Are any landlords her only renting to people that are chaseable for damage and money

KellyXX

I was out for a meal with some old friends last night and the housing crisis came up.
I was telling them my story about renting an Airbnb now and how I was so upset when I had to move before I nearly badly hurt a landlord who had been good to me just because I thought he was being mean when he wasn't. And I finally came to my senses and saw his side.

Well it turns out three of the people at the table were landlords and they said they feel really hard done by from rental rules. Between them they had some horror stories which I won't go into but they did all agree on something interesting.

They all said that from now on they will only be renting to people with good solid long term jobs.
The reason being in not so many words that those tenants are less likely to cause damage or owe rent simply because they have a reputation to keep. Ie they can be chased up for any money owed for rent or damage done, so will be less likely to do it.

I can see their logic and wondered if more landlords thought the same. I didn't realize they would have the strong opinion on it that they did. They all said they would leave their place empty rather than rent it to someone they could not be chased through the courts, if they couldn't find a suitable tenant.

Teyla Emmagan

Every landlord thinks the same. Of course you are going to look for the best possible tenant for your valuable property. You'd be an awful twit otherwise, especially with the legislation the way it is.

KellyXX

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Every landlord thinks the same. Of course you are going to look for the best possible tenant for your valuable property. You'd be an awful twit otherwise, especially with the legislation the way it is.

They weren't just talking about looking for the best possible tenant though. They had a line where if they couldn't find a tenant above that line they were happy to leave empty until they did find one. Ie tenants both working with very good job working in respectable company for at least two years. They were adamant that if they had no chance chance of getting loses back from a tenant then they were not having that tenant.

davo10

Kelly I have three apartments in cities, all have been rented all the time to people, mostly single, with well paying jobs. I have a lovely house in a town about 40 mins for a city, much lower rent, rented to families/groups of friends, in 10 years I have never had hassle with the higher rentals, and lots of hassle with the lower. I put another house recently on Airbnb and when the current occupants of the house above leave, that is going on Airbnb as well. I will leave it empty before I would take in another tenant who I have any doubts about. Interestingly, I ask for the equivalent of 3 months rent (first,last,deposit) on the apartments, no problem whatsoever, ask the same for the house and I used to get a bit of abuse.

It is just to hard to deal with bad tenants, they have far more rights that the property owner.

KellyXX

Sounds like you think exactly how my friends were thinking. They were saying they want responsible people who show they have a good track record and good jobs. Basically people who have something to lose if they go rogue.
People who costs can be recouoed from should they need to be.

They said someone who has nothing to lose just doesn't give a fcuk, so they will treat the landlord and the property like sh1t because it won't come back to them even if it goes to court.

Someone with a good job and income knows that they will be paying if it goes to court so will have much more respect.

I just did the know how prevelant it was that landlords were activley vetting their tenants this way because of the tenancy rights skew.

One of then said the their apartment came up for rent last month and the removed everything from it because of the rent control.
They said the rent was stuck at €1040 per month when it could be €1300 per month. They took everything out and put it up for rent at €1040 totally empty and not even painted. The less to break or go wrong the better.

And when asked about the state of the place and no furniture, they just said this is what you get for €1040 per month here, take it or leave it, and just give it back in exactly the same state you get it in, empty and not painted.
They rented it no problem.

Franz Von Peppercorn

This proves nothing except that in a tight market landlords can be picky. Come any recession and they will be accepting HAP.

Franz Von Peppercorn

It’s also potentially discriminatory. As in non Irish residents can be a risk under this ideology.

KellyXX

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s also potentially discriminatory. As in non Irish residents can be a risk under this ideology.

As long as they don't tell why they can pick and choose who they like.

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This proves nothing except that in a tight market landlords can be picky. Come any recession and they will be accepting HAP.

I think it has less to do with the market being "tight" and far more to do with the difficulty in dealing with bad tenants.

