Anti Eviction Bill

alias no.9

Garibaldi? wrote: »

If this bill is not is not killed off are at least severely curtailed at the next stage it is going to cause chaos. Who would be crazy enough to continue paying income tax, PRSI, USC, local property tax, property insurance, maintenance costs and Prtb registration on a property over which they have no longer any control? Have the PBF got a plan B for when property owners pull out in their droves? Many tenants are already highly apprehensive about this. Many landlords who were understandably reluctant to discommode valued tenants are being swayed towards selling up. There will not even be the questionable safety net of the old black market renting/letting arrangement, the nudge nudge wink wink tax avoidance strategy of past generations. Because the one area of this sector that is highly organized by the state is the one that collects the cash! This is the word on the street!

These people are revolutionary socialists, they will revel in the chaos created in the belief it will trigger their socialist revolution, they don't care what kind of hardship it causes in the interim, they see it as being necessary to precipitate revolution.

Electric Sheep

Excellent. Take the amateur jackasses out of the market.

Old diesel

Eric Cartman wrote: »

giving licencees rights is a terrible idea, the amount of people who can only convince the wife its a good idea to take in a student under the basis of 'sure if theyre a bother then out on their ear they go'

also this business about paying tenants 6 months rent. Do they want there to be any rental houses at all.

If a tenant who is part way through a part 4 tenancy and has always fully complied with the lease is made homeless as a result of a landlord looking to sell up or move themselves/family member then I think some compensation might actually be in order.

Measuring what that should be is tricky though

GarIT

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Excellent. Take the amateur jackasses out of the market.

Yes, removing supply when there is a shortage is a great solution.

mrslancaster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

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

Anyone know how long it takes to get to committee stage and how long after that could it become law?

beauf

GarIT wrote: »

Yes, removing supply when there is a shortage is a great solution.

They are all sawing away on the branch they are standing on. Time to sit back and let them do it I think. But sell out of the market first.

P_1

mrslancaster wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Anyone know how long it takes to get to committee stage and how long after that could it become law?

Many factors to determine that tbh.

Let's take legislating for the repeal of the 8th as an example. That took about 4 months to get from a dail motion into committee stage and that had FF/FG backing. This bill doesn't so I'd wager it will take a bit longer

Eric Cartman

Old diesel wrote: »

If a tenant who is part way through a part 4 tenancy and has always fully complied with the lease is made homeless as a result of a landlord looking to sell up or move themselves/family member then I think some compensation might actually be in order.

Measuring what that should be is tricky though

giving them 90 days to vacate the property is the only thing they really should be granted and it even seems longer than that these days.

Pkiernan

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Excellent. Take the amateur jackasses out of the market.

Yes, and put all property in the hand of tax avoiding multi nationals whose only goal is maximum rent.

That'll be great!

Garibaldi?

It's the absolute poorly planned, hysterical, reactionary aspect of the whole approach that is frightening! The language is inflammatory. It's reminiscent of seventeen year old leftist student rhetoric, but at least we had the excuse of youth and foolishness back then. Images of that lady knitting a la Madame Defarge as tumbrils packed with evil landlords roll over the cobbles of Stoneybatter!

Eric Cartman

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Excellent. Take the amateur jackasses out of the market.

Ahh yeah, REIT's are lining up to take on renting out a 2 bed cottage in kinnegad.

I would say if you took dublin, cork, galway and limerick out of it you'd have less than 5% of the rental properties left being currently run by big corporate landlords or having any interest in being run by big corporate landlords.

Also look at grafton street, shopping centres, dame street. Corporate letters trying to maximise rents have kept plenty of retail units empty.

GarIT

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Also look at grafton street, shopping centres, dame street. Corporate letters trying to maximise rents have kept plenty of retail units empty.

Hopefully that's fixed soon with a tax on empty units.

GarIT

It's ironic that in some ways people renting could be seriously helped by laws providing quick evictions.

Any rent I've paid has been paid in advance, I've never heard of anyone paying in arrears but it might happen. If landlords knew that once the time that has been paid for is up then they could get the tenant out that day there would be a lot more landlords and a lot less emphasis on looking for bank statements and letters from jobs.

We also need a procedure for recovering lost rent. If someone overholds without paying rent the courts should be able to take the money owed out of social welfare payments or added onto taxes until the landlord is paid back.

I'd even go as far as a rent guarantee scheme to get landlords back into the market. If someone is overholding the state should pay the rent to the landlord until the state can get the overholder out of the house and then the state should try to recover the money themselves. The state should also take responsibility for repairing any damage done to landlord's property and pursuing criminal charges against the tenant themselves.

Eric Cartman

GarIT wrote: »

It's ironic that in some ways people renting could be seriously helped by laws providing quick evictions.

Any rent I've paid has been paid in advance, I've never heard of anyone paying in arrears but it might happen. If landlords knew that once the time that has been paid for is up then they could get the tenant out that day there would be a lot more landlords and a lot less emphasis on looking for bank statements and letters from jobs.

We also need a procedure for recovering lost rent. If someone overholds without paying rent the courts should be able to take the money owed out of social welfare payments or added onto taxes until the landlord is paid back.

