a point of law, and some have, successfully, then a year can be added to the process. Even if the appeal is unmeritorious, it will delay things. There is nothing to stop any tenant appealing to the High
Court.This landlords served notice in 2014. The tenant is still not gone.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

Fecking hell- I know its only a short form reading- however, its staggering.
So- the notice of termination was found to be sound- however, as the RTB took the case against Ms. Dunivya - without including the landlord (Mr. Gibson) as a party to the case- the high court are batting it back to the RTB (again) and advising they need to hold a fresh tribunal- however, they are acknowledging no fundamental issue with the 2014 notice of termination...........

It is much more complicated than that. I personally know the solicitor of the case. The worst case was actually Canty who went twice to the Supreme Court (Mr Canty is dead now). However these are exceptionally rare cases.

We should look at the real problem which are in this order:
1) the RTB appeal system (should be removed)
2) the necessity to lodge a case at the Circuit Court for enforcement (should be removed)
3) The sheriff execution to be expedited massively to just a few days (like in the US) right after the first determination order

The parties could be left to appeal only on compensation, not on the actual eviction.

Just a few stats: approximately 15% of adjudication orders are appealed to RTB Tribunal and approximately 10-15% of RTB Tribunal determinations are appealed to the High Court in the vast majority by tenants who are litigants in person with almost no hope of ever winning the case (Approximately only one appeal per year on tenancy law at the High Court is successful, in 2017 no High Court appeal was succesful for tenants and the craziest ones even tried to present their case to the Court of Appeals which thankfully rejected them quickly without granting hearings) at a huge cost to the taxpayer (RTB Evershed law firm legal fees and senior judges salaries).

This system of almost automatic appeals by people who cannot and will not pay if they loose is unworkable. Most of the tenants who appeal and loose pay no financial penalty (because they are social welfare tenants) and are a huge burden to the landlords and to the taxpayer in general. In many US states for a tenant to appeal while he/she is not paying rent, the court requests that the total amount of rent outstanding is put up as a deposit in court. This stops 99% of frivoulous litigation.

The current Irish legal process for tenancy law is a bad joke devised by the Irish politicians who want to look good on the socialist media.

Claw Hammer

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A future tenant won't be able to appeal on that point of law though. There are only so many points of law that can go through the courts to create precedents. And not every tenant will have the knowledge of due process or the ability to formulate valid appeals or resources to hire a solicitor to do so on their behalf.

What you've linked is even more reason to hire a reputable solicitor with expertise in the area of law when running into resistance from tenants. Ms Dunivya will be rightly evicted in due course. All it ever comes down to is a matter of time.

Needless to say, anyone reasonable supports changes to legislation to expedite the process. We can debate what that involves. But even then, it will be a matter of time and due process - all that will change will be less time and simplifications of the path to the Sheriff being empowered.

Tenants appeal on all kinds of nonsense points. All that happens in most cases is delay. delay costs the landlord. All tenants will eventually be evicted sometime but it can be delayed by years. That landlord hired a reputable solicitor and the RTB agreed his notice was valid. The RTB should be got rid of and tenants should have to apply to the courts with their complaints. The whole nonsens of adjudication hearings going on for hours is madness.

LuckyLloyd

The RTB should absolutely not be got rid imo, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The focus should be on a simpler quicker process to utilizing the power of the sheriff once the PRTB has made it's determination.

Claw Hammer

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The RTB should absolutely not be got rid imo, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The focus should be on a simpler quicker process to utilizing the power of the sheriff once the PRTB has made it's determination.

That would be unconstitutional. Removing someone from their home is a serious matter as held by the ECHR. Having a statutory body having the right to evict without court supervision would not pass muster. Even local authorities who want to move a tenant need a court order if the tenant refuses to move. Why should some RTB adjudicator with no legal training be in a position to cause someone to be dragged out of their home with judicial oversight?

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the tenant appeals on a point of law, and some have, successfully, then a year can be added to the process. Even if the appeal is unmeritorious, it will delay things. There is nothing to stop any tenant appealing to the High
Court.This landlords served notice in 2014. The tenant is still not gone.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7F4D66320A5B7A3880257F5C00349E68

The Dunivya cases are unusual, it is not one case but rather a series of cases. the landlord had first attempted to evict her in 2011 and continues to do so. The 2017 (HC) case related to the meaning of the word "require" as in s.34 as in require for relatives use. There is another case pending for 2018.