KellyXX

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This proves nothing except that in a tight market landlords can be picky. Come any recession and they will be accepting HAP.

This is true. If you couldn't rent it to someone else you would have to take what you can get, or just leave it empty I guess.depends how desperate the landlord is for money. Even with half of it going to the tax man.

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s also potentially discriminatory. As in non Irish residents can be a risk under this ideology.

I have read nothing on this thread about color nor origin, can you point out where you see discrimination? Two of my apartments are rented to non nationals, an American and two Arab girls. If a non National has a good job and high income, I certainly wouldn't care where he/she came from.

rgace

I think it has less to do with the market being "tight" and far more to do with the difficulty in dealing with bad tenants.

It is obviously a combination of both, asking for bank statements and letters from employers etc is fine in the current market but when it changes it will likely make it harder to rent out a property.

Franz Von Peppercorn

davo10 wrote: »

I think it has less to do with the market being "tight" and far more to do with the difficulty in dealing with bad tenants.

So you are saying that if the market collapses landlords will be as picky. Not buying that.

Franz Von Peppercorn

davo10 wrote: »

I have read nothing on this thread about color nor origin, can you point out where you see discrimination? Two of my apartments are rented to non nationals, an American and two Arab girls. If a non National has a good job and high income, I certainly wouldn't care where he/she came from.

The thread title is about the “chasability” of the tenants. If this was a concern then landlords might be worried about people who could leave the country.

KellyXX

rgace wrote: »

It is obviously a combination of both, asking for bank statements and letters from employers etc is fine in the current market but when it changes it will likely make it harder to rent out a property.

You can only deal with the conditions in front of you though, so I really the only things to consider are the conditions of today
For all we know next year there will be no tax to pay on rental income and it will be cheaper. Or maybe it will still be too high and there will be no landlords renting. You just don't know the future, so today it is.

KellyXX

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The thread title is about the “chasability” of the tenants. If this was a concern then landlords might be worried about people who could leave the country.

True. Anyone can leave the country. But most people with careers have probably got scruples.
Except for my boss

But even he would be mortified at people finding out he wrecked an apartment or didn't pay the rent, even if he left the country to avoid court.

myshirt

There is nothing too complex here. There is a business model behind everything, whether you are renting to working professionals, those on welfare, or to man wearing his underwear outside his pants.

Don't put it all on professionals though, you find scumbag behaviour in all walks of life.

davo10

rgace wrote: »

It is obviously a combination of both, asking for bank statements and letters from employers etc is fine in the current market but when it changes it will likely make it harder to rent out a property.

Personally I don't think so. A dip in the economy will not mean there are more properties to rent or less people to rent them. The only way things will change is if there is an explosion of house building projects, and that is not going to happen. I was speaking to an EA friend of Thursday, he told me that he cannot get enough houses in the 2-4K range, he had recently sold out an 18 house development the day it went on sale.

Field east

KellyXX wrote: »

Sounds like you think exactly how my friends were thinking. They were saying they want responsible people who show they have a good track record and good jobs. Basically people who have something to lose if they go rogue.
People who costs can be recouoed from should they need to be.

They said someone who has nothing to lose just doesn't give a fcuk, so they will treat the landlord and the property like sh1t because it won't come back to them even if it goes to court.

Someone with a good job and income knows that they will be paying if it goes to court so will have much more respect.

I just did the know how prevelant it was that landlords were activley vetting their tenants this way because of the tenancy rights skew.

One of then said the their apartment came up for rent last month and the removed everything from it because of the rent control.
They said the rent was stuck at €1040 per month when it could be €1300 per month. They took everything out and put it up for rent at €1040 totally empty and not even painted. The less to break or go wrong the better.

And when asked about the state of the place and no furniture, they just said this is what you get for €1040 per month here, take it or leave it, and just give it back in exactly the same state you get it in, empty and not painted.
They rented it no problem.

