In the Dail today

garhjw

Well the communists are really going for it trying to remove all rights from the owners of property. Best 1 I heard was they want to prohibit evictions for the purpose of selling. Is the best they can come up with unworkable and unenforceable motions.

Misguided1

I heard a proposal on the radio this morning for a Granny flat grant to allow 'older' people to split their homes in two and generate an income for themselves. Problem is councils won't give planning permission to subdivide houses. Had friends invest in a property with a view to developing it into small units to rent. You'd think during a housing crisis in Dublin - they would grant permission for something like this. But nope....permission denied.

JigglyMcJabs

garhjw wrote: »

Well the communists are really going for it trying to remove all rights from the owners of property. Best 1 I heard was they want to prohibit evictions for the purpose of selling. Is the best they can come up with unworkable and unenforceable motions.

Don't really see a problem with that, if the tenant is good they should be able to stay until their tenancy is up, sale or no sale.

In the flipside it should be much easier cheaper and faster to remove bad tenants so less landlords feel the need to sell.

garhjw

JigglyMcJabs wrote: »

Don't really see a problem with that, if the tenant is good they should be able to stay until their tenancy is up, sale or no sale.

In the flipside it should be much easier cheaper and faster to remove bad tenants so less landlords feel the need to sell.

Banks won’t give mortgages on property without vacant possession. It would also either make a property unsellable or significantly devalue it if you had to see with tenants in situ....
Added to that a property owner has rights to his or her own property.

Yer Da sells Avon

We don't have any communists in the Dáil.

The left should focus not on punishing landlords, but on pressuring the government into building enough social housing (and extending the maximum income threshold), thus eventually making private landlords redundant.

STB.

JigglyMcJabs wrote: »

Don't really see a problem with that, if the tenant is good they should be able to stay until their tenancy is up, sale or no sale.

In the flipside it should be much easier cheaper and faster to remove bad tenants so less landlords feel the need to sell.

You seem to be confusing social housing obligations and rights with a private landlords interests. They are not compatible.

If a landlord has to sell his property then that is no ones business but their own.

The problem is that we have social housing tenants renting in privately owned properties because the government haven't been building any social or affordable housing. I can see where the confusion arises.

JigglyMcJabs

STB. wrote: »

You seem to be confusing social housing obligations and rights with a private landlords interests. They are not compatible.

If a landlord has to sell his property then that is no ones business but their own.

The problem is that we have social housing tenants renting in privately owned properties because the government haven't been building any social or affordable housing. I can see where the confusion arises.

I take your point, but I guess I'm arguing that a rental property with a good tenant with solid payment history should be a less risky proposition for an investment buyer than an empty property, in return for being a good tenant, they should have security of tenure. The flip side remains, a bad tenant should be out on their ear much more quickly.

Of course the seller might for some reason want to sell to someone as a private residence rather than an investment, if they want to do that, they should wait until they can end the tenancy legally at the end of the lease or part 4. This would keep a more predictable level of properties in rental and make part time landlords think twice before getting into the business.

lawred2

Misguided1 wrote: »

I heard a proposal on the radio this morning for a Granny flat grant to allow 'older' people to split their homes in two and generate an income for themselves. Problem is councils won't give planning permission to subdivide houses. Had friends invest in a property with a view to developing it into small units to rent. You'd think during a housing crisis in Dublin - they would grant permission for something like this. But nope....permission denied.

Planning for that is granted all the time as long as two or more distinct dwellings are created.

Obviously that wasn't going to be the case with your friends.

An idiotic proposal. The fact is renting is renting and should never trump an owners rights to their property, renters just have to accept that they may have to move etc. This really needs to be remember by the people making these idiotic knee jerk proposals

Jimmy.

Nothing complicated in meeting the criteria for a council house.

Assetbacked

If an owner lets out the property to someone and it is used by the tenant as their primary dwelling, that tenant needs full security of tenure. Selling a property can allow the landlord to kick out the tenant currently but that tenant calls the property their home, they may have no where to go but more importantly that is not a good reason to kick someone out of their home. It is not enough to justify this by saying to the landlord is allowed just because the property is his.

If landlords are scared and quite clearly ignorant with the use of terms like “communist”, then all that is required is a more streamlined process for removing bad tenants (e.g. tenants in arrears or tenants who are letting the property fall apart).

garhjw

Assetbacked wrote: »

If an owner lets out the property to someone and it is used by the tenant as their primary dwelling, that tenant needs full security of tenure. Selling a property can allow the landlord to kick out the tenant currently but that tenant calls the property their home, they may have no where to go but more importantly that is not a good reason to kick someone out of their home. It is not enough to justify this by saying to the landlord is allowed just because the property is his.