It would still not be true to say a case is likely to include HC, it is pointless unless there is a point of law to consider, there are only 6 cases on the docket relating to the RTB for 2018 thus far, one is RTB v Dunivya and another is an appeal by the RTB, so that leaves 4 where the tenant/landlord have appealed. I think 16 weeks to 20 weeks from date of lodgement (within 21 days of tribunal decision) at the moment would be realistic. Dunivya I believe took just 16 weeks or so to be heard in 2017.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

The Dunivya cases are unusual, it is not one case but rather a series of cases. the landlord had first attempted to evict her in 2011 and continues to do so. The 2017 (HC) case related to the meaning of the word "require" as in s.34 as in require for relatives use. There is another case pending for 2018.

It would still not be true to say a case is likely to include HC, it is pointless unless there is a point of law to consider, there are only 6 cases on the docket relating to the RTB for 2018 thus far, one is RTB v Dunivya and another is an appeal by the RTB, so that leaves 4 where the tenant/landlord have appealed. I think 16 weeks to 20 weeks from date of lodgement (within 21 days of tribunal decision) at the moment would be realistic. Dunivya I believe took just 16 weeks or so to be heard in 2017.

It takes weeks to get to adjudication. More weeks to wait for a decision. Months for the appeal tribunal to sit. Weeks again to wait for the decision. In some circuits enforcement is very slow. Adjournments are for months at a time. After that it is wait for the sheriff.
It is often worth the tenants while to go to the High Court. they get to stay in the property and there is no likelihood a costs order will be enforced against them.

KellyXX

4ensic15 wrote: »

It takes weeks to get to adjudication. More weeks to wait for a decision. Months for the appeal tribunal to sit. Weeks again to wait for the decision. In some circuits enforcement is very slow. Adjournments are for months at a time. After that it is wait for the sheriff.
It is often worth the tenants while to go to the High Court. they get to stay in the property and there is no likelihood a costs order will be enforced against them.

Thats why friends who are landlords told me they only take people with good long term jobs.
ie no people who wouldnt be bothered at being chased for damages. People who have reputation and money on the line.

The_Conductor

KellyXX wrote: »

Thats why friends who are landlords told me they only take people with good long term jobs.
ie no people who wouldnt be bothered at being chased for damages. People who have reputation and money on the line.

This is the way things are rapidly going.
It doesn't matter what rent a tenant is paying- if they are a good tenant- they deserve a discount- however, the government went and ballsed that up- you can't offer a good tenant an inducement to stay (by not increasing the rent) as a subsequent tenant gets to avail of the reputation afforded by the decent tenant- and gets to play all manner of mind games.

Any sane landlord now has to do due dilligence on prospective tenants to try and ensure the profile of a prospective tenant is satisfactory. You can't even assume references are accurate- I was asked to look at references for a stack of prospective tenants for a nice apartment in Smithfield this week- of the 42 applicants- over 30 provided glowing references- and when I whittled it down and called HR in a few of the multinationals sprinkled in the references- only one appears not to have embellished their documentation. She is getting the apartment.

utmbuilder

Even if rents have doubled , after tax is it worth the extra 500 a month for all the new rules, PR, Tennant's rights campaigns. People advised to over stay, td's saying don't leave.

It was easier before for both landlords and tenants

4ensic15

utmbuilder wrote: »

Even if rents have doubled , after tax is it worth the extra 500 a month for all the new rules, PR, Tennant's rights campaigns. People advised to over stay, td's saying don't leave.

It was easier before for both landlords and tenants

Not alone can some people not leave well enough alone, but they continually make things worse. They are now planning to give more power to the RTB. The greatest scourge in Ireland since Cromwell.

The_Conductor

utmbuilder wrote: »

Even if rents have doubled , after tax is it worth the extra 500 a month for all the new rules, PR, Tennant's rights campaigns. People advised to over stay, td's saying don't leave.

It was easier before for both landlords and tenants

Of course it was easier for both- the issue is the quite incredible regulation that the government keep insisting on imposing- means fewer and fewer fools want to be landlords. Scarscity of supply- also means the mirage of empty houses that the Minister proclaimed was going to solve the housing problem- was simply that- a mirage.

Every time the government meddles- they make everything significantly worse for both tenants and landlords.

We need supply. Its not rocket science. Ramping up supply- will unblock the whole situation. Local authorities need to replenish their housing stocks- and use them to house local authority tenants. They also need to ringfence them- so they are not sold off- ever.

Its actually quite simple- we critically need supply, period. We do not need more regulation- we need more supply.

Cash_Q

Just an update for all those who offered helpful advice, the tenant left so we are closing in the next two weeks so she didn't hang in there until August in the end! And no pressure from us to get her out she just went. Delighted.