A very good idea but there is one 'small' issue re no painting, etc. If a potential tenant with a good job , good references, etc , sees it he/ she may be turned off being interested in it. Saying ' Well, if that's the way the landlord keeps his property , I wonder how interested is he/she in keeping the overall property maintained'

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So you are saying that if the market collapses landlords will be as picky. Not buying that.

Unless you have been living in a cave for the last few years, you will know that the rental problems are not due primarily to wage inflation, increase in population etc, it is primarily due to the lack of availability of rental properties. Can a market collapse when there is undersupply and high demand? It certainly would be an unusual economic event.

But going back to your point about discrimination, how is checking that you have a good job and can pay the rent discrimination?

KellyXX

Field east wrote: »

A very good idea but there is one 'small' issue re no painting, etc. If a potential tenant with a good job , good references, etc , sees it he/ she may be turned off being interested in it. Saying ' Well, if that's the way the landlord keeps his property , I wonder how interested is he/she in keeping the overall property maintained'

True.
But she only needed one suitable person to realise that they were getting a bargain. If they bought all their own furniture and got it nicely decorated they could cover the cost in a couple of months of the savings compared to renting the one next door.
Anyway she rented it handy enough to a suitable person.

KellyXX

myshirt wrote: »

There is nothing too complex here. There is a business model behind everything, whether you are renting to working professionals, those on welfare, or to man wearing his underwear outside his pants.

Don't put it all on professionals though, you find scumbag behaviour in all walks of life.

True. There is scumbaggery everywhere, but it's all about where is peak scumbaggery I guess. You have play the odds as best you can.

davo10

KellyXX wrote: »

True. There is scumbaggery everywhere, but it's all about where is peak scumbaggery I guess. You have play the odds as best you can.

This effectively is what your friends, and most land lords, try to do. Reduce risk. It's not a perfect model and there is no guarantee of success, but you still have to try. Most tenants are good, but it's the LL who owns the very valuable asset which is being used so the greater risk lies with the property owner. It is common sense to try and do all you can to mitigate those risks by setting criteria for tenants. Good job, afford the rent, good references etc are the most obvious criteria. If the applicants don't meet it and you can afford to do it, better to wait for a better applicant than rent to someone you are not sure about.

Wesser

What do you mean you nearly badly hurt the landlord.
Do you mean you were going to assault them???!!!
Jesus Christ.

mikemac2

A thread where the OP agrees with every single reply

Very rare indeed on boards

KellyXX

Wesser wrote: »

What do you mean you nearly badly hurt the landlord.
Do you mean you were going to assault them???!!!
Jesus Christ.

No.

KellyXX

mikemac2 wrote: »

A thread where the OP agrees with every single reply

Very rare indeed on boards

Agreed.
That's what I get for staying up all night I guess.
Time to sleep soon. I'll be my usual argumentative self after some zzzzzzzz

Wesser

What did you mean?

Franz Von Peppercorn

davo10 wrote: »

Unless you have been living in a cave for the last few years, you will know that the rental problems are not due primarily to wage inflation, increase in population etc, it is primarily due to the lack of availability of rental properties. Can a market collapse when there is undersupply and high demand? It certainly would be an unusual economic event.

I don’t know why we got into this tangent but of course a market can collapse when there is undersupply and high demand - it has to first transition to a case of oversupply and low demand.

But going back to your point about discrimination, how is checking that you have a good job and can pay the rent discrimination?

It isn’t. As you probably know since I’ve explained it twice I am interested in what is meant by “chaseability” as mentioned in the title.

I have no idea how a person with a good job with over two years service is more chasable than someone with a job recently achieved. Which would be more common for immigrant.


There’s some reading between the lines needed here but there’s a clear potential for discrimination there.

KellyXX

Wesser wrote: »

What did you mean?