If landlords are scared and quite clearly ignorant with the use of terms like “communist”, then all that is required is a more streamlined process for removing bad tenants (e.g. tenants in arrears or tenants who are letting the property fall apart).

I’m not scared or ignorant. A tenant is a tenant. They do not on the property, it is not their home. They live there. If they want their own home then they should buy 1. Or apply for social housing. It is not their property. It’s not a landlords responsibility to ensure a tenant has somewhere to live when they are evicted.

Assetbacked

garhjw wrote: »

I’m not scared or ignorant. A tenant is a tenant. They do not on the property, it is not their home. They live there. If they want their own home then they should buy 1. Or apply for social housing. It is not their property. It’s not a landlords responsibility to ensure a tenant has somewhere to live when they are evicted.

But it is their home. It is not the landlord’s home. How can a tenant go and buy a property in Ireland? Bar a tiny percentage of the population who have the cash, the vast majority must borrow a lot of money from a bank to buy property. That is not sustainable and therefore a tenant is likely to remain a tenant. As such, they should be protected in their home, even if they are “only” a tenant.

jon1981

The policies so far have done nothing for landlords. I'm convinced they are making it harder and less attractive to be a small landlord unless you're one of the big institutional landlords.

garhjw

Assetbacked wrote: »

But it is their home. It is not the landlord’s home. How can a tenant go and buy a property in Ireland? Bar a tiny percentage of the population who have the cash, the vast majority must borrow a lot of money from a bank to buy property. That is not sustainable and therefore a tenant is likely to remain a tenant. As such, they should be protected in their home, even if they are “only” a tenant.

That’s not the property owners problem. And they are only a tenant. They didn’t buy the property. The state needs to sort it out but not at the expense of property owners.

GGTrek

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

We don't have any communists in the Dáil.

This is a lie!
https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2014/10/dublin-mep-candidate-interviews/

Paul Murphy is a self declared Trotzkyst and may I remind you that these people are still dreaming about the dictatorship of Proletariat (which really means their marxist dictatorship). Unlike you I stayed for a few months in communist eastern block countries when I was young and adolescent due to my parents (eccentric) travel interests. I will never forget the oppression and the police everywhere, the lack of food and basic items, the abusive police checks at the border (2 hours stopped and car opened up) and the great happyness my family had when leaving those countries, so people like Murphy make me puke.
He hates private property but as a good communist hypocrite he made full use of it during his life!

Assetbacked

Assetbacked wrote: »

But it is their home. It is not the landlord’s home. How can a tenant go and buy a property in Ireland? Bar a tiny percentage of the population who have the cash, the vast majority must borrow a lot of money from a bank to buy property. That is not sustainable and therefore a tenant is likely to remain a tenant. As such, they should be protected in their home, even if they are “only” a tenant.

Its not their home its a house they are permitted to live in for as long as the LL (the property owner) wants them oi. It tough luck to be honest, if you want the house to be your actual home then buy otherwise you have to put up with the fact you are living in someone else property and their rights of ownership should always trump a tenants rights.

Why on earth should a renter have more rights to the property than the owner its a ridiculous suggestion.

Fol20

Assetbacked wrote: »

But it is their home. It is not the landlord’s home. How can a tenant go and buy a property in Ireland? Bar a tiny percentage of the population who have the cash, the vast majority must borrow a lot of money from a bank to buy property. That is not sustainable and therefore a tenant is likely to remain a tenant. As such, they should be protected in their home, even if they are “only” a tenant.

It is not their home, they are being provided a service and accommodation but they do not legally own the property.
A tenant could just with the drop of a hat decide to move out of a house tomorrow and the only repercussion is that they will loose their deposit. The same can’t be said for the owner.
The owner has very large financial asset that can be worth half a million while the tenant has the bones of 1 or 2k in the asset in the form of a deposit.
The owner pays local property tax. The tenant does not.
The owner pays house insurance. The tenant does not. There is a stark difference between the owner and tenant and I’m surprised you think otherwise.

Assetbacked

If the above answers are the attitude of landlords then the only option is for the government to introduce policies which flood the market with properties resulting in house prices coming down to a level where it is not worth it generally as an investment.

