Anti Eviction Bill

l5auim2pjnt8qx

Fian wrote: »

This Bill passed second stage today. It was initiated by People before profit and opposed by the Government, but it was passed at second stage. It is not law - it still needs to pass committee stage and report stage in teh Dail and all three stages in the Oireachtas before it would be sent to the president for signature into law (or for an article 26 reference if he decided to do so.)

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/131/eng/initiated/b13118d.pdf



The long title describes the purposes:

Bill entitled an Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 to provide for the greater security of tenure by extending tenancy rights for those with a licence to reside in student specific accommodation; by the inclusion of receivers and lenders that have taken possession of properties in the definition of a landlord, by the extension of notice periods for termination of a new tenancies; by making all tenancies over two months Part 4 tenancies; by making Part 4 tenancies of indefinite duration; by removing sale of property as a ground for terminating a tenancy, by providing for compensation where a tenancy is terminated on the ground that the dwelling is required by the landlord or a relative of the landlord for their own occupation; by removing renovation and refurbishment as a ground for termination of a tenancy; and by the extension of notice periods for new rents and for the termination of tenancies.

If enacted it would require compensation of 6 months rent to be paid by the landlord to the tenant if the landlord wanted the property for his own use or for his/her family. It would also commence part IV tenancies after 2 months and make them indefinite.

there is a long way to go between second stage and enactment though.

Can you reminds us what salary members of people before profit are on.

This bill is nothing more than anti-growth in the economy and an attack on private rental properties.

P_1

The Student wrote: »

Option 2 will not work as we as a society don't have the same approach to continental Europe. It always amazes me when for example the German model is used as a comparison.

German culture is completely different to Irish culture. You cant just expect to introduce a model from continental Europe and expect it to work. People in Germany would be ashamed not to pay their rent. In Ireland its seen as a badge of honour as "getting one up on the greedy landlord" (that same landlord who is just like you and me, an ordinary Joe Soap trying to survive.

We have this notion that you can stop paying rent and there is no consequence. It can take over a year to evict a non paying tenant. If you want landlords to stay in the market long term you sign leases that are legally binding on both parties. This means fast evictions for non payment of rent. If you sign a lease then the lease stands and is not overruled by changing law.

If you want landlords to stay then let them decide if they want a long term lease now or not. If they want long term lease then offer incentives (which can't be changed by the Govt).

Some landlords entered the market as a short term investment to allow their children move into the rental property. With the proposed legislation a landlord will have to "buy themselves out of a tenancy", if this is the case then the same should hold true for the tenant.

Agree completely with the points you've made there. Though isnt the "buy out if tenency" clause already in existence? Generally if one wants to move mid lease the onus is on them to find someone else to take it on

The Student

P_1 wrote: »

Agree completely with the points you've made there. Though isnt the "buy out if tenency" clause already in existence? Generally if one wants to move mid lease the onus is on them to find someone else to take it on

The buy out of the lease I was referencing was the landlord having to buy the tenant out rather than the other way around.

A tenant can leave with little or no consequences (other than losing their deposit). In the current climate as there is so much demand it is easy for a tenant/landlord replace a leaving tenant.

I find it crazy with what is being suggested in the bill.

P_1

The Student wrote: »

The buy out of the lease I was referencing was the landlord having to buy the tenant out rather than the other way around.

A tenant can leave with little or no consequences (other than losing their deposit). In the current climate as there is so much demand it is easy for a tenant/landlord replace a leaving tenant.

I find it crazy with what is being suggested in the bill.

That does strike me as a bit odd. So if a landlord wants to end a lease after 6 months for example, they need to pay the tenant 6 months rent? Ok I understand the need to have some sort of penalty in place to prevent landlords just ending leases but that's a bit excessive

Garibaldi?

In most cases it would be impossible for the tenant to pay compensation to the landlord for leaving early. He/she is probably leaving because they have no money.

The Student

P_1 wrote: »

That does strike me as a bit odd. So if a landlord wants to end a lease after 6 months for example, they need to pay the tenant 6 months rent? Ok I understand the need to have some sort of penalty in place to prevent landlords just ending leases but that's a bit excessive

That's what the left political parties want.

scheister

I had a look at the bill this morning and below are my thinking on it.

I would be leaving part 4 tenancies at 6 months.

With regards selling a house with tenants. If another landlord is buying apply something similar to TUPE. If someone wants the house as PPR tenants have to move. (would require some legal back in case tenant does not move)

6 months penalty is you want the house for family member. I'd say two max.

If you want to refurnish the house tenants are giving option of staying while work is done or first option on property afterwards (at market value)

Having to gives a years notice to evict a tenant is madness. I would cap at minimum of 180 days.

P_1

The Student wrote: »

That's what the left political parties want.

That's classic political bargaining though isnt it? Set out something incredible outrageous and when the bargaining is done you end up with something in the middle which is what you wanted in the first place

Fol20

P_1 wrote: »

That's classic political bargaining though isnt it? Set out something incredible outrageous and when the bargaining is done you end up with something in the middle which is what you wanted in the first place

Whats in the middle though. All i see is more anti ll legislation and nothing for ll..