I'd even go as far as a rent guarantee scheme to get landlords back into the market. If someone is overholding the state should pay the rent to the landlord until the state can get the overholder out of the house and then the state should try to recover the money themselves.

not sure about the guarantee scheme but the rest is spot on. A robust procedure that allowed a 90 day eviction process after rent was late would bring a lot more confidence from banks to lend, landlords to rent and supply by forcing out overholding tenants.

GarIT

Eric Cartman wrote: »

not sure about the guarantee scheme but the rest is spot on. A robust procedure that allowed a 90 day eviction process after rent was late would bring a lot more confidence from banks to lend, landlords to rent and supply by forcing out overholding tenants.

I'm not sure about it myself. It's just an idea. To break it down into two smaller ideas we need some way of ensuring landlords get paid and we need to start bringing criminal charges of theft against overholders and whatever the relevant charge for damaging property would be.

Fol20

GarIT wrote: »

It's ironic that in some ways people renting could be seriously helped by laws providing quick evictions.

Any rent I've paid has been paid in advance, I've never heard of anyone paying in arrears but it might happen. If landlords knew that once the time that has been paid for is up then they could get the tenant out that day there would be a lot more landlords and a lot less emphasis on looking for bank statements and letters from jobs.

We also need a procedure for recovering lost rent. If someone overholds without paying rent the courts should be able to take the money owed out of social welfare payments or added onto taxes until the landlord is paid back.

I'd even go as far as a rent guarantee scheme to get landlords back into the market. If someone is overholding the state should pay the rent to the landlord until the state can get the overholder out of the house and then the state should try to recover the money themselves. The state should also take responsibility for repairing any damage done to landlord's property and pursuing criminal charges against the tenant themselves.

I still think they would do reference checks. I think in the states they even do a credit check. I would agree though that it might entice some to remain. The ironic thing is that for the majority of tenants are severely punished due to extra risk in property which incurs a higher fee/less supply due to ll getting out due to how difficult it is to evict. The same could be said with ppr mortgages where they are all at least 1-2pc higher than in eu for the same reason. The only people that loose out if we change the laws for eviction are people that dont pay and game the system. So like always the hardworking middle get screwed.it would look so bad on the news if politicians made this move for tenants and mortgage payers however if they saw the benefits of 1-2pc less in payments. Im sure the vast majority would be delighted with it

the_syco

Fol20 wrote: »

I still think they would do reference checks. I think in the states they even do a credit check

A lot of properties in Toronto do this as well.

Is asking a HAP person for a credit check against the law?

jimmycrackcorm

Electric Sheep wrote:

Excellent. Take the amateur jackasses out of the market.

A house near me has been left empty because of the difficulty in retaining possession when it will be needed again

Garibaldi?

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2018/5/ The latest news re residential tenancies-3 days ago

mrslancaster

mrslancaster wrote: »

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.

I always wonder where this myth came from. Most of the couture people claim “everyone” rents for life have higher percentage of home ownership than Ireland it’s one of the greatest mis-truths going that people in Europe don’t buy houses.

GGTrek

This crazy bill had a debate this past Wednesday at the Oireachtas Committee on Housing. This uncostitutional bill if approved would be a massive supply killer (before being struck out from the courts, since I very much doubt this time REITs would stay still with this nonsense) and would definitely destroy the Irish Private Residential market.
The only person explaining the massive unintended consequences of such bill was Tom O´Brien of IPOA at 2:37:00, all the other people were just busy scoring stupid political/ideological points:
https://media.heanet.ie/page/21dad3821a494cbe9bac06bc7b467ee5

overkill602

this is an interesting read imo, it is a window to what our socialist sf idiot clowns are ignoring...
https://arpola.org/tenants-sue-big-landlords-as-mom-and-pop-landlords-are-crowded-out/


reap what you sow

The_Conductor

The IPOA actually put a good representative on Newstalk from 12-1pm on Thursday to discuss both the proposed legislation and the current regulatory regime in general. The level of ignorance (in general) displayed in some of the texts to the programme were mind boggling. I don't have a lot of time for the IPOA, in general, but if they manage to put reasonable and articulate people forward for interview purposes, akin to the lady on Thursday- and refute and rebut the ignorance about the sector- perhaps people's impressions might change.

The bigger issue, as I see it- has been the deafening silence on the part of landlords. This complete and utter silence- is understood by many to mean a tacit understanding that all is well in the sector. Well, its not. Its damn hard to find hard statistics to support any coherent narrative- esp. given the spin the various vested interests insist on putting out to the media. We have consistent CSO and RTB statistics showing a hastening exodus of small scale landlords (who make up over 70% of the sector) to the door. The new units coming on stream in the sector- are predominantly large scale rental buildings and estates owned by the likes of the IRES REIT (who coincidentally reported bumper net profits of EUR120m for 2018 yesterday).

Do people genuinely want to see large scale landlords take over the sector- do they even know what this means?

beauf

The media and govt have vilified Landlords to the point that no landlord is going to make themselves a target for judgement by media. There's been 20yrs of one sided changed to the market. There is zero expectation that this will change.