Yer Da sells Avon

GGTrek wrote: »

This is a lie!
https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2014/10/dublin-mep-candidate-interviews/

No, I'm afraid you're lying. There is nothing in that article to suggest that even Paul Murphy, the ultimate right-winger's bogeyman, is a Communist.

garhjw

Assetbacked wrote: »

If the above answers are the attitude of landlords then the only option is for the government to introduce policies which flood the market with properties resulting in house prices coming down to a level where it is not worth it generally as an investment.

I think you must be 1 of those bitter tenants. That can’t afford to buy and listen to the far left nonsense of the commies. Sorry for your trouble.

Yer Da sells Avon

garhjw wrote: »

The state needs to sort it out but not at the expense of property owners.

In the highly unlikely event that the current right-wing government was to 'sort it out' adequately (i.e. build a sufficient quantity of social housing to meet demand and ensure that both they and private tenants no longer have to hand over vast sums to private landlords), it would inevitably be at the expense of property owners, who are currently making hay while the sun shines (i.e. ripping people off).

The sooner we have a government that places poorer people's need for reasonably priced homes above richer people's desire to profit from their misery, the better. That's not 'communism', it's just not being a f-cking sociopath.

The Student

Assetbacked wrote: »

If the above answers are the attitude of landlords then the only option is for the government to introduce policies which flood the market with properties resulting in house prices coming down to a level where it is not worth it generally as an investment.

Your quote speaks volumes. A landlord invests a significant amount of money and time in acquiring an asset, pays all the associated tax and has all the associated risk.

Don't you understand this is a business relationship the landlord and the tenant have. If the rents fell through the floor I can guarantee you the tenant would have no problem ending a tenancy if they could find a cheaper property which met their needs or do you think they would stay and pay a higher rent than that they could get elsewhere because its "their home"!

garhjw

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

In the highly unlikely event that the current right-wing government was to 'sort it out' adequately (i.e. build a sufficient quantity of social housing to meet demand and ensure that both they and private tenants no longer have to hand over vast sums to private landlords), it would inevitably be at the expense of property owners, who are currently making hay while the sun shines (i.e. ripping people off).

The sooner we have a government that places poorer people's need for reasonably priced homes above richer people's desire to profit from their misery, the better. That's not 'communism', it's just not being a f-cking sociopath.

Keep dreaming or reading your left wing ideology

Thephantomsmask

As a tenant, I don't agree with telling a landlord that they cannot sell their property. It needs to be regulated better though to put a stop to "selling" followed by the property up on daft two weeks later with a massive rent hike.

The Student

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

As a tenant, I don't agree with telling a landlord that they cannot sell their property. It needs to be regulated better though to put a stop to "selling" followed by the property up on daft two weeks later with a massive rent hike.

I am a landlord and its nice to hear this from a tenant. I would agree with the above I "play by the rules" and would not have an issue with any landlord being fined for the above behavior.

I do however think that when a tenancy ends by mutual consent then the landlord should be able to bring the rent to market rent if they have a rent significantly below the market rent. I don't accept that the good will of the landlord towards a previous tenant should transfer to the next tenant.

Assetbacked

The Student wrote: »

Your quote speaks volumes. A landlord invests a significant amount of money and time in acquiring an asset, pays all the associated tax and has all the associated risk.

Don't you understand this is a business relationship the landlord and the tenant have. If the rents fell through the floor I can guarantee you the tenant would have no problem ending a tenancy if they could find a cheaper property which met their needs or do you think they would stay and pay a higher rent than that they could get elsewhere because its "their home"!

While the tenant is using the property as their home, in the current environment, it should not be the case that they can be turned out because a home is being sold. Perhaps this should be restricted as a temporary measure for a couple ears until it is easier to move to alternative accommodation.

It’s a business relationship of course but we do not live in a completely unregulated market and this is a protection that should be brought in as an emergency measure by the government in conjunction with massively increasing supply of properties.

Fol20

Thephantomsmask wrote: »

As a tenant, I don't agree with telling a landlord that they cannot sell their property. It needs to be regulated better though to put a stop to "selling" followed by the property up on daft two weeks later with a massive rent hike.

I think heavy fines is best for this type of carry on. The same goes for delinquent tenants who should be removed promptly.

seamus

Fol20 wrote: »

It is not their home

It is the tenant's home. "Home" has a specific definition as being the place where someone is ordinary resident and has special protections under the constitution.