The_Conductor

scheister wrote: »

6 months penalty is you want the house for family member. I'd say two max.

86% of all units on the rental market in Ireland are owned by landlords with either 1 or 2 properties- and it is surmised by some commentators- that half of these are either renting themselves elsewhere- or let out there properties and emigrated- with the intention of returning. In that context- over 40% of all units on the market- could potentially be called upon by the landlord for his/her own use- never mind a close family member. In that context- it does seem grossly unfair that they'd have to pay a bond of 6 months rent- to get their own property back- to live in it themselves.

The number of large landlords- is increasing- but as it stands- the sector is dominated by small landlords- the vast preponderance of whom only own 1 or 2 units (according to the RTB- its page 2 of their annual report).

These proposed terms are liable to cause undue hardship to a great many people- who imagine they can reclaim their property back for their own use- if/when they need it. As it stands- overholding is the single largest issue in the housing sector (according to the RTB annual report, once again)- topping any other complaint category (and indeed- the three highest complaint categories are all from landlords- not tenants. The perennial tenant issue- unfair withholding of deposits- only creeps in at number 8.

The Irish rental sector- is quite unlike the rental sector internationally- however, there are international elements creeping in (such as entire apartment blocks being purpose built for the rental market). I personally think there is room for both models- but I also think that it has to be recognised that there are two diametrically opposed models in action in an Irish context- and it is deeply unfair to treat each as akin to one another- when they're not.

P_1

Fol20 wrote: »

Whats in the middle though. All i see is more anti ll legislation and nothing for ll..

Wait till it gets to committee stage. Then FF/FG will have to engage with it and (hopefully) some common sense policies that work for both ll and tenant will emerge from it

Pkiernan

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I’ve skipped the all the posts so my question may have been answered.

My tenants Part 4 comes to an end in April and I won’t be extending it. Im getting out of letting completely.

If these crazy ideas do get enacted, would I be obliged to follow them or would I be ok to continue with my plan?

Make sure you give the required notice anyway, otherwise you may be stuck.

seamus

The_Conductor wrote: »

In that context- over 40% of all units on the market- could potentially be called upon by the landlord for his/her own use- never mind a close family member. In that context- it does seem grossly unfair that they'd have to pay a bond of 6 months rent- to get their own property back- to live in it themselves.

On the flipside of that, does that not sound like an extraordinarily unstable position for any rental market to be in, where in theory 40% of tenants could be served with a valid eviction notice tomorrow? That is, 40% of tenants renting in Ireland are currently at risk of eviction. That's insane.

Should we not be enacting measures which aim to reduce the number of tenants at risk of eviction to single-digit percentages?

Fol20

seamus wrote: »

On the flipside of that, does that not sound like an extraordinarily unstable position for any rental market to be in, where in theory 40% of tenants could be served with a valid eviction notice tomorrow? That is, 40% of tenants renting in Ireland are currently at risk of eviction. That's insane.

Should we not be enacting measures which aim to reduce the number of tenants at risk of eviction to single-digit percentages?

this is what fixed term leases should be used for. If however the government enforce a fixed term lease the way it should be without making giving the landlord something, then its just the same ole thing they have been doing for years that isnt working and making more ll leave the market. At the momwnt fixed leased only give tenants more protections and doesnt do anything for the ll. The best way to implement this is that during a fixed term tenancy.
Pros for tenant
Tenant cannot be evicted for renovations,selling of house, ll wants house for family

Pros for ll:
Actually make it enforceable that money is garnered from wages(not just 20e but a large sizeable amount) if tenancy is ended early and it doesnt take years for this to be processed
Or they could implement something where if tenant leave early and rent is not paid, a register is created with a mark against the tenants name. Both have an impact on tenant and at least it would be more fair.

This way tenants get security of tenure and cannot be evicted during a tenancy, some ll like myself would like to sign 3-5years contracts so its less change overs etc while at the same time knowing that tenants also have something to loose if they forfeit. This way both parties are coming away feeling like they had to comprimise which is the best way a deal should be made.

The Student

P_1 wrote: »

Wait till it gets to committee stage. Then FF/FG will have to engage with it and (hopefully) some common sense policies that work for both ll and tenant will emerge from it

Hopefully

Ginger83

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I’ve skipped the all the posts so my question may have been answered.

My tenants Part 4 comes to an end in April and I won’t be extending it. Im getting out of letting completely.

If these crazy ideas do get enacted, would I be obliged to follow them or would I be ok to continue with my plan?

I think this has been answered but you'll have nothing to worry about before April.

Just make sure you cover yourself regarding correct notice requirements, etc.

mrslancaster

mikep wrote: »

...I think a totally holistic approach has to be taken to this to include protection to both tenants and landlords while bringing our system into a more normal mode where long tenancies are the norm and people can rent for their lifetime...

People renting for their lifetime is not a totally unheard of situation in Ireland. Older family members have told me it was the normal mode for many in the past.