It looks like the best option for is to sell out and invest in these Reits. That's what the govt and the market wants. Let it be someone else's problem. Just need to do soon as possible before something else charges that prevents LLs from getting out.

4ensic15

The_Conductor wrote: »

The IPOA actually put a good representative on Newstalk from 12-1pm on Thursday to discuss both the proposed legislation and the current regulatory regime in general. The level of ignorance (in general) displayed in some of the texts to the programme were mind boggling. I don't have a lot of time for the IPOA, in general, but if they manage to put reasonable and articulate people forward for interview purposes, akin to the lady on Thursday- and refute and rebut the ignorance about the sector- perhaps people's impressions might change.

The bigger issue, as I see it- has been the deafening silence on the part of landlords. This complete and utter silence- is understood by many to mean a tacit understanding that all is well in the sector. Well, its not. Its damn hard to find hard statistics to support any coherent narrative- esp. given the spin the various vested interests insist on putting out to the media. We have consistent CSO and RTB statistics showing a hastening exodus of small scale landlords (who make up over 70% of the sector) to the door. The new units coming on stream in the sector- are predominantly large scale rental buildings and estates owned by the likes of the IRES REIT (who coincidentally reported bumper net profits of EUR120m for 2018 yesterday).

Do people genuinely want to see large scale landlords take over the sector- do they even know what this means?

The IPOA held a meeting after the rent cap started. Most attendees did not want to risk legal costs and decided to put the head down, leave the rents as they were and wait out the rent cap. Some decided to sell out.
Some landlords are unhappy but many are finding that things have never been better. One landlord I know of has a number of mortgage free properties. His rents have never been higher and his tenants have never been better. The money is rolling in. Even after the tax man takes his cut, it is quite a lot.

Old diesel

What does a workable model look like for BOTH sides in a 21st century rental model.

What should a property cost a landlord to buy in order to rent out*.

What financing arrangements should he or she be able to access*.

What's a fair rate of return/profit for the landlord*.

Should we be looking at what works elsewhere*.

On new homes the cost of land and other costs that have nothing to do with direct construction cost need addressing*.

How do you develop a regulatory system that decent tenants can trust - BUT which is effective in dealing promptly with tenants who arent complying with their Lease.

What standard of property should a landlord be supplying as a general rule**.

*these factors directly impact on what rent a landlord needs - ie the rent needed to make a return on a 200 k purchase price unit is less then on one bought for 400 k.

** if we insist on lower standards for lower cost - then there needs to be transparency on costings. If a new unit comes in at 500 euros less a month in cost for the owner as an example due to a lower standard should the tenant see the benefit of SOME of that saving.

beauf

4ensic15 wrote: »

The IPOA held a meeting after the rent cap started. Most attendees did not want to risk legal costs and decided to put the head down, leave the rents as they were and wait out the rent cap. Some decided to sell out.
Some landlords are unhappy but many are finding that things have never been better. One landlord I know of has a number of mortgage free properties. His rents have never been higher and his tenants have never been better. The money is rolling in. Even after the tax man takes his cut, it is quite a lot.

So everyone's happy. Great.

So there's no need for all these threads on boards then.

Mad_maxx

beauf wrote: »

The media and govt have vilified Landlords to the point that no landlord is going to make themselves a target for judgement by media. There's been 20yrs of one sided changed to the market. There is zero expectation that this will change.

It looks like the best option for is to sell out and invest in these Reits. That's what the govt and the market wants. Let it be someone else's problem. Just need to do soon as possible before something else charges that prevents LLs from getting out.

While I agree about everything you have said, I personally would not invest in REIT, s, the sector is young here and not only are yields little better than on a broad based fund, the likes of IRES ( regardless of earnings results) has performed very poorly this past four years in term of share price, it has not remotely tracked the property market on the ground, I have been investing in equities and I also own a small amount of residential and commercial property, there is a suspicion instinctively on my part that there is too much potential for mismanagement with reits in terms of where the spoils go, directors tend to be very generous to themselves

Mad_maxx

4ensic15 wrote: »

The IPOA held a meeting after the rent cap started. Most attendees did not want to risk legal costs and decided to put the head down, leave the rents as they were and wait out the rent cap. Some decided to sell out.
Some landlords are unhappy but many are finding that things have never been better. One landlord I know of has a number of mortgage free properties. His rents have never been higher and his tenants have never been better. The money is rolling in. Even after the tax man takes his cut, it is quite a lot.

I only own one residential property now and I entered into a ten year lease with Limerick city Council last summer, way I see it, the state has so much power over you now, you might as well have the state as your tenant

Might buy a property at auction next week and if I get it chances are I'll again let to the council, granted I deal in cheap properties where less capital is staked

Geuze

Niko Mango Hornet wrote: »

I always wonder where this myth came from. Most of the couture people claim “everyone” rents for life have higher percentage of home ownership than Ireland it’s one of the greatest mis-truths going that people in Europe don’t buy houses.

Yes, we used to have a high OO rate.

But our rate has fallen, and we are not longer way ahead of other countries rates.