Oh did t realise there was a question.
I was a bit down at the time I got my notice to move and looking for somewhere else broke my heart at the amount of extra rent I would have to pay. So I got my other half to go and find d out what we could do from housing charities and they basically said to just overhold and not to worry. I was all for it and fcuking over the landlord who was always good to us, but eventually I saw sense when my other half pointed out what an idiot I was being at a time when I was willing to listen to him.

The it turned out that our landlords business was in trouble and they needed the money from selling the house as they couldn't get enough money from the rent that was locked way below what they could be getting as they we're being nice to us all these years. I felt so guilty about it all, still do.

KellyXX

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I don’t know why we got into this tangent but of course a market can collapse when there is undersupply and high demand - it has to first transition to a case of oversupply and low demand.



It isn’t. As you probably know since I’ve explained it twice I am interested in what is meant by “chaseability” as mentioned in the title.

I have no idea how a person with a good job with over two years service is more chasable than someone with a job recently achieved. Which would be more common for immigrant.


There’s some reading between the lines needed here but there’s a clear potential for discrimination there.

I was talking about someone you have the most chance of getting money and costs back from should you win a court case. These type of people are easily identified and would by nature not want to end up in a position where you took them court and they lost.

Even easier indentifiable are people who you would get nothing back from.shoukd you take them to court and win.

Probably not rocket science.

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I don’t know why we got into this tangent but of course a market can collapse when there is undersupply and high demand - it has to first transition to a case of oversupply and low demand.



It isn’t. As you probably know since I’ve explained it twice I am interested in what is meant by “chaseability” as mentioned in the title.

I have no idea how a person with a good job with over two years service is more chasable than someone with a job recently achieved. Which would be more common for immigrant.


There’s some reading between the lines needed here but there’s a clear potential for discrimination there.

We got on to this tangent when reference was made to market changes and LLs being prepared to rent to anyone. Can you honestly say you see a likelihood of over supply in the current houseing market anytime soon? And even in the unlikely event that change did occur, LL would still look to limit the risk on people they rent to.

"Chasability" is not about tracking down an immigrant who has gone back home, it's about chasing the Irish guy/gal who has trashed your home or stopped paying rent and is refusing to leave. It's about the tenant being held accountable and being in a position where they can suffer a loss, monetarily and/or reputationily by having been pursued by the property owner for damage done or rent owed.

A person in a good long term job is more likely to have the means to pay the rent, is less likely to be transient and more likely be concerned about a landlord arriving at their place of work looking for their money, or having their name on the RTB site.

As the op has simply pointed out, you can't get blood from a stone, if a tenant has no money and no means, there is no chance of recovering what you are owed.

Franz Von Peppercorn

davo10 wrote: »

We got on to this tangent when reference was made to market changes and LLs being prepared to rent to anyone. Can you honestly say you see a likelihood of over supply in the current houseing market anytime soon? And even in the unlikely event that change did occur, LL would still look to limit the risk on people they rent to.

You’ve moved from a general question about economies in general to the specific Irish case. Since this is off tangent I won’t continue the segue.

"Chasability" is not about tracking down an immigrant who has gone back home, it's about chasing the Irish guy/gal who has trashed your home or stopped paying rent and is refusing to leave. It's about the tenant being held accountable and being in a position where they can suffer a loss, monetarily and/or reputationily by having been pursued by the property owner for damage done or rent owed

Hmm. That’s a bit odd. I mean a foreign worker would be less chasable since they can leave the country for good.

A person in a good long term job is more likely to have the means to pay the rent, is less likely to be transient and more likely be concerned about a landlord arriving at their place of work looking for their money, or having their name on the RTB site.

The long term side of that is a bit dubious. I vaguely get what you mean by “good” although I bet you couldn’t really define it. A new immigrant can’t have a long term job, unless you mean likely to be long term. It’s also discriminatory against contractors, self employed etc.

As the op has simply pointed out, you can't get blood from a stone, if a tenant has no money and no means, there is no chance of recovering what you are owed.