It is not the landlord's home. It is the landlord's property.

These are two related but very distinct definitions. The people on this thread can continue stating that "it is not the tenant's home", but they are wrong. Repeating incorrect statements won't magically make them correct.

It is important that the right to the integrity of one's home, trumps another individual's right to control their property. Property is just bricks and mortar, it's just an asset. Of no more significance than a field or a pair of shoes.
Security of the home is clearly of far more importance, individually, socially and economically.

Yes, it should be norm that properties are sold with sitting tenants. Banks will give mortgages without vacant possession, they choose not because they can get away with it.

Landlords should be allowed sell occupied properties with vacant possession, but it should be a specific action. That is, a declaration that the property was previously used as a rental, but is now being sold as a private dwelling. This would bar the vendor and any buyer from renting the property out for at least five years, with six-figure penalties for a breach.

It makes no sense that a landlord can turf out tenants, sell it to another landlord, who slots in new tenants.

And if landlords don't like this, then don't become a landlord.

We need to gut the housing market of small landlords; people who own a property or two on the side and have no business being in that position. They're a pox. We need our rental fleet to be operated by professional businesses, not half-arsed individuals.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Irish landlords do tend to see the property as their home lent out rather than just an investment. Particularly accidental landlords.

Houses should be sold with tenants attached. Tenants should rent for years.

The corollary of this is evictions for non payment or damage should be much faster. Otherwise it’s no kind of investment.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It is important that the right to the integrity of one's home, trumps another individual's right to control their property. Property is just bricks and mortar, it's just an asset. Of no more significance than a field or a pair of shoes.
Security of the home is clearly of far more importance, individually, socially and economically.
.

This couldn't be more wrong. The right a person who is temporarily staying in another persons property on the owners permission should never ever trump the rights of the property owners right. Saying it is just bricks and mortar and has no significance is quite frankly nonsense. It id the LL's property which he has spent a lot of money on and taken fincncial risk with and he should retain control. Tenants have too many rights to stay in a property already imo never mind giving them more.

If you want full security then buy other wise it's tough luck.

seamus wrote: »

Yes, it should be norm that properties are sold with sitting tenants. Banks will give mortgages without vacant possession, they choose not because they can get away with it..

They should be allowed sell with vacant possession to the highest bidder be that another LL or person who will live in the house.

seamus wrote: »

It makes no sense that a landlord can turf out tenants, sell it to another landlord, who slots in new tenants.

It makes perfect sense, even if the house is sold to a new LL he hasn't vetted these tenants or may want a different type of tenant and since he is the one taking the financial risk he have control over who lives in his property.

He may also want to renovate or he may want to do 5 months leases etc which again will require an empty house.

seamus wrote: »

We need to gut the housing market of small landlords; people who own a property or two on the side and have no business being in that position. They're a pox. We need our rental fleet to be operated by professional businesses, not half-arsed individuals.

I find it hard to believe people are till coming out with this despite it being quite obvious that big LL's are worse than smaller LL and a lot of people wishing for it are now wishing they could go back to a small LL. People who own a property or two are the life blood of the market and getting rid of them would be a disaster. Like any business you are much better dealing with the owner than some employee.

seamus

Kinley Blue Rattler wrote: »

This couldn't be more wrong. The right a person who is temporarily staying in another persons property on the owners permission should never ever trump the rights of the property owners right.

This right here is everything wrong with the market. Renters are viewed as temporary interlopers who should put up with it or get fncked. The landlord's right to his money should be protected even if it means throwing people out on the street.

We tried that. For thousands of years. It doesn't work; tenants get shafted, society ends up worse. Those who collect assets should be the bottom of the rung when it comes to the hierarchy of rights.

I find it hard to believe people are till coming out with this despite it being quite obvious that big LL's are worse than smaller LL and a lot of people wishing for it are now wishing they could go back to a small LL.

"Quite obvious"? How so?

I think you'll find renters would prefer to rent from a company with 500 properties on the books and official policies and procedures in place, rather than the cantankerous aul prick around the corner who thinks he has the right to come and go as he pleases and threatens to evict you if you dare ask for anything to be repaired.

People who own a property or two are the life blood of the market and getting rid of them would be a disaster. Like any business you are much better dealing with the owner than some employee.

Except that small landlord don't think of it as business. They think of it as their personal property. You've just said as much. This makes them a pain in the hole.

garhjw

seamus wrote: »

Kinley Blue Rattler wrote: »

This couldn't be more wrong. The right a person who is temporarily staying in another persons property on the owners permission should never ever trump the rights of the property owners right.

This right here is everything wrong with the market. Renters are viewed as temporary interlopers who should put up with it or get fncked. The landlord's right to his money should be protected even if it means throwing people out on the street.

We tried that. For thousands of years. It doesn't work; tenants get shafted, society ends up worse. Those who collect assets should be the bottom of the rung when it comes to the hierarchy of rights.

I find it hard to believe people are till coming out with this despite it being quite obvious that big LL's are worse than smaller LL and a lot of people wishing for it are now wishing they could go back to a small LL.

"Quite obvious"? How so?

I think you'll find renters would prefer to rent from a company with 500 properties on the books and official policies and procedures in place, rather than the cantankerous aul prick around the corner who thinks he has the right to come and go as he pleases and threatens to evict you if you dare ask for anything to be repaired.

People who own a property or two are the life blood of the market and getting rid of them would be a disaster. Like any business you are much better dealing with the owner than some employee.

Except that small landlord don't think of it as business. They think of it as their personal property. You've just said as much. This makes them a pain in the hole.

Renters rent. They don't own. How can someone who doesn't own a property be entitled to greater rights over the property than the owner? You seriously can't be saying that? Housing crisis has not been caused by private landlords. It has been caused by successive governments not building social housing. Thus has caused the supply issue. Talk about reality and not some poxy left wing ideology.

seamus

garhjw wrote: »

Renters rent. They don't own. How can someone who doesn't own a property be entitled to greater rights over the property than the owner? You seriously can't be saying that?

The person who resides in the property has greater rights than the person who owns it.

This is fact, and it is essential to structure rights in this fashion for the good of society.

Who do you think should have more rights over your home - you, who lives in it, or the bank, who owns most of it? If the bank decides that they could bulldoze your house and build four of them on it, should they be able to turf you out and do that? No, of course not.

The landlord/renter dynamic is not very different. This notion that "it's my property and I'll do what I like" is exactly why we have an insane property market where everyone wants to buy and nobody wants to rent. It's in the interests of landlords to make renting more attractive by making long-term leases a reality and security of tenure a pillar of the rental market. But the small-time landlords just see renters as leeches and lower-class animals and believe they should have the right to treat them as such.

garhjw

seamus wrote: »

garhjw wrote: »

Renters rent. They don't own. How can someone who doesn't own a property be entitled to greater rights over the property than the owner? You seriously can't be saying that?

The person who resides in the property has greater rights than the person who owns it.

This is fact, and it is essential to structure rights in this fashion for the good of society.

Who do you think should have more rights over your home - you, who lives in it, or the bank, who owns most of it? If the bank decides that they could bulldoze your house and build four of them on it, should they be able to turf you out and do that? No, of course not.

The landlord/renter dynamic is not very different. This notion that "it's my property and I'll do what I like" is exactly why we have an insane property market where everyone wants to buy and nobody wants to rent. It's in the interests of landlords to make renting more attractive, but the small-time landlords just see renters as leeches and lower-class animals and believe they should have the right to treat them as such.

You can't compare a property owner to a bank in terms of owning a property.

The market is the way it is due to lack if supply.

You lack a basic understanding if the situation and how it has come to this. I suspect you have grievances with landlords in the past and it is clouding your ability to think clearly. I'm sorry about that but you can't label all landlords the same.

The Student

Assetbacked wrote: »

While the tenant is using the property as their home, in the current environment, it should not be the case that they can be turned out because a home is being sold. Perhaps this should be restricted as a temporary measure for a couple ears until it is easier to move to alternative accommodation.

It’s a business relationship of course but we do not live in a completely unregulated market and this is a protection that should be brought in as an emergency measure by the government in conjunction with massively increasing supply of properties.

How exactly is it fair that a restriction be put on landlords as a temporary measure. We did not cause the crisis. If a landlord needs his property to either sell or for a family member then the tenant should leave. You want to restrict a landlord and give him nothing in return.

Should the State then say that we have council houses that are under occupied then single people on the council list should be housed in these properties with existing tenants as we have a housing crisis.

We are getting into very dangerous territory when we want the State to start dictating what we do with our own properties.

We do live in a regulated environment, the regulates may not be enforced but they exist. Some of the regulations are a bit excessive. Yes properties should be habitable but some of the regulations go beyond what is necessary.

The Student

seamus wrote: »

This right here is everything wrong with the market. Renters are viewed as temporary interlopers who should put up with it or get fncked. The landlord's right to his money should be protected even if it means throwing people out on the street.

We tried that. For thousands of years. It doesn't work; tenants get shafted, society ends up worse. Those who collect assets should be the bottom of the rung when it comes to the hierarchy of rights.

"Quite obvious"? How so?

I think you'll find renters would prefer to rent from a company with 500 properties on the books and official policies and procedures in place, rather than the cantankerous aul prick around the corner who thinks he has the right to come and go as he pleases and threatens to evict you if you dare ask for anything to be repaired.

Except that small landlord don't think of it as business. They think of it as their personal property. You've just said as much. This makes them a pain in the hole.

You don't want to accept that this is a business trans pure and simple. I can tell you from talking to work colleagues that the Professional landlords are not all they are made out to be.

Some are good but some are also bad, the same can be said for the small landlords.

LuckyLloyd

@Seamus: you're such a communist :pac:

Fol20

seamus wrote: »

It is the tenant's home. "Home" has a specific definition as being the place where someone is ordinary resident and has special protections under the constitution.

It is not the landlord's home. It is the landlord's property.

These are two related but very distinct definitions. The people on this thread can continue stating that "it is not the tenant's home", but they are wrong. Repeating incorrect statements won't magically make them correct.

It is important that the right to the integrity of one's home, trumps another individual's right to control their property. Property is just bricks and mortar, it's just an asset. Of no more significance than a field or a pair of shoes.
Security of the home is clearly of far more importance, individually, socially and economically.

Yes, it should be norm that properties are sold with sitting tenants. Banks will give mortgages without vacant possession, they choose not because they can get away with it.

Landlords should be allowed sell occupied properties with vacant possession, but it should be a specific action. That is, a declaration that the property was previously used as a rental, but is now being sold as a private dwelling. This would bar the vendor and any buyer from renting the property out for at least five years, with six-figure penalties for a breach.

It makes no sense that a landlord can turf out tenants, sell it to another landlord, who slots in new tenants.

And if landlords don't like this, then don't become a landlord.

We need to gut the housing market of small landlords; people who own a property or two on the side and have no business being in that position. They're a pox. We need our rental fleet to be operated by professional businesses, not half-arsed individuals.

The principle is the same as renting a car. It might feel like your car when your driving around spain, however its hertz or whomever that owns its. Yes it is your home but it is only your home temporarily until it isnt. Tenants in Ireland dont live long term in rental accommodation so why do you think they should have more rights that the property owner that might own it for a lifetime or for at least a decade or two? There is a lot of rental legislation to protect tenants as is and this is one the basic fundamentals that a owner can use to reclaim their property - not the tenants.


If a property is for sale, your eliminating the vast majority of buyers if it can only be sold to other landlords. There is a reason why student rentals although they are 3/4 bed are sold for a lot less than standard homes. I think if the roles were reversed and you found out you could be down 50-100k due to this very restrictive suggestion, you wouldnt be happy. You do know most properties that are for sale are not being bought by landlords but by owner occupiers.

Its easy to say dont be a landlord if you dont like this. When they bought the property, the legislation was not this however the government are changing the goal post so often its hard to keep up. If legislation of this nature does come in, landlord should be given enough notice so that they can sell it vacant so that any new landlords can buy into with their eyes wide open( you will then truly see that you will have no landlords left, this would also include reits as capital appreciate would be severely hit with this type of legislation)

Please do your research if you think reits are much better for tenants as most will max out their rental rate(as they should) while some of these 1 property landlords are not increasing rents for many years. Another simple way to get around these 1 property landlords is to bring in legislation that if you own 3 or less rentals, it needs to be managed by a licensed rental agent. i dont believe in this suggestion however if you really wanted a "professional" to manage them, it can be enacted, however my experiences with agencies as been far from perfect.

Assetbacked

The Student wrote: »

How exactly is it fair that a restriction be put on landlords as a temporary measure. We did not cause the crisis. If a landlord needs his property to either sell or for a family member then the tenant should leave. You want to restrict a landlord and give him nothing in return.

Should the State then say that we have council houses that are under occupied then single people on the council list should be housed in these properties with existing tenants as we have a housing crisis.

We are getting into very dangerous territory when we want the State to start dictating what we do with our own properties.

We do live in a regulated environment, the regulates may not be enforced but they exist. Some of the regulations are a bit excessive. Yes properties should be habitable but some of the regulations go beyond what is necessary.

In another 10 years when hopefully things start to have eased up, there will be a large cohort of people under the age of 45 who will have lived through this devastating housing situation and will be a majority when it comes to voting in people who also would have lived through this era and therefore policies which acknowledge long-term renting and a home as a human right in Ireland (even if not renting from the local councils) will be highly likely to follow. I was quite surprised, as I'm sure many others were, that 10,000 people marched yesterday afternoon in protest at the housing crisis.

I do not have a gripe at all with landlords, except for the institutional landlords ("REITs"); and absolutely feel that tenants should be turfed out for arrears of 2 months or for letting a property decay (unless agreement is reached) without having to go through the painstaking legal process. This would allow these properties to come back to the rental market quicker too which is good for tenants. The headline point is that, in the current crisis, we need security for tenants whilst working towards a system with average rents in Dublin dropping at least 50% (I think this would be about 1600 to 800 on the average) in order to approach something of a sustainable rental market.

seamus

garhjw wrote: »

You lack a basic understanding if the situation and how it has come to this. I suspect you have grievances with landlords in the past and it is clouding your ability to think clearly. I'm sorry about that but you can't label all landlords the same.

Yeah, your suspicions are entirely wrong. Not really surprising, you seem to be generally misreading everything.

I'm not talking about the current housing crisis, I'm talking about our sh1tty market in general.

We're a joke compared to most other western nations, and we've walked ourselves into this situation due to decades of housing policy which has prioritised owning over renting and cow-towed to landlords with nonsense clauses that allow tenants to be evicted because of a made-up relative that wants to move in.

If you rent out a property, you are obligating yourself to providing a core public service, the provision of a human right. And just like the ESB and Irish Water are subject to much more rigorous rules and obligations than other utilities, landlords have to accept much more rigorous rules. Property is not a product or a business, just like any other. And landlords should not be permitted to flit in and out of the business at will. If you enter it, you voluntarily submit to those onerous obligations. Including the acknowledgement that if you're providing someone with the basic necessity of a roof over their head, then you cannot just remove that from them because you feel like selling up or because you'd rather your granny was living there.

If you don't like it, then don't become a landlord. Easy.

garhjw

seamus wrote: »

garhjw wrote: »

You lack a basic understanding if the situation and how it has come to this. I suspect you have grievances with landlords in the past and it is clouding your ability to think clearly. I'm sorry about that but you can't label all landlords the same.

Yeah, your suspicions are entirely wrong. Not really surprising, you seem to be generally misreading everything.

I'm not talking about the current housing crisis, I'm talking about our sh1tty market in general.

We're a joke compared to most other western nations, and we've walked ourselves into this situation due to decades of housing policy which has prioritised owning over renting and cow-towed to landlords with nonsense clauses that allow tenants to be evicted because of a made-up relative that wants to move in.

If you rent out a property, you are obligating yourself to providing a core public service, the provision of a human right. And just like the ESB and Irish Water are subject to much more rigorous rules and obligations than other utilities, landlords have to accept much more rigorous rules. Property is not a product or a business, just like any other. And landlords should not be permitted to flit in and out of the business at will. If you enter it, you voluntarily submit to those onerous obligations. Including the acknowledgement that if you're providing someone with the basic necessity of a roof over their head, then you cannot just remove that from them because you feel like selling up or because you'd rather your granny was living there.

If you don't like it, then don't become a landlord. Easy.

Wow you are bitter about life. I'm sorry for that but clearly you are unable to understand the issues. You need to take emotion out and use common sense. Happy to engage again once you call down. Have a good day.

seamus

Lol, the guy who started the thread calling sane policies "communist" is accusing me of being emotional about it

Landlords and their land. People get so irrational over some dirt they aren't even using.

Fol20

seamus wrote: »

Lol, the guy who started the thread calling sane policies "communist" is accusing me of being emotional about it

Landlords and their land. People get so irrational over some dirt they aren't even using.

I’m not sure if your trolling now but it is land they are using. They have invested their hard earn cash and work effort to attempt to build up a pension pot while other might just blow all their money on temporary stuff like a 182 car. Each to their own but that’s far from the truth

Fian

Assetbacked wrote: »

If an owner lets out the property to someone and it is used by the tenant as their primary dwelling, that tenant needs full security of tenure. Selling a property can allow the landlord to kick out the tenant currently but that tenant calls the property their home, they may have no where to go but more importantly that is not a good reason to kick someone out of their home. It is not enough to justify this by saying to the landlord is allowed just because the property is his.

If landlords are scared and quite clearly ignorant with the use of terms like “communist”, then all that is required is a more streamlined process for removing bad tenants (e.g. tenants in arrears or tenants who are letting the property fall apart).

You seem to want the tenants to be able to remain in their home for as long as they like. There is a mechanism to do that - purchase. They do not own the property that is their home. Therefore they cannot expect to be able to preclude the person who does own it from selling. They have less security of tenure than an owner and this is necessary - otherwise people would be far less willing to let property. I entirely agree that tenants should be entitled to reasonable security of tenure and that landlords should not be entitled to evict them on a whim, but the permissible reasons why they can currently cut short a tenancy are all appropriate.

If this were teh law you would find large numbers of people saying - nope this is the last straw i will not let out my property if I can never get it back until the tenant decides they want to move on. I will put it on the market and sell it instead. Which would lead to lower occupancy rates - a rented house is likely to have more tenants sharing in it than would reside in an owner occupied house.

Seriously this would be the single most effective way to exacerbate the rental housing shortage.

Assetbacked

Fian wrote: »

You seem to want the tenants to be able to remain in their home for as long as they like. There is a mechanism to do that - purchase. They do not own the property that is their home. Therefore they cannot expect to be able to preclude the person who does own it from selling. They have less security of tenure than an owner and this is necessary - otherwise people would be far less willing to let property. I entirely agree that tenants should be entitled to reasonable security of tenure and that landlords should not be entitled to evict them on a whim, but the permissible reasons why they can currently cut short a tenancy are all appropriate.

If this were teh law you would find large numbers of people saying - nope this is the last straw i will not let out my property if I can never get it back until the tenant decides they want to move on. I will put it on the market and sell it instead. Which would lead to lower occupancy rates - a rented house is likely to have more tenants sharing in it than would reside in an owner occupied house.

Seriously this would be the single most effective way to exacerbate the rental housing shortage.

1. Purchase with what cash? Rent is astronomical versus wages currently so people cannot save for their own place without borrowing a few hundred thousand from the bank. This is a crazy situation that needs to end with perhaps mortgages restricted to 30% of the purchase price.

2. If people are far less willing to let properties then what is the alternative? To sell them and going forward to not buy them in the first place - this will increase supply.

abcabc123123

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

@Seamus: you're such a communist :pac:

Seamus, crusading communist on the landlord accommodation & property forum by day, brutalist right-wing stooge on the solidarity politics forum by night.

DubJJ

'This is a crazy situation that needs to end with perhaps mortgages restricted to 30% of the purchase price.'

Possibly the stupidest statement of this thread so far, restrict mortgages like this and only the cash rich will be able to buy.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Except that small landlord don't think of it as business. They think of it as their personal property. You've just said as much. This makes them a pain in the hole.

Seamus I rented from about '98 to about '16 in a few different places home & abroad.

I dont really recognise your descriptions of landlords.

Most in my experience treated it as a small business. I rarely saw them and they very rarely looked to meet me, as long as the rent was paid there was little need for contact.

Most would give the deposit back with no issue as long as the house was clean, they don't want the drama of fighting with tenants either.

The Student

Assetbacked wrote: »

1. Purchase with what cash? Rent is astronomical versus wages currently so people cannot save for their own place without borrowing a few hundred thousand from the bank. This is a crazy situation that needs to end with perhaps mortgages restricted to 30% of the purchase price.

2. If people are far less willing to let properties then what is the alternative? To sell them and going forward to not buy them in the first place - this will increase supply.

Why not save and then pay a deposit for a property. For a relatively small amount of weekly savings from the age of 18 yr old by the time you are in your mid to late 20's a couple should have a sufficient deposit to purchase a standard home.

Ironically I was looking at the programme "crowded house" last night on RTE and the couple on the programme had net income of €5k after tax per month and were only saving €500. When the financial advisor asked them what they were spending the money on they said they did not know.

While this is a single example, it would not be unrealistic to think that there are others out there in a similar situation. Perhaps if people were actually more finance savvy they could afford a house more than they actually realize.

Yer Da sells Avon

garhjw wrote: »

Keep dreaming or reading your left wing ideology

Rather than that kind of immature, flippant contribution, can you tell me why building enough social housing to meet demand would be a bad idea?