There are numerous tenants all over the country who are / were in that exact situation, with long-term protected tenancies from local councils. They can rent for their lifetime at sensible rates but many made the decision to buy the property from the council. It would make one wonder why they did that...

Maybe it's something to do with the Irish psyche - many of us want to own our own home and not pay rent for the rest of our lives. In fairness, it seems that's not the case in other parts of Europe where everyone seems to rent for life. I'm not sure it's what people want here but I could be wrong.

If the government want long protected tenancies from private property owners, maybe they should encourage those property owners to get involved by having fair and sensible regulations for both sides. Instead it looks like the opposite has been happening and this bill would skew the balance in favour of tenants even more.

If private landlords are nervous about the risks they will probably issue termination notices rather than be stuck in a situation they never expected. No doubt there are problems on both sides that need to be sorted but as another post said, this bill could have terrible effects for tenants.

Garibaldi?

If this bill passes the next stage there will be a mass exodus of landlords using any of the legitimate reasons to get out of the business. Fair and decent people, dealing with tenants who are also honest and reliable. A great shame!!

The_Conductor

seamus wrote: »

On the flipside of that, does that not sound like an extraordinarily unstable position for any rental market to be in, where in theory 40% of tenants could be served with a valid eviction notice tomorrow? That is, 40% of tenants renting in Ireland are currently at risk of eviction. That's insane.

Should we not be enacting measures which aim to reduce the number of tenants at risk of eviction to single-digit percentages?

Well- the commensurate flipside of that coin- is that the owners keep the properties vacant for when they actually want to move back in? In the current climate- surely its preferable to have them in the market place- insecure though they might be- than vacant?

Ultimately- we *need* more supply. The current proposals may be the impetus a lot of owners of a single unit need to actually keep them vacant- its entirely foreseeable that the law of unintended consequences has to be associated with the current proposals. Any of the sane landlords- will simply sell- lock in any possible capital gains- and count their blessings that they're shot of the sector.

Garibaldi?

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If this bill passes the next stage there will be a mass exodus of landlords using any of the legitimate reasons to get out of the business. Fair and decent people, dealing with tenants who are also honest and reliable. A great shame!!

Ah, shur, da gubberment can buy dem all up and give dem to da needy, homeless craturs and der angles.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, shur, da gubberment can buy dem all up and give dem to da needy, homeless craturs and der angles.

It still doesn't add to the overall supply- thats the point- we still have the deficit that we currently have. Also- why should the government have the right to use taxpayers money to buy these units- over and above you, or I or any other citizen- who is trying to do their best for their family of their own means.

Ultimately- we need to build- we do not need the private sector to supply property other than privately- the manner in which the government have abdicated its responsibility to house its citizens- and then tries to tarnish those they've forced their obligation on- is appalling.

We need a vast building programme of public units- that will remain public units in perpetuity- but anyone should be able to rent them- not just HAP and similar type tenants.............

Garibaldi?

Anyone who is not actually depending on the rent will get out-people who happen to have a second house because they inherited it, or bought it a long time ago when houses were reasonably priced. A lot of these people are easy landlords to deal with because there is no mortgage around their necks. They can afford to be a bit generous. They are usually not interested in stressful business arrangements. They want no undue complications. They are generally in an older age bracket. They will sell or allow a relative to take over the property. A huge loss in these apparently cut-throat times!!

um7y1h83ge06nx

For a lot of people it could be a case of buy, have the state provide a house or go homeless. The private rental market supply could drastically shrink.

Fol20

Madisyn Delightful Tentacle wrote: »

For a lot of people it could be a case of buy, have the state provide a house or go homeless. The private rental market supply could drastically shrink.

A lot of people are not and may never be in a position to buy. Nor will they be entitled to social housing

um7y1h83ge06nx

Fol20 wrote: »

A lot of people are not and may never be in a position to buy. Nor will they be entitled to social housing

And that's the problem. The private rental market is very much needed. Some people might be in a position to buy as well but don't want to e.g. foreign IT contractors.

Garibaldi?

I wonder are the powers that be about to bite the hand that is feeding this very inefficient system!

overkill602

If this law is enacted a LL will have 3 options

1 If you borrowed sell up market will fall back especially with lack of investment

2 for those with no mortgages leave vacant if they can afford sit it out after the law does its thing

3 Lets to companies and young career pros only

In the end less supply higher rents lower valauations

Garibaldi?

David McWilliams will get another book out of this if enacted!

utmbuilder

Got mortgage funds today , keys on Tuesday for a new build

75k base I earn, other half earns too, 2 girls

32 k deposit with fees and stamp duty


Over past 7 years was in 3 homes, my daughters between 3 different schools

First house for invaded with rats, second home wanted 50% increase in rent then evicted when we stated it was right

3rd home wanted to sell after 2 years

This is how disgusting it was dealing with small fry landlords thinking they are investment tycoons for a family with means

LLs deserve every thing they get, they brought this on themselves let's see them make money of any other investment other than 1% on savings less dirt

endacl

'Be floppier, poor feet' is an anagram of 'people before profit'.

Interestingly, it also makes more sense than the vast majority of their policy positions.