No money isn’t the same as chasable, or in a long term job for two years. If in fact you applied those criteria nobody could emigrate here, or even return home, and expect to rent.

KellyXX

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’ve moved from a general question about economies in general to the specific Irish case. Since this is off tangent I won’t continue the segue.



Hmm. That’s a bit odd. I mean a foreign worker would be less chasable since they can leave the country for good.



The long term side of that is a bit dubious. I vaguely get what you mean by “good” although I bet you couldn’t really define it. A new immigrant can’t have a long term job, unless you mean likely to be long term. It’s also discriminatory against contractors, self employed etc.



No money isn’t the same as chasable, or in a long term job for two years. If in fact you applied those criteria nobody could emigrate here, or even return home, and expect to rent.

Clearly you don't get the point of the thread.
I can't explain it any simpler.
I thought it was rather easy to grasp. Everyone else grasps it though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

KellyXX wrote: »

Clearly you don't get the point of the thread.
I can't explain it any simpler.
I thought it was rather easy to grasp. Everyone else grasps it though.

No I do get your point and am blowing holes in it. You wrote what you wrote.

davo10

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’ve moved from a general question about economies in general to the specific Irish case. Since this is off tangent I won’t continue the segue.



Hmm. That’s a bit odd. I mean a foreign worker would be less chasable since they can leave the country for good.



The long term side of that is a bit dubious. I vaguely get what you mean by “good” although I bet you couldn’t really define it. A new immigrant can’t have a long term job, unless you mean likely to be long term. It’s also discriminatory against contractors, self employed etc.



No money isn’t the same as chasable, or in a long term job for two years. If in fact you applied those criteria nobody could emigrate here, or even return home, and expect to rent.

I'm not so sure you do understand. The op has made it very clear what he/she means. You haven't blown holes in it, if anything you've shown you don't understand it.

You said in an earlier post that when the market turns, LLs will be glad to rent to HAP. My point being, the market is not likely to turn soon based on undersupply, even a rudimentary grasp of economics would make it obvious to most, that in any sector of the economy, where there is enormous demand and undersupply, the market will not turn therefore LLs will continue to be "picky" about who they rent to. Due to lack of building, experts including Ronan Lyons say it could be 10-15 years before supply meets demand. Do you understand this?

Current legislation makes all tenants difficult to deal with when they stop paying rent or trash the place. You have a better chance of recovering what's owed from someone who has a well paying job than someone who doesn't. Of course this is not always the case as even people in well paying jobs can be broke. Yes it can be discriminatory against contractors or self employed, for the same reason banks prefer mortgage applicants to have a steady income. Surely you are not saying this is illegal?

Samuel T. Cogley

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This proves nothing except that in a tight market landlords can be picky. Come any recession and they will be accepting HAP.

Come the recession the type of people seeking HAP will change and it'll be more viable to accept certain HAP tenants.

Samuel T. Cogley

davo10 wrote: »

Surely you are not saying this is illegal?

Well technically it is if you're discriminating against tenants of the enumerated grounds but I get what you're saying. People need to understand that discrimination isn't illegal per se. We all discriminate.

Given the massive costs involved of a bad tenant I'd too leave the apartment vacant rather than rent to someone I wasn't sure about; not that - that's going to happen in central Dublin for the next while.

Undersupply is only going to get worse as many of us small time LL's, the majority of the market is 3 or less properties, exit the market.

GarIT

Some people might not agree with me but I believe landlords should be entitled to discriminate when choosing who to rent to. Companies that rent houses out as their business model maybe not but I don't think companies should be allowed to own property zoned residential either.

Franz Von Peppercorn

davo10 wrote: »

I'm not so sure you do understand. The op has made it very clear what he/she means. You haven't blown holes in it, if anything you've shown you don't understand it.

You said in an earlier post that when the market turns, LLs will be glad to rent to HAP. My point being, the market is not likely to turn soon based on undersupply, even a rudimentary grasp of economics would make it obvious to most, that in any sector of the economy, where there is enormous demand and undersupply, the market will not turn therefore LLs will continue to be "picky" about who they rent to. Due to lack of building, experts including Ronan Lyons say it could be 10-15 years before supply meets demand. Do you understand this?

Even if the market can’t ever turn again it wouldn’t invalidate my point that landlords are picky because they can be not because they wouldn’t rent to HAP tenants in bad times. You don’t seem to understand abstract ideas ( I also think that the claim it will take 15 years unbelievable but its not relevant.).

Current legislation makes all tenants difficult to deal with when they stop paying rent or trash the place. You have a better chance of recovering what's owed from someone who has a well paying job than someone who doesn't. Of course this is not always the case as even people in well paying jobs can be broke. Yes it can be discriminatory against contractors or self employed, for the same reason banks prefer mortgage applicants to have a steady income.

The trivial claim that landlords will rent to people less likely to trash the place in good times isn’t contested by me. I was querying what was meant by “chaseable”. Or indeed by a “stable job”.

Surely you are not saying this is illegal?

Surely you can be less obvious when inventing straw men?

Dyr

The problem here is that landlords want to security of what is long term rental arrangements but without the rental system that would make it attractive for tenants

Bring in third party held deposit's, secure long term leases, actual rent controls, ability to furnish/modify rental properties and you can talk about quality tenants.

Instead you get what we have now, silly rents and wham bam thank you ma'am tenancies

KellyXX

Bambi wrote: »

The problem here is that landlords want to security of what is long term rental arrangements but without the rental system that would make it attractive for tenants

Bring in third party held deposit's, secure long term leases, actual rent controls, ability to furnish/modify rental properties and you can talk about quality tenants.

Instead you get what we have now, silly rents and wham bam thank you ma'am tenancies

I think most people just want a fair deal on both sides of the fence.
Tenants want not be able to be thrown out on a whim when paying their rent and behaving, but on the landlords side being able throw out someone not paying rent or effecting their investment negatively before they lose thousands.

davo10

KellyXX wrote: »

I think most people just want a fair deal on both sides of the fence.
Tenants want not be able to be thrown out on a whim when paying their rent and behaving, but on the landlords side being able throw out someone not paying rent or effecting their investment negatively before they lose thousands.

You've hit the nail on the head there. All recent legislation has been to aid security of tenure for the tenant, to stymie the rents being charged and to provide a forum for disputes. Unfortunately there has so far been no balancing legislation which allows easy removal of errant tenants. Ironically, the removal of bad tenants would free up more properties for good ones. If a tenant stops paying rent or trashes the place, property owners should be able to remove them at the end of the 14 day eviction notice period, instead it can take up to a year and a court order.

This is why owners want to mitigate risk, if a bad tenant could be quickly and easily removed, then there would be no need for all these checks.

Samuel T. Cogley

Bambi wrote: »

The problem here is that landlords want to security of what is long term rental arrangements but without the rental system that would make it attractive for tenants

Bring in third party held deposit's, secure long term leases, actual rent controls, ability to furnish/modify rental properties and you can talk about quality tenants.

Instead you get what we have now, silly rents and wham bam thank you ma'am tenancies

Rent controls are a terrible idea. They're unconstitutional for one thing and counter productive for another.

People rarely want long term leases either they want flexibility. I'm completely in favour of the German model (Hi Murph and Dr. F :P) of long term, unfurnished lets but the flip side of that has to be a relatively onerous requirement of returning the property painted etc. and paying for the break in tenancy.

The current sector has no shortage of quality tenants and bringing in your suggested changes will do nothing to change the quality of tenant out there. What needs to change is HAP etc. for people on a lower income needs to be made attractive to LL's as a no hassle alternative.

Silly rents are just a reflection of lack of supply which is also hitting house prices - which arguably are equally as bonkers and more damaging. One thing that won't help supply though is driving out LL's which is what some in Government want to do.

martinr5232

davo10 wrote:

You've hit the nail on the head there. All recent legislation has been to aid security of tenure for the tenant, to stymie the rents being charged and to provide a forum for disputes. Unfortunately there has so far been no balancing legislation which allows easy removal of errant tenants. Ironically, the removal of bad tenants would free up more properties for good ones. If a tenant stops paying rent or trashes the place, property owners should be able to remove them at the end of the 14 day eviction notice period, instead it can take up to a year and a court order.

Thats what the authoritys want its keeping people off the housing lists.

Dyr

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Rent controls are a terrible idea. They're unconstitutional for one thing and counter productive for another.
.

Unconstitutional is not really a criticism though, lots of things were unconstitutional.

There are solutions to the housing situation but they're not cheap, they are risky, and with all the money that's being made in the current shambles the government won't upset the apple cart to change things

Samuel T. Cogley

Bambi wrote: »

Unconstitutional is not really a criticism though, lots of things were unconstitutional.

There are solutions to the housing situation but they're not cheap, they are risky, and with all the money that's being made in the current shambles the government won't upset the apple cart to change things

Is a valid criticism IMO. There is a fundamental law of the State that private property can't be interfered with unless certain conditions are met. Rent controls have been adjudicated on in the past. That shouldn't be changed unless 50.1% of the (voting) population agrees. It's one of the truly democratic things about Ireland.

pwurple

KellyXX wrote: »

So I got my other half to go and find d out what we could do from housing charities and they basically said to just overhold and not to worry.

My god.

Not to worry about starving a landlord’s children is it? Those “charity” people have some messed up values. Seriously.

VonBeanie

Bambi wrote: »

Unconstitutional is not really a criticism though, lots of things were unconstitutional.

There are solutions to the housing situation but they're not cheap, they are risky, and with all the money that's being made in the current shambles the government won't upset the apple cart to change things

The constitution is there to protect long term principles that should endure and should be protected. The thinking on housing is so short term. Rent controls may help short term, but eventually they reduce the quality and quantity of rental units available in the market, and loopholes eventually circumvent them. Encouraging overholding provides a short term answer for one tenant and then takes rental units and landlords out of the market for ever.

KellyXX

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Rent controls are a terrible idea. They're unconstitutional for one thing and counter productive for another.

People rarely want long term leases either they want flexibility. I'm completely in favour of the German model (Hi Murph and Dr. F :P) of long term, unfurnished lets but the flip side of that has to be a relatively onerous requirement of returning the property painted etc. and paying for the break in tenancy.

The current sector has no shortage of quality tenants and bringing in your suggested changes will do nothing to change the quality of tenant out there. What needs to change is HAP etc. for people on a lower income needs to be made attractive to LL's as a no hassle alternative.

Silly rents are just a reflection of lack of supply which is also hitting house prices - which arguably are equally as bonkers and more damaging. One thing that won't help supply though is driving out LL's which is what some in Government want to do.

Also hitting rent prices is the fact that it is far from in a landlords interest now to be nice to tenants and give them cheaper rent for being a good tenant. The landlord is just shooting themselves in the foot doing that, as much as they might like to do it for a good tenant.

fash

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

People rarely want long term leases either they want flexibility. I'm completely in favour of the German model (Hi Murph and Dr. F :P) of long term, unfurnished lets but the flip side of that has to be a relatively onerous requirement of returning the property painted etc. and paying for the break in tenancy.

What I'd like to understand with the long term tenancies is where people advocate for long term rent certainty: this to me sounds like a one way bet against the landlord: if the rent ends up being below market rent, the tenant stays long term, if it ends up being above market rent, the tenant breaks the lease and goes elsewhere (and good luck trying to recover).
In general, I think having a house owner as a tenancy guarantor - to act as the fall back if the tenant breaches the rental agreement is a necessary requirement in Ireland